What was Paul's "thorn in the flesh"?

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Iill answer the second part first...no he was not perfect, he was only a man, and while Iagree that not all he did was in the spirit, what he wrote, was. Because of the simple truth that all of the bible, including Pauls writings or books were given as "holy men of God spoke thru the holy spirit".2Peter1:21

As far as physical affliction, perhaps he ...[text shortened]... ound like, "ok son, good job, so far, but here, have some cancer so you won't get too heady".

Only two things:

1) I'm not really "implying" anything; I'm just saying that I don't see the possibilities as closed. I'd be interested, though, in seeing a more specific reply to frogstomp's post than just "I disagree because Paul was great in Christ" (to crudely paraphrase your reply). And maybe froggy will flesh his point out a bit in response to my questions.

2) The verse does not say that the "thorn" was given by God, but was a messenger from Satan--but that God did not choose to remove the "thorn" in response to Paul's prayers. Now "messenger" (as opposed to "message" ) gives more weight to your agrument that it refers to a person (or persons). I think I indicated that I lean toward that view myself--but I'm not going to close the doors, and I think that frogstomp was raising an interesting point.

Originally posted by vistesd
Only two things:

1) I'm not really "implying" anything; I'm just saying that I don't see the possibilities as closed. I'd be interested, though, in seeing a more specific reply to frogstomp's post than just "I disagree because Paul was great in Christ" (to crudely paraphrase your reply). And maybe froggy will flesh his point out a bit in resp ...[text shortened]... from Satan--but that God did not choose to remove the "thorn" in response to Paul's prayers.

The problem is, froggy does not believe the bible is all God's word, only the parts he chooses. ie., the "Kingdom", the "word"....😉

Originally posted by checkbaiter
The problem is, froggy does not believe the bible is all God's word, only the parts he chooses. ie., the "Kingdom", the "word"....😉

Well, I too think that the books in the collection we call the Bible were written by human beings, transcribed, copied and edited by human beings—and so I am not in the “inerrant Word of God camp.” There have been lots of debates in here on that issue, and I am not interested in pursuing it further—at the present time anyway. So, let’s just say that we’re at a friendly impasse on that.

However, I don’t think that means that frogstomp’s or mine or anybody else’s exegesis ought to be thrown out of court at the get-go, just on that basis.

And yes, with all that said, I did note the “winky-face” in your post, and have noted in other threads that you are not without a sense of humor….🙂

This has been a good and educational thread.

Originally posted by vistesd
Well, I too think that the books in the collection we call the Bible were written by human beings, transcribed, copied and edited by human beings—and so I am not in the “inerrant Word of God camp.” There have been lots of debates in here on that issue, and I am not interested in pursuing it further—at the present time anyway. So, let’s just say that we’re ...[text shortened]... ds that you are not without a sense of humor….🙂

This has been a good and educational thread.

Thank you, I suppose I will have to look for those threads myself, since I do believe that while, yes, the bible has been written by men, it is also possible to get back to the originals, with a little research, and following certain keys to understanding the bible...🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
Only two things:

1) I'm not really "implying" anything; I'm just saying that I don't see the possibilities as closed. I'd be interested, though, in seeing a more specific reply to frogstomp's post than just "I disagree because Paul was great in Christ" (to crudely paraphrase your reply). And maybe froggy will flesh his point out a bit in resp ...[text shortened]... I'm not going to close the doors, and I think that frogstomp was raising an interesting point.

It has been suggested that the "thorn" in Pauls' flesh was the fact that he was homosexual. I have never seen any proof of that though. I don't have any reasons to accept that possibility .....


EDIT: Maybe someone else has proof for this assumption/speculation.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
It has been suggested that the "thorn" in Pauls' flesh was the fact that he was homosexual. I have never seen any proof of that though. I don't have any reasons to accept that possibility .....


EDIT: Maybe someone else has proof for this assumption/speculation.

John Shelby Spong (a US Episcopal bishop), for one, made that argument--as a possibility. I frankly forget the gist of his argument. I neither accept nor reject it out of hand; I think it does fall into the category of speculative argument...

Originally posted by ivanhoe
It has been suggested that the "thorn" in Pauls' flesh was the fact that he was homosexual. I have never seen any proof of that though. I don't have any reasons to accept that possibility .....


EDIT: Maybe someone else has proof for this assumption/speculation.

After reading what Paul penned in Romans 1:27, I would say unlikely..

