Was Paul's Thorn Some Sickness?

LouisBooth · Aug 5, 2002

"Where in the book of Job does it say angel of Satan = physical illness?"

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

"God did not say "no" to Paul. It's not recorded in the passage. Let's be accurate and stick to the passage, or it becomes a free-for-all thing.
"

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

"becos then we end up with all sorts of doctrines like God wants some of us sick."

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

Andrew · Aug 5, 2002

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.

LouisBooth · Aug 5, 2002

"In Paul's case, it's "an angel {angelos}" a personality. "

Really? Where do you see this given on a personality?

What's really telling is the phrase used to describe it. a thorn of the flesh. The word used for flesh is sarx. This is a physical thing. 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.

"no I've not heard of Joni Erickson Tada. Let's stick to the topic of this thread and the passage presented."

You should look her up and maybe e-mail her about her life. I would be very enlightening.

Andrew · Aug 6, 2002

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.

Julie · Aug 6, 2002

Gal 4:
13   Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first.
14   And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.
15   Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.
16   Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? 

Andrew, What do you think of these verses cross referenced to 2 Cor 12:1-10?

************************************

Colossians 4:14
Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you.

2 Timothy 4:11
Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.

Was Paul in need of a physician?

Andrew, I am not trying to be mean, sorry if I came across that way in attacking your Bible study, please forgive me.

             Julie

ZiSunka · Aug 6, 2002

Infirmity of the flesh and temptation of the flesh is not necessarily the same thing though. Infirmity of the flesh is a sickness, of course, but temptation of the flesh is any temptation that comes from fleshly desires, whether it be sexual temptations (which must have been difficult for an umarried man like Paul) or some other carnal desires.

I think Paul was trying to say, "You knew I was sick and your didn't reject me (remember, Jews at that time thought chronic illness was a curse from the Lord) and you knew I struggled with these temptations, and you still accepted me as if I were an angel. I appreciate the love you have shown me. I know that if you could, you would give me your own eyes, you love me so much."

Paul was speaking about love, though he was worthy of rejection for many reasons, they still loved him so much that they would have donated their own eyes for him. But nobody would want to struggle with his temptations!

fragmentsofdreams · Aug 6, 2002

Paul was tempted by things that would have condemned him under the Law. He tried to adhere to the law as perfectly as he could in hopes that by adhering to the Law with such a passion, he could rid himself of temptation. This failed. Then, Christianity starts to "attack" the Law, what gave him meaning and purpose. This motivated him to start persecuting Christians. Then, God showed him that he was loved despite his imperfections. The joy of this revelation caused him to become the most famous missionary of Christianity.

LouisBooth · Aug 6, 2002

"Then you are going by your own "it seems to me" definition. "

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.

Andrew · Aug 6, 2002

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]

LouisBooth · Aug 6, 2002

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

As you can see by the definition it was something physical. It caused weakness (physical weakness as defined by the word again). So there ya have it, it was some sort of physical thing that cause paul to be physically weak. I opt for some sort of sickness. It perfectly fits the passage and the greek word usage. I am taking it as a whole thanks. a "thorn" was used in other places to denote a trouble of some kind. So then I asked myself..what kind of trouble..thus the word "flesh" being looked out. It was a physical problem is the result. I disagree with you on your assement of what "angels" can and cannot be. IN the OT God sends a lying spirit to make a guy believe something else... YOu also misunderstand the term satan. It might not be the being satan, but a generic advastary. Again, either way, it agrees with my interpreation, but yours it has to be specifically the being satan. Yours also takes out the meaning of the word "flesh" and "torn" thus making mine the better guess.

Andrew · Aug 7, 2002

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.]

SpiritPsalmist · Aug 7, 2002

Originally posted by Julie
You lost my attention when you said "Greek word".
Stick with the English, thats the world language. Otherwise us common
folk would have to go to you educatied ones for all our knowledge of God.

Julie,

Since what we call the NT was originally writen in Greek, it is very important to know what was originally intended by the person who was writing in Greek.  The translation in some of our Bibles does not always adquately convey that.

 

SpiritPsalmist · Aug 7, 2002

Originally posted by LouisBooth

"no I've not heard of Joni Erickson Tada. Let's stick to the topic of this thread and the passage presented."

