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

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)

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

Homosexual acts are indeed considered to be sinfull. But why does this dismiss the assumption/speculation that the thorn in Paul's flesh was his homosexual inclination ?

Originally posted by frogstomp
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??? t ...[text shortened]... an Paul's letters aint part of the Gospel. Christ did, and Paul's writings aint.

Stephen, I agree, but this was before Paul's conversion...But Peter? Paul only confronted him once that I can see, and that was here..
Gal 2:11-12
11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;
12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.
(NKJ)

And this was because Peter was being a hypocrite...but he repented. And Peter was not a rock, what was implied in the gospels was that Peter was a pebble(petra), Jesus was saying," but on this rock(Petros)" speaking of Himself, is where the church would be built. The church is built on Christ not Peter. He was saying, Peter, was blown away too much, but Jesus was the Rock, immovable!
I would never call Barnabas a flunky...He was also a great Christian!

I don't understand the rest of your post...by the way...what is btw? I have seen this before....

What does Christ preaching in the early days have to do with Paul's letters?

Are you saying, you don't believe Pauls conversion on the way to Damascus?...
I have never heard of anyone quite like you...interesting though.

Originally posted by vistesd
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...

That's possible. We all should practise the art of investigating our inner self and acknowledging what we discover.

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

Homosexual acts are indeed considered to be sinfull. But why does this dismiss the assumption/speculation that the thorn in Paul's flesh was his homosexual inclination ?

It would not make sense to me. As I read about Paul, he was a devout and faithful Christian. He gave his whole life up for Christ. He is a beaming example of what a servant of Christ would be. It is what we should strive to be. He is our model.

II Th 3:7-9
7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly among you;
8 nor did we eat anyone's bread free of charge, but worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you,
9 not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us.
(NKJ)

If I am to follow after Paul and the others, I could not believe homosexuality would play a part....sigh...., I feel very awkward, even having to defend agaisnt this.

To me Paul is the best "model" of a believer I have ever read.
He had such a big heart for God and the Lord Jesus...he worked miracles...and if this had been a problem, which I know was not, it would have been the first thing to go at his conversion.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Stephen, I agree, but this was before Paul's conversion...But Peter? Paul only confronted him once that I can see, and that was here..
Gal 2:11-12
11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;
12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew a ...[text shortened]... on on the way to Damascus?...
I have never heard of anyone quite like you...interesting though.

That rock/ pebble stuff is PURE psuedo religion,,, you need to tear down Peter so you can raise up Paul ,, however there was no reason for Christ to name Peter a Pebble , none what-so-ever. No amount of word games can change this to mean what you just said:

Matt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it.

16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: andwhatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Originally posted by frogstomp
That rock/ pebble stuff is PURE psuedo religion,,, you need to tear down Peter so you can raise up Paul ,, however there was no reason for Christ to name Peter a Pebble , none what-so-ever. No amount of word games can change this to mean what you just said:

Matt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, Th ...[text shortened]... h shall be bound in heaven: and
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

I'm sorry, I had it backwards...Peter is petros and Jesus was petra...All you have to do is look at a greek lexicon and see it is not a word play.

So...I take it you think the church was built on Peter? This is the Catholic view.

You know, one of the “theories” of rabbinical talmudic argument—even when the argument becomes heated (but without ad hominem attacks or insults, which are conspicuous by their absence in this thread, to the credit of all)—is that, by engaging in the argument, we honor torah (the scriptures), we honor each other and our intellects, and—according to the rabbis—may even experience something of the creative dialectic of the mind of God (however, for the moment, how you conceive of that!). The subject of argument may not be of a critical nature: no one here would argue that the exact nature of Paul’s thorn in the flesh has any salvific bearing, for example. It is the process, the engagement itself—with “torah” and each other that can take on a spiritual hue.

In that respect, either this is an exemplary thread, or I am just somehow more “in tune.”

Just wanted to mention that, before I retire for awhile to pursue again my talmudic studies….

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I'm sorry, I had it backwards...Peter is petros and Jesus was petra...All you have to do is look at a greek lexicon and see it is not a word play.

So...I take it you think the church was built on Peter? This is the Catholic view.

READ the words they can only mean ONE thing.. Peter was being assigned the role of leader.

Why must you strain at gnats?

If the Catholics have that right , more power to them.

checkbaiter: by the way...what is btw?

btw means "by the way." I learned that here. 😀

Originally posted by frogstomp
READ the words they can only mean ONE thing.. Peter was being assigned the role of leader.

Why must you strain at gnats?

If the Catholics have that right , more power to them.

