I focused my Study from the viewpoint of Paul. I touch slightly on Acts but I deliberately did not feature the aspects you mention. Mostly, I wrote that Acts is suspect, and is treated with caution by scholars with some avoiding it altogether.
I have left myself room to work on a Study of Acts of the Apostles by Luke because it plays a central role in the Governing Body's claims and demands (such as on blood).
So I think the issue is far larger than focusing on a particular turn of phrase. Let me briefly explain: Luke wrote a created history with the objective of papering over the cracks between the gentile work of Paul and his opposite number, the Jewish sector under the control of Jesus' brother, James.
Luke's objectives remove his objectivity. For example, Paul - who was there, but of course biased - wrote that he had two private meetings with Cephas and James. Luke expanded this to a mighty convention. Another example: Paul indicates he was in Damascus persecuting (which could have been arguing or physical Jewish punishment) when he "saw the light"; he went to Arabia, and returned to Damascus. He says he saw no one for 3 years and only then did he got to Jerusalem. He stayed with Cephas for 15 days, had private meetings and he also saw James. Luke, on the other hand, contradicts Paul.
Only after looking at the big picture can we then understand any statements made by Luke. He was not a companion of Paul's; Acts was written decades after Paul's death. At the start of his Gospel, Luke says that his account was gained through gathering information. Who knows what stories people told him.