You should look her up and maybe e-mail her about her life. I would be very enlightening.

Joni Erickson Tada foolishly dove into shallow water, breaking her neck and is now a paraplegic.  God did not will her to dive into shallow water.  She did.

In Phil 4:12 (Amplified) Paul states "I know how to be abased and live humbly in straitened circumstances, and I know also how ot enjoy plenty and live in abundance.  I have learned in any and all circumstances the secret of facing every situation, whether well-fed or going hungry, having sufficiencey and enough to spare or going without and being in want".

Paul knew it both ways.  Giving scripture about him being in need physically, does not negate the ones that show he had no need.  He experienced both.  Not just one of them but both.

I don't know about you Andrew, but I know I have repeatadly stated that in my testimonys yet all we get back is scripure that supposedly, by the quoter, undoes, what we've quoted.  It does not.  All scriptures work together.  Paul experienced BOTH.  And he gave God glory in BOTH. 

How much more plainly can it be said. 

Caedmon · Aug 7, 2002

Originally posted by Quaffer

Joni Erickson Tada foolishly dove into shallow water, breaking her neck and is now a paraplegic.  God did not will her to dive into shallow water.  She did.

If God hadn't willed it, it would never have happened.

SpiritPsalmist · Aug 7, 2002

Originally posted by humblejoe

If God hadn't willed it, it would never have happened.

 

Nowhere, does scripture teach that.  God gives good gifts.  Having one's neck broken is not a gift, much less a good gift. 

Caedmon · Aug 7, 2002

Originally posted by Quaffer

ROT! PURE ROT!  Nowhere, does scripture teach that.  God gives good gifts.  Having one's neck broken is not a gift, much less a good gift.

Rot! 

God had the power to prevent it, did He not? Everything God does has a part in His purpose. If it did not serve His purpose, He wouldn't have allowed it, would He?

LouisBooth · Aug 7, 2002

"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". "

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

"Also, "thorn" in the Bible is NEVER used to refer to sickness. "

REally? Could it be because that is the only time that greek word is used in the NT? There is this though

"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. "

"Joni Erickson Tada foolishly dove into shallow water, breaking her neck and is now a paraplegic. God did not will her to dive into shallow water. She did."

You really don't know anything about her do you quaf? I guess she was another that was not "faithful" enough huh?

"The idiom/phrase "thorn in the flesh" as used in the Bible always refer to annoying peoples/"

Really? Okay, can you point me to the verses that it is used in this way. The word used for thorn is not used ANYWHERE in the NT besides that verse. You're pulling things out of thin air andrew. The phrase fits the physical sickness interpratation quite well thanks.

Andrew · Aug 7, 2002

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.

Julie · Aug 8, 2002

It's his eyesight.

Galatians 6:11
Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand.

SpiritPsalmist · Aug 8, 2002

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"
You really don't know anything about her do you quaf? I guess she was another that was not "faithful" enough huh? 

Actually, I do, and that's what "she" wrote in her book.  And, she was not serving the Lord at the time of her accident, so again, according to "her" book, she was not serving God. 

Again, you're not comprehending what is being said.  Faithfullness has nothing to do with our stupidity.  It was a stupid thing to dive off a cliff into shallow water. 

If God willed it then that means He also wills sin.  That means that every women who gets raped: it was God's will.  Every man who rapes: it was God's will that he be a rapist.  And the wife beaters, and the murderers, and the child molesters, and the liers, and the thieves, and the drug pushers, etc.  According to your theology, God made them do it.  So why should they be punished.

But I suppose being able to blame God for your actions fits well into your theology.  Sounds too close to what Adam said to God in the garden . . ."the women You gave me".  He tried that technique also . . .God was not impressed.

Was Paul's Thorn Some Sickness?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

ONLY JESUS CHRIST SAVES

It means 'yellow dog'

Critical loyalist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Heavy lean toward Messianic

Heavy lean toward Messianic

kawaii

Heavy lean toward Messianic

kawaii

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

ONLY JESUS CHRIST SAVES

Heavy lean toward Messianic

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency