Before getting too enmeshed in speculations on the animosity between at least two of the Gospel writers (The New Testament is supposed to be a testament of love, right?) and the looming war of the Jews, I should probably introduce another character from the Biblical record. Here I refer to Paul, who was converted on the Damascus road, by a vision of Christ in great light, and afterwards became the apostle to the Gentiles, according to the book of Acts and his own epistles (letters) to the churches.
The modern church has a tendency to feel uncomfortable about calling Paul the first Christian. Wasn't he persecuting Christians before he became a Christian? This is probably the great failing of our time.
Paul was he who discovered the mystery. What had been hidden from time became known in history. The power of God became an inner reality, associated with a belief in Jesus Christ as the Savior and redeemer of humanity, a force that could not be put down by conqueror or the unconvinced. The Holy Spirit broke through into the affairs of man in a big way!
When we talk about Paul as the first Christian we are merely saying that he was the first to completely envision the future when Jesus would become the Living Lord of Christianity and not merely a wise prophet or revolutionist in some watered down form. This fact so boldly proclaims itself that we should be struck dumb in denying it. And yet, these so-called Gospel writers seemed to be dumb in regard to it. Even Luke, who is said to have written Acts, is equally silent in regard to Paul in his Gospel. Why? Did these persons or communities even know that Paul existed, and that the Lord was working mighty miracles through him? Apparently not.
If Paul was the first, and all others came later, then where is he in the Gospels? Without some slight mention by others, Paul seems to have been intentionally overlooked by the Gospel writers. Why? Does this represent some basic misunderstandings of whom Christ actually was, that took an outsider to see through SPECIAL REVELATION not given to the insiders. The gaping ravine between the Gospels and the Acts is of serious concern. We are led to believe that the Gospel writers were content to leave the future to whomever it be assigned.
Furthermore, the book of Acts and the letters of Paul (epistles) do not match up in certain important areas of confirming evidence. Did Paul actually go to Jerusalem for a meeting with the chosen disciples who had become the apostles to bring relief to the poor and receive from them there some kind of recognition of his role to the Gentiles? Or did he merely wish to do so, and thought better of it in the end. His letters give no acknowledgement to confirm that he had actually traveled to the Holy City. Acts likewise ends with a solemn note, but does not tell the fate of Paul in his Roman imprisonment.
Once again, someone is playing with the facts. How well do we really know this part of church history? Who's telling the truth, and where is the lie? Or do we, in some mysterious way, have all the facts before us, that tell the story, even though the details do not totally mesh together in and of themselves?
Faith seems to require faith, and woe to him who seeks absolute knowledge.
