There are no misinterpretations of scripture because I didn't do any interpreting. Chapter and verses are provided so anyone can compare the comments with the verse. All the verses are straight forward.
ok a better way to put that is maybe that you are stating a commonly held position as if it were indisputable fact, and i certainly do not know, but just want to suggest that whether or not Paul actually even met Christ physically is disputed.
Yes, please, I have no idea what you are taking about.
i am only wanting to portray a view of "St Paul" that suggests that maybe he was not the hail fellow well met by the authorities of the day, nor was he likely considered even "respected" by...pretty much anyone i guess, lol; or at least almost surely not anyone in Jerusalem. Didn't Paul die alone, on some island, forgotten, an exile?
He certainly was a scandal, and the Christian community may not have allowed him in their congregations (shortly after his conversion). He may have sanctioned the deaths of their relatives.Their reluctance to embrace Paul is understandable. Paul went to the Magisterium, Peter, James and John, so he could check with the Church's gospel to make sure his gospel was in line, not the other way around. Scripture never uses Paul's divine call against the Church.
i don't mean to suggest that he did, so you are certainly right there imo. What i meant to say is that it is possible, speaking generally, for someone to adopt a definition of this "Church" to suit themselves, and then interpret the passages from that premise.
By which i mean i do this, too, even, but imo we should not be afraid to examine our definition of "Church," and the premises that this will cause say me to adopt, once i am able to include myself in this definition, which is of course the initial reason for anyone even trying to get a handle on, to define, such a...special? spiritual? ephemerous? word as "Church" anyway. Iow i...
naturally also seek to define the word "Church" so that--initially anyway--i can discover how i might be included in that group.
So then, i am persuaded of some acceptable definition by some people that seem right to me, usually quoting out of the Book even; The Church looks like This, and does That, and does not do This, and so this over here is "in" the Church, while that over there--where you are perhaps--is not, and i can tell because see i have this verse, _______________, to prove it, so, sorry, but you are obviously out.
You are one of them, not one of us, because you call some other guy "father," let's say, and of course i am not interested in reading all of those verses about early church "fathers," or how that can be understood as just a term of respect for position which is likely earned and deserved, because you are--of course--interpreting those passages wrong.
And it is my premises where "Church" is concerned, basically, that have allowed me to believe i can confidently identify "us," so then i can just as confidently identify "them." (And--the pov ultimately goes--there are only like 4 of us k)
