Did the apostle Paul (Saul) have a Homosexual orientation?

Mark45 said:

Did the apostle Paul have a Homosexual orientation? Was it considered the thorn in his flesh (Paul’s homosexual feelings of desire) ? If so would it make any difference to the way we see Paul the apostle and understand his life and the scripture? Could this be a deeper way we can relate to other homosexuals as brothers in Christ, Elders in the Church etc ?

Click to expand...

No. I've heard the torn in the flesh was a man or group of people persecuting him.

Mark45 said:

Did the apostle Paul have a Homosexual orientation? Was it considered the thorn in his flesh (Paul’s homosexual feelings of desire) ? If so would it make any difference to the way we see Paul the apostle and understand his life and the scripture? Could this be a deeper way we can relate to other homosexuals as brothers in Christ, Elders in the Church etc ?

Click to expand...

There's zero evidence that Paul was a sodomite and it's utterly fruitless to speculate. Paul focused on his sins, in large part because he was a killer of Christians prior to being saved. He had been a pharisee and after salvation I think Paul realized how desperately wicked he was and how utterly worthless the pharisees views were.

Mark45 said:

Did the apostle Paul have a Homosexual orientation? Was it considered the thorn in his flesh (Paul’s homosexual feelings of desire) ? If so would it make any difference to the way we see Paul the apostle and understand his life and the scripture? Could this be a deeper way we can relate to other homosexuals as brothers in Christ, Elders in the Church etc ?

Click to expand...

Not at all.. He had been a highly religious and morally minded Pharisee. He would have had a homosexual in a Jewish community stoned to death as demanded by law. Homosexuality was not something spoken about (nor, seen) amongst the Jews in Israel, unless it was to make a snide remark about some Goyim.

The thorn in the flesh could have been the Judaizers that haunted his life and contradicted him like the mainstream media does to Donald Trump today.

Kenny'sID said:

And it's not the same sex attractions I would dispute.

Click to expand...

It's the only meaningful part in discussion of orientation. A heterosexual is heterosexual because they are attracted to the opposite sex--completely regardless on whether they act on that attraction or not. One doesn't become straight only after they become sexually active with a member of the opposite sex, one is sexually oriented to opposite-sex attraction, hence heterosexuality.

-CryptoLutheran

I heard a pastor speculate that Paul's thorn was his failing eyesight. But wasn't he nearly stoned to death at one point? So maybe the thorn is a wound that wouldn't heal. I image him as being sort of a jock, with the sports metaphors and the fact that he survived a stoning. Forgive me but the subject of this thread has a 'bearing false witness' sort of vibe, or like gossip.

no. he would not have been chosen if he weren't pure.

Chris V++ said:

I heard a pastor speculate that Paul's thorn was his failing eyesight. But wasn't he nearly stoned to death at one point? So maybe the thorn is a wound that wouldn't heal. I image him as being sort of a jock, with the sports metaphors and the fact that he survived a stoning. Forgive me but the subject of this thread has a 'bearing false witness' sort of vibe.

Click to expand...

I have seen some even say Jesus was gay... It runs with the turf.

Mark45 said:

Did the apostle Paul have a Homosexual orientation? Was it considered the thorn in his flesh (Paul’s homosexual feelings of desire) ? If so would it make any difference to the way we see Paul the apostle and understand his life and the scripture? Could this be a deeper way we can relate to other homosexuals as brothers in Christ, Elders in the Church etc ?

Click to expand...

No, No, No, and No.

ViaCrucis said:

It's the only meaningful part in discussion of orientation. A heterosexual is heterosexual because they are attracted to the opposite sex--completely regardless on whether they act on that attraction or not. One doesn't become straight only after they become sexually active with a member of the opposite sex, one is sexually oriented to opposite-sex attraction, hence heterosexuality.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

I agree with you and I remain convinced that sexual orientation is largely determined before birth. It is not clear which genes are responsible, but already there have been numerous studies showing marked differences between the structure of the hypothalamus between gay and straight people. There is also evidence that in the same way prenatal hormones are responsible for fetal sex differentiation, they may also be responsible for the development of sexual orientation.

Mark45 said:

Did the apostle Paul have a Homosexual orientation? Was it considered the thorn in his flesh (Paul’s homosexual feelings of desire) ? If so would it make any difference to the way we see Paul the apostle and understand his life and the scripture? Could this be a deeper way we can relate to other homosexuals as brothers in Christ, Elders in the Church etc ?

Click to expand...

no, no he did not

Lulav said:

I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. 8 Now to the unmarried and widows I say this: It is good for them to remain unmarried, as I am. 1 Cor 7-8

Click to expand...

Maybe he was a widower.

Lulav said:

I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. 8 Now to the unmarried and widows I say this: It is good for them to remain unmarried, as I am. 1 Cor 7-8

Click to expand...

Not convincing.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

For this reason, God gave them up to vile passions. For their women changed the natural function into that which is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural function of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men doing what is inappropriate with men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error.
Romans 1:26-27

Click to expand...

Lusting for others is sin. Multiple partners is sin. Sex outside of marriage is sin. Changing partners is sin. Uncontrolled lust is sin. Leaving one partner for another is sin. Judging the actions of others is sin.

miggles said:

no. he would not have been chosen if he weren't pure.

Click to expand...

You may want to go back and read the story of St. Paul and his conversion, and then re-read his epistles.

Paul was met by Christ while he was on the road to Damascus to hunt down and have Christians persecuted. Paul was present, and approving, when St. Stephen, the first martyr, was stoned to death.

Purity, or lack thereof, had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with St. Paul's apostleship. Paul wasn't found worthy, and thus made an apostle. Paul was found wretched and unworthy, and chosen to become an apostle.

-CryptoLutheran

Mark45 said:

Did the apostle Paul have a Homosexual orientation? Was it considered the thorn in his flesh (Paul’s homosexual feelings of desire) ? If so would it make any difference to the way we see Paul the apostle and understand his life and the scripture? Could this be a deeper way we can relate to other homosexuals as brothers in Christ, Elders in the Church etc ?

Click to expand...

No one can answer that question except God and Paul.

For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:- 1 Thessalonians 4:3

No. Sanctification takes the desire for fornication out of the flesh.

27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. - Matthew 5

If Paul had sexual orientation it would be the same as doing it and would have made him unclean and unfit for apostleship.

Mark45 said:

Did the apostle Paul have a Homosexual orientation? Was it considered the thorn in his flesh (Paul’s homosexual feelings of desire) ? If so would it make any difference to the way we see Paul the apostle and understand his life and the scripture? Could this be a deeper way we can relate to other homosexuals as brothers in Christ, Elders in the Church etc ?

Click to expand...

Paul no where in scripture mentions any struggle with homosexuality. It is no good to try to help a homosexual by using Paul as an example because he did not have that struggle.

The thorn in the flesh is not homosexuality. Paul said it was "messenger of Satan to buffet me". A messenger of Satan means a demon. Angels were seen as messengers in the bible. To say a "messenger of Satan" refers to a demonic presence. Paul was beset, possibly in his body, by such a messenger.

Mature Christians can often sense demons, and at times feel them. The reason why God allowed this is not clear, other than the fact it kept Paul humble.

The hard line against fornication....

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. - 1 Corinthians 5:11

No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier. - 2 Timothy 2:4

No, I believe that St. Paul had a disability. The homosexual idea is a modern one to justify sin.