Sorry, you are asking me personal questions that I do not see any benefit in answering. Now Paul tells us that everything that can be known of God can be known from creation. Are you claiming that Paul is wrong? And if Paul is not wrong, why do you object to my looking everywhere that knowledge of God is available?
Another question is whether or not the Book of Acts is truthful or if it was intentionally written to conceal things from the Romans, perhaps things that could have caused great harm to the church in its early days, perhaps not deemed safe to reveal until the 5th or 6th centuries and then determining that their revelation was a mistake and hiding them again for a couple more centuries, then getting them caught up in church politics resulting in a third session of hiding them.
But such actions would leave trails of evidence if one looked. Perhaps coins, statues, references in obscure works, etc. that would be difficult to find and contradict the official version of history.
Nah, the church is so perfect, totally unified, not a bunch of different denominations, never any scandals or interest in politics, would not even think about associating with a political movement either liberal or conservative, no indication anywhere in the NT of issues anywhere, so they wouldn't have anything to hide something would they, right?
Of course, if the church of today does not fit this perfection, what reason do we have to believe the church of former years did? And if there is reason to suspect that the ancient church might have been less than perfect, what is the problem in looking for evidence
