The Apostle Paul not Mentioned in the Gospels?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Coder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Coder said:
…

Also, my post #10 here is part of my point.
Click to expand...
As I wrote earlier, that’s a significant point about the person of St. Paul. This is in keeping with the biblical theme of God choosing the unlikely (Isaac instead of Ishmael, David the shepherd boy, Moses who was raised as an Egyptian, etc. etc.). If Paul has been present from the start, he would have been an entirely different person. Or, to put that another way, maybe God would not have chosen him to do what he did. Paul is the unlikely choice. That’s a main point of his ministry.
 
Della said:
They wrote them for the people of their day–to tell them about the life, teachings, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus the Christ.
Click to expand...
I can understand that. Thank you. Still, a key part of the record of what Jesus did and what the Church bases its authority on is the founding of the “Apostolic” Church including the commissioning of the Apostles (in the Gospels).
 
FrDavid96 said:
As I wrote earlier, that’s a significant point about the person of St. Paul. This is in keeping with the biblical theme of God choosing the unlikely (Isaac instead of Ishmael, David the shepherd boy, Moses who was raised as an Egyptian, etc. etc.). If Paul has been present from the start, he would have been an entirely different person. Or, to put that another way, maybe God would not have chosen him to do what he did. Paul is the unlikely choice. That’s a main point of his ministry.
Click to expand...
Reasonable, thank you.
 
Coder said:
I can understand that. Thank you. Still, a key part of the record of what Jesus did and what the Church bases its authority on is the founding of the “Apostolic” Church including the commissioning of the Apostles (in the Gospels).
Click to expand...
Yes, but that fact doesn’t lessen the value of the Gospels or the others NT authors. Indeed, having so much from St. Paul gives us a clearer picture of the Church in the 1st century, not just what Paul did directly or his influence, but that of the other Apostles and evangelists, as well. He’s very important, but again, he isn’t the end-all or be-all of the Christian faith, either. He an important part, most assuredly, and we have a lot to thank him for. His contribution is huge, no doubt one of the reasons Jesus called him “out of time” apart from the other Apostles who had their own missions. We need to recognize the great gifts and character of St. Paul and thank God for what he gave us. Realizing, of course, that God knew what St. Paul’s influence would be and how he would add to our knowledge of the times, the Gospel, and the defense of the faith. A rare book you may find helpful, if you can get a copy, is “St. Paul’s Gospel” by Ronald Knox. I learned so much about St. Paul’s character and mission from reading it. 🙂
 
Where in the gospels would you expect to find mention of Saul/Paul? Where would it fit in? What would be mentioned? Just future references to “and there would be another one counted among the apostles who was at first their fierce opponent”? “This was before Saul was converted”?

If the gospels are telling, for the most part, a narrative of Christ’s time on earth from his conception to his ascension, then there’s not really a place for Saul/Paul. The references that the gospels do make to future events are still very short-term future, with the exception perhaps of the end of John’s gospel where he writes that Jesus indicated to Peter what manner of death he (Peter) would have.
 
japhy said:
Where in the gospels would you expect to find mention of Saul/Paul? Where would it fit in? What would be mentioned?
Click to expand...
Yes I understand now based on the period of Jesus’ activity that people are saying that the Gospels are intended to record.

Twelve seemed to be important in the Gospels (was Paul 13?).
 
FrDavid96 said:
Fair enough, he might have been known by some of the Gospel writers. In fact, since Paul was present at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) we can almost take that as a given.
Click to expand...
Very interesting. Thank you.
FrDavid96 said:
However, keep in mind the timeline. The events of the Gospels happened before St Paul entered into the scene. With regard to the time when the Gospel events were happening, nothing Paul did at the time had any relevance or relation to those events. There’s nothing to write about.
Click to expand...
Yes, folks have beaten that into me by now. 😃

Thank you FrDavid.
 
Coder said:
Is there a teaching on whether the Gospel authors knew of St. Paul at the time the Gospels were written?
Click to expand...
As others have said the third Gospel writer (who i accept was St. Luke) also wrote the Acts of the Apostles text.

In that text the author claims to have met St. Paul and travelled around with him on some of his missionary journeys. So from internal evidence it suggests that the third gospel writer knew St. Paul.

If you accept that St. Luke wrote the two texts quickly one after the other (or even together) then it would appear at least the third gospel writer knew St. Paul before he wrote his gospel.

Also, if you accept that the second gospel writer (which i accept was St. Mark) used St. Luke’s gospel as one of his sources (which i do) then it follows that St. Mark at the very least knew of St. Paul also before he wrote his gospel.
 
Coder said:
Thank You Della,

It seems that the Scriptures are a central reference for evangelization.

I think almost all Church commentary on its teachings references Scripture. (Simply read a Vatican document). (I’m not a “Bible-only” Christian BTW).

Can’t debate that. 🙂

Fair enough. It’s just that as I alluded to before (and of course, as you mentioned God can do whatever He decides) - one might think that since he was such an influential Apostle (e.g. writing majority of “apostolic” Scriptures) that he might be mentioned in the Gospels since Jesus appeared to Paul and the commissioning of Apostles was an important part of the Gospels.

Is there a teaching on whether the Gospel authors knew of St. Paul at the time the Gospels were written?
Click to expand...
Why would he be mentioned in writings about a time period before he became an Apostle? He wasn’t relevant to the story about the Gospels were telling, so he wasn’t mentioned. He was mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, however, which was wrote by an Luke. The fact that an Apostle confirmed St. Paul existed and became an Apostle is enough proof. To deny what the Acts of the Apostles says about St. Paul would mean you’d have to throw out everything every Gospel says, at which point the lack of a reference to St. Paul would hardly matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top