Because it would be illogical.
If the church is built upon Peter, then it is dead.
Peter did not qualify to be the head of the church, which is the same thing. Peter has not been raised from the dead, Jesus has, and is actively running His church.
His "saints" which is what the bible calls believers are Jesus "hands", His "feet", etc....Jesus is coming back, and when He does, He will "raise the dead in Christ". Peter being among them. "Then we which are alive will be changed and caught up together with them."
I love Peter. He was a wonderful man of God. Yes he denied the Lord several times, but he grew. He was forgiven.
He was also a different man in the book of Acts.
He went to Jeruselum after the crucifiction as the other disciples, and hid, for fear of the jews.
But when he received holy spirit, Acts chapter 1, he was emboldened, enabled with power from on high.
Then he spoke and preached with BOLDNESS...

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]checkbaiter: by the way...what is btw?

btw means "by the way." I learned that here. 😀[/b]

Thanks.........🙂

Originally posted by checkbaiter
It would not make sense to me. As I read about Paul, he was a devout and faithful Christian. He gave his whole life up for Christ. He is a beaming example of what a servant of Christ would be. It is what we should strive to be. He is our model.

II Th 3:7-9
7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly among you;
8 ...[text shortened]... een a problem, which I know was not, it would have been the first thing to go at his conversion.

Being a homosexual is NOT a sin. Performing homosexual acts is a sin. A homosexual can be a devout and faithfull Christian who gives up his life for Christ. He can be a model for all Christians. If he obeys the Lord and refrains from (homo-)sexual activities then this is no problem at all .

If Paul turned out to be a homosexual man then this will not alter his holiness in any way. He is and remains a role model, who loves the Lord. Nothing can change that.

Checkbaitor: "it would have been the first thing to go at his conversion"

His engaging in homosexual acts would certainly have to go, but his homosexual inclination would stay. That would be his "thorn in the flesh" he talks about.
Reading through the verses dealing with Paul's "thorn" I haven't found a verse yet that clearly contradicts this assumption/speculation of him being a homosexual man ..... on the contrary.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Being a homosexual is NOT a sin. Performing homosexual acts is a sin. A homosexual can be a devout and faithfull Christian who gives up his life for Christ. He can be a model for all Christians. If he obeys the Lord and refrains from (homo-)sexual activities then this is no problem at all .

If Paul turned out to be a homosexual man then this will not alte ...[text shortened]... a verse yet that clearly contradicts this assumption/speculation of him being a homosexual man.

Do you think it would be fair to ask a heterosexual to give up sexual behavior to show that that they had "given up their life for Christ"?

Originally posted by kirksey957
Do you think it would be fair to ask a heterosexual to give up sexual behavior to show that that they had "given up their life for Christ"?

It is off-topic but I'll answer your question.

In our hedonistic culture engaging in sexual activities is looked upon as being very important and necessary. We tend to look upon it as a "right". We have a right to sexual satisfaction and we have the right to choose the way we want to achieve that satisfaction. We have to live out our sexual drives otherwise we are "suppressing" our feelings and we are "oppressing" ourselves as free men and women.

As you will understand Christian teachings regard this stance as a tragic misconception.

It is not that difficult to abstain from sexual activities, especially if these kind of activities are considered to make you unhappy in the end.

Kirk: " Do you think it would be fair to ask a heterosexual to give up sexual behavior to show that that they had "given up their life for Christ"?"

Nobody is asking anybody to give up sexual activities to SHOW something to other people. In the Christian context sexuality should be an act of serving God. This means that sex can only be consumed within the boundaries of Christian marriage. If a heterosexual man is not married he is expected to refrain from sexual acts, the same goes for the homosexual man. Serving God cannot and can never be dismisssed because it is superficially perceived as being "unfair".

We cherish the hedonistic view that sexual abstinence will make us unhappy, but this is simply not true. It is a misguided conception, a self-serving misconception.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Because it would be illogical.
If the church is built upon Peter, then it is dead.
Peter did not qualify to be the head of the church, which is the same thing. Peter has not been raised from the dead, Jesus has, and is actively running His church.
His "saints" which is what the bible calls believers are Jesus "hands", His "feet", etc....Jesu ...[text shortened]... he was emboldened, enabled with power from on high.
Then he spoke and preached with BOLDNESS...

So Christ was illogical , too? Just how far do you plan to take this? Raising Paul to God status?
Christ's words are the ROCK

Matt
16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked
his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
16:14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some,
Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon
Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my
Father which is in heaven.16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven

Why you choose to call Christ so incompetent that he's actively running the religion since nobody even has the slightest clue WHICH church He'd be busy running since there are so many "churches " of greatly varying dogmas all claiming to be the right one.

The disciples were supposed to spread His Gospel not write their own.
Canonizing Paul's writing while tossing out the Gospel of Thomas showed the church "fathers" had little interest is spreading the word and had themselves become Pharasitic and Paul had accomplished his own mission, one that had nothing to do with Christ , save for using His name to further Paul's agenda.

robbing Peter to pay Paul?