In "Luke's" own words.
As in, we don't know that a guy named "Luke" wrote it.
Of course you subscribe to and believe in whatever the church you follow believes. That's part of the problem.
Um, it's called asking you a question based on something you've just said, to better understand where you're coming from. Notice the question marks?
It would be cool if you'd have answered it.
You mean, "an account of someone's life written by someone else" ... ? That's what a biography is.
You and I have just finished demonstrating that Luke is not an eyewitness account. "Luke's" own words demonstrate that.
You don't have to be a skeptic to understand how Luke is not an eyewitness account. We can just use the definition of "eyewitness account" as we've been doing.
Who says the Bible isn't fictional? Or doesn't have fictional parts?
Many book(s), whether fiction or non-fiction mention actual people, places, and events that existed and occurred at the time they were written, or refer to actual people, places or events from history. But the fact that they may mention a real person or place, doesn't mean everything else in the book is true.
How about the Iliad? Do you consider that fictional?
How about the Qu'ran? People say that's non-fiction. So, is it?