Originally posted by checkbaiter
After reading what Paul penned in Romans 1:27, I would say unlikely..

If you give a reference could you please give the full quote from scripture and a link from where you got it ? Thanks.

Originally posted by vistesd
John Shelby Spong (a US Episcopal bishop), for one, made that argument--as a possibility. I frankly forget the gist of his argument. I neither accept nor reject it out of hand; I think it does fall into the category of speculative argument...

I must say when I read about Paul's thorn this speculation fits in surprisingly well.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I totally disagree...Paul was a "duolos" slave for Christ. I don't know if you know what that entails, but nevertheless he was totally committed to Christ!
He in my opinion, was the greatest Christian, ever. He submitted and allowed Christ to work in him in a mighty way, not to mention he wrote 14 books of the NT, as the Lord led him.
He was a phari ...[text shortened]... e, but willing gave up all, for Jesus Christ, and will be awarded accordingly, and so he should!

You seem to have some idea that Paul's words are equal in authority to the Gospel that Chist taught, a Gospel that clearly taught the OT had man written ( as opposed to God "inspired" ) parts,

As for the opinion the Paul was " the greatest Christian even" is probably correct , but only if you define Christianity as Paul's Gospel and not Christ's. I don't think Paul was at fault for this illusion that he was a greater authority than Christ.

You and others seem to be stumbling around with the idea that Christ was not capable of preaching the Word.

It's like you think the purpose of Christ's coming was to create Paul's church.

Originally posted by frogstomp
You seem to have some idea that Paul's words are equal in authority to the Gospel that Chist taught, a Gospel that clearly taught the OT had man written ( as opposed to God "inspired" ) parts,

As for the opinion the Paul was " the greatest Christian even" is probably correct , but only if you define Christianit ...[text shortened]... It's like you think the purpose of Christ's coming was to create Paul's church.

Gal 1:11-12
11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.

12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
(NKJ)

It was not Paul's Gospel, he was a servant to Christ and him only. He was under instruction from Jesus Christ himself! Why is this difficult to understand? What am I missing here?

Christ did preach the Gospel(Good News), but He was crucified and was raised from the dead and now was working through Paul, and Peter, and Barnabas, and Steven, and on and on...and He is still working today thru countless believers.

And no I do not think He came to build Pauls church, I didn't even know Paul had one. When I read the epistles, it is always Jesus Christ who is exalted.

And yes Paul was the greatest Christian due to what he suffered, his selflessness, if you will....and I do not believe they are his words at all, but Christ's Words, that is if you believe the verse above.

Do these verses sound like someone with an ego?


Phil 2:5
5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,
(NKJ)

Phil 2:9-11
9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth,
11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
(NKJ)

Phil 3:3-12
3 For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh,
4 though I also might have confidence in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so:
5 circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee;
6 concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
7 But what things were gain to me, [b]these I have counted loss for Christ.
8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ
9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;[b/]
10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death,
11 if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.
12 Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me.
(NKJ)

Originally posted by ivanhoe
If you give a reference could you please give the full quote from scripture and a link from where you got it ? Thanks.

I'm not sure I understand...do you want the verse? It's from my PC Study Bible...

Rom 1:26-27
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
(NKJ)

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Gal 1:11-12
11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.

12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
(NKJ)

It was not Paul's Gospel, he was a servant to Christ and him only. He was under instruction from Jesus Christ him ...[text shortened]... I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me.
(NKJ)

first you need to get a better definition of the word Gospel.

" I make it known...."

" .... nor was I taught it ..."

Stephen ??? are you joking? Stephen was stoned to death by Paul's thugs. Peter??? Paul spend the rest of his life chipping away at the rock's leadership of the Apostles.
Barnabas??? the only question about him is was he already Paul's flunky before he attested to Pauls story of conversion on the road to Damascus.

btw IF Christ was preaching the Gospel in Gallilee in the early days than Paul's letters aint part of the Gospel. Christ did, and Paul's writings aint.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
I must say when I read about Paul's thorn this speculation fits in surprisingly well.

And a possible counter to checkbaiter's point might be that we often declaim more loudly and strongly precisely against those weaknesses that we see (and maybe don't want to acknowledge) in ourselves...?

Maybe I need to look at that in myself more...

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I'm not sure I understand...do you want the verse? It's from my PC Study Bible...

Rom 1:26-27
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
(NKJ)

Great. Thanks !