Was Paul's Thorn Some Sickness?

quote:"Satan caused the illness to hinder Job, so the illness and what happened was an agent of satan."

In Job's case, you are talking about a thing, an agent, an illness. In Paul's case, it's "an angel {angelos}" a personality. There's a big difference between a thing and a person. The Bible says clearly "angel of Satan" there's no need for speculation or mystery here. Thorn is the flesh as used in the Bible refers to personalities. I've given four witnesses already in post 1.

quote"It was understood to be a no because it was not taken away."

sometimes, God answers prayer with a solution we do not expect. but it is nonetheless an answer. so God did answer Paul's prayer with a positive solution to his problem. It was not a "no, tough luck son, you're on your own this time" answer.

quote "If you're implying me I agree because sometimes God says no to your healing...Have you ever heard of Joni Erickson Tada?"

you are not the only one louis. and no I've not heard of Joni Erickson Tada. Let's stick to the topic of this thread and the passage presented.

quote:""In Paul's case, it's "an angel {angelos}" a personality. "
Really? Where do you see this given on a personality?"

An angel is a personality not a disease. eg Michael and Gabriel in the Bible are not types of diseases.

quote:"This word implies a physical thing, not a spiritual one. So again, it seems to me that Paul's thorn was some sort of physical aliment."

Then you are going by your own "it seems to me" definition. I'm going by the Bible's definition which clearly says "angel {angelos} of Satan". I'm also going by how the Bible uses "thorn in the flesh" thruout. I've shown 4 cases in the OT and they always refer to personalities/persons, never to sicknesses. (One of the basics of Bible interpretation is to let the Bible itself give us the meaning.) I'm also going by any good English dictionary which says "thorn in the flesh" refers to an annoying person not a sickness. So you have the Bible and secular definition agreeing. So if you insist on coming up with your own definition, which neither agrees with the Bible or any good dictionary, then I really dont know what else to say.

quote: "If you look at the greek of the word used for flesh..I think its pretty clear he was talking about some chronic PHYSICAL problem he had. I'm going by what the bible says as well andrew."

The Greek word for "flesh" here is

4561 \~sarx\~ sarx {sarx}

probably from the base of 4563; TDNT - 7:98,1000; n f

AV - flesh 147, carnal 2, carnally minded + 5427 1, fleshly 1; 151

1) flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers
the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts
2) the body
2a) the body of a man
2b) used of natural or physical origin, generation or
relationship
2b1) born of natural generation
2c) the sensuous nature of man, "the animal nature"
2c1) without any suggestion of depravity
2c2) the animal nature with cravings which incite to sin
2c3) the physical nature of man as subject to suffering
3) a living creature (because possessed of a body of flesh)
whether man or beast
4) the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart
from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God

As anyone can see, "flesh" does not equal chronic physical ailment.

You are also dissecting the idiom "thorn in the flesh" by just looking at the word "flesh". If we do this, then we might as well do the same with "thorn", and say that Paul literally had a "thorn" stuck in his skin. We must leave the idiom/metaphor as it is -- whole.

Again, Paul already tells us in the same passage that his "thorn in the flesh" is an "angel of Satan". Angels in the Bible are not non-living things or diseases, no more than Gabriel or Michael are types of sicknesses. Also, "thorn" in the Bible is NEVER used to refer to sickness. The idiom/phrase "thorn in the flesh" always refer to annoying peoples/personalities. English dictionaries say the same thing. (see post 1)

[them that have ears, let them hear]

see post 1 again.

There is no need for speculation. Paul himseld already tells us in the same passage that his "thorn in the flesh" is an "angel of Satan". Angels in the Bible are not non-living things or diseases, no more than Gabriel or Michael are types of sicknesses.

Also, "thorn" in the Bible is NEVER used to refer to sickness. The idiom/phrase "thorn in the flesh" as used in the Bible always refer to annoying peoples/personalities -- without exception. So let the Bible itself tell us what its trying to tell us. Also, English dictionaries say the same thing.

so again, the Word and world agree on the meaning. So, there's no need to speculate and say I think it is probably this or that....

[them that have ears, let them hear.]

quote:"Exactly, the spirit is causing the sickness just as Satan did with Job."

again, the passage does not say that, so no need for adding & speculation. see post 1 which talks about the buffeting of this thorn.

quote:"Also, "thorn" in the Bible is NEVER used to refer to sickness. "REally?

Yes. See post 1.

quote:"Really? Okay, can you point me to the verses that it is used in this way."

see post 1 first part 4 examples.

quote: "Eze 28:24 And there shall be no more a pricking brier unto the house of Israel, nor [any] grieving thorn of all [that are] round about them, that despised them; and they shall know that I [am] the Lord GOD. "

yes u are beginning to see it -- the brier/pricking thorn here is as shown, their neighbours that ill-treated them, ie persons/ppls not diseases. The RSV is clearer.

24 "And for the house of Israel there shall be no more a brier to prick or a thorn to hurt them among all their neighbors who have treated them with contempt. Then they will know that I am the Lord GOD.

quote:"God had the power to prevent it, did He not?"

no, he is bound by His Word.