[Kolokotronis]

"At the same time I have a firm belief that Paul's faith was stronger than mine is now, so I want to be like Paul." FK, do you suppose that most Protestants share that kinship with +Paul? It appears so to me. I confess that since I began paying much attention to the NT, likely in prep school, I have never really "liked" +Paul's epistles, at least as read directly and not through the "lens" of the patristic writings. I have often wondered why that is. I wish I could say that having read Kosta's musings on +Paul, I now know why, but truth be told, I have never read +Paul critically enough to say "Aha! That's what has been bothering me!" At this point, well into this long discussion among all of you about +Paul, I'm still in the same place; I just don't "like" the man. I'd rather read +Ignatius of Antioch and +Clement of Rome any day. And as for Pauline theology, well God has been very gracious to the likes of me and given us +John Chrysostomos' commentaries on +Paul's letters. The other authors of the NT are a different story. +John is my head and shoulders favorite from the opening words of his gospel..."Εν αρχη ην ο Λογος και ο Λογος ην προς τον Θεον και Οεος ην ο Λογος. Ουτος ην εν αρχη προς τον Θεον. Παντα δι αυτου εγενετο και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδε εν ο εγομεν." Now is that magnificent or what?! I don't know what +Paul was up to with his letters, unless its just what Kosta has opined and +John Chrysostomos tells me he meant. Personally, I am surprised that anyone listened to him, but then God surprises me all the time. At base, for someone like me, FK, The Church provides me with a context within which to accept and absorb what +Paul has to say, otherwise, I'd likely have stopped reading him decades ago.

[Mad Dawg]

Maybe because I have a strong grouchy side I sometimes feel I really get Paul emotionally. A million years ago I gave a lecture in which I read the first few verses of Galatians - RSV translation. I got to verse 6: (I am uhMAZED that you are so quickly ...) and everybody laughed. I realized I wasn't exactly reading it in holy tones of voice.

But anyway, I think the Romans is simply brilliant, and the discussion of sarx and pneuma, so gnostic seeming but so VERY biblical in fact -- and the idea that in Christ and in Baptism into Christ our death, which started in Eden is accomplished and a new life with a new pneuma is begun is fundamental for "getting" who try is NOT gnosticism with a Jewish myth behind it, but is a VERY new thing.

But for the rest, I just imagine Paul angrily saying, "Um, Listen, Now hear this. Y'all shut Up and LISTEN woudja? DO I have your ATTENTION? Okay then. God loves you. DO you HEAR me? GOD! LOVES! YOU. That is all. Thank you."

[Forest Keeper]

FK, do you suppose that most Protestants share that kinship with +Paul? It appears so to me.

Yes, I think that is very true. Of course, our "official" line is that all scripture is equally God-inspired and correct, etc., but I think many of us (including me) believe that Paul gave us among the most profound teachings (outside of Christ's mouth).

At this point, well into this long discussion among all of you about +Paul, I'm still in the same place; I just don't "like" the man. I'd rather read +Ignatius of Antioch and +Clement of Rome any day.

I think I understand. At times in my apologetics here, St. James has turned up to be a royal pain in the butt too! :) I just try to go back to the basics and realize that all scripture is God-breathed, and if I'm not comfortable with the wording of some of it, TOO BAD! :) All I can do is pray to God for revelation. I know He will teach me what He wants me to know, when He wants me to know it.

The other [than Paul] authors of the NT are a different story. +John is my head and shoulders favorite from the opening words of his gospel...

Me too! :)

I don't know what +Paul was up to with his letters, unless its just what Kosta has opined and +John Chrysostomos tells me he meant. Personally, I am surprised that anyone listened to him, but then God surprises me all the time. At base, for someone like me, FK, The Church provides me with a context within which to accept and absorb what +Paul has to say, otherwise, I'd likely have stopped reading him decades ago.

This is a surprise to me. When you say "I don't know what +Paul was up to with his letters", I think "but Paul wrote most of the NT and God's revelation through him is one of the central bases of the Christian faith". :) I think along with Kosta's teachings, that I see a new perspective that I was unaware of before.

At base, for someone like me, FK, The Church provides me with a context within which to accept and absorb what +Paul has to say, otherwise, I'd likely have stopped reading him decades ago.

And this is the cause for my surprise. I'm talking about the instinct. The vibe I'm getting is that you will accept what Paul says, through the lens, because the Church says that is a good thing to do. It does not appear that you would accept Paul because you read his teachings independently, and then say "yes, that is Christ". If I am even close, that is completely alien to me. :)