What was Paul's Thorn in the Flesh?

[justinstout]

2 cor 12:8 depart in the greek notes that this is physical





11 of the 12 aspotels died a terrible violent death

why is this ones that had the power of God...the signs wer taken away so that they could learn how do use the christian life today and be example to younger christian

Christ did not redeem us from persecution, my friend.
The apostles were stoned, beaten, tortured, crucified, etc.
None of them died from cancer!



Still no more Scriptures to prove your point.... Typical..

 

[A Brother In Christ]

Christ did not redeem us from persecution, my friend.
The apostles were stoned, beaten, tortured, crucified, etc.
None of them died from cancer!



Still no more Scriptures to prove your point.... Typical..

apostels had the power to resurrected dead ones? why not themselves

 

[justinstout]

apostels had the power to resurrected dead ones? why not themselves

PERSECUTION... PERSECUTION... PERSECUTION.
Not sickness and disease!


Still no Scriptures from you.

 

[SakmonKi]

Although I agree with almost all of your interpretation (God is sufficient), I'm not sure about the "thorn". After all, Paul seems to be referring to HIS weaknesses, not those of the people he encounters.

Granted: I am not a linguist, but...

The NIV renders the word for exalted as "conceited", so Paul is saying that the thorn was given to him to keep him from becoming conceited. (Likewise, the NASB renders the verse as "exalted myself").

Also, the word "infirmities" in the KJV and the NKJV ("My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness." Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities...) are rendered as "weakness" in the NIV and the NASB ("My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses...).

So the question here is: Is the same greek word used twice, or is a different greek word used in the second part of the sentence? This doesn't really change anything you said, just an interesting note about why people think of it as a sickness.

Personally, I always saw it as a physical limitation (an almost literal "thorn in his flesh"). I mean, after all:

"I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers. I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches. Who is weak, and I do not feel weak? Who is led into sin, and I do not inwardly burn?
If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness."

It's not so far-fetched to imagine that he had some physiological repercussions from this kind of life. Maybe a limp?

 

[shinbits]

What was Paul's Thorn in the Flesh?

His cell phone had no roll-over minutes.

 

[pjalford]

I don't have the answer to this puzzle. I've heard lots of speculation about it though.

Welcome to the new member and thanks gang for all your insight!

 

[mdvaden]

This one is easier answered by the bible interpreting itself. The Word lays groundwork ahead of time.

It reminds me of my page on figures of speech on my own web site. I used the example of Noah's sons walking backward to not see their father's nakedness.

For years, I thought it was Noah. Maybe a homo thing in the Word. Then someone showed me the verses in Leviticus that specifically show that a man's or uncle's wife are their "nakedness". The answer was but a few pages away.

For the thorn in the flesh, read the old testament accounts about thorns or pricks in the flesh (maybe "sides"). And pricks or thorns in the eyes. It's referring to people in all accounts.

Paul's thorn in the flesh - utilizing the OT - is people. Utilizing context of Acts, it was people.

It's fairly certain if you have a bunch of fanatics following you around, a few that beat you 40 lashes save one lash, several times, you'd have a thorn in the flesh. And it would fit the written Word too.

 

[justinstout]

http://www.bovministries.net/Pauls_Thorn_in_the_Flesh.html

 

[mdvaden]

Wow...that Brambles of the Vine Ministry page rambles on forever doesn't it? Wanders over here, privately interprets over there.

I'm going to reiterate the Word itself, as in my last post.

In that Brambles page, look at this comment for starters:

[font=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow]So what was the infirmity of the flesh Paul wrote about[/font]

Almost right off the bat, taking license to privately interpret. Acts does not write about an "infirmity" of the flesh. It speaks of a "thorn" in the flesh.

