According to the author of Colossians, Christ's work on the cross is incomplete without Paul. Here's one that probably doesn't get preached much on Sunday morning. I credit Robert Price's The Human Bible for this thought:
The author of Colossians oh so unequivocally states that Christ's work on the cross was not complete. Verse 1:24 reads:
I (Paul) am now rejoicing in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.
I think this one is complete by itself.
What was incomplete about Christ's sufferings? Should we worship Paul, too, as the one who finished the work on the cross? Catholics might be familiar with this theme with Mary as the co-redeptrix with Christ, whose sorrows at seeing her son's suffering also had redemptive power.
But now we have to add Paul's suffering to the pantheon, too?
What to do, what to do. My argument would be that anyone who takes up his cross and follows Christ in teaching, attitude, and deed completes salvation and becomes one of the Psalm 82:6 Gods, on which Christ proclaimed his own divinity in John 10:34. But that's besides the point. Burn me at the stake, I suppose.
Back to the scriptures: According to Colossians, Christ's work on the cross is incomplete and in need of Paul, the suffering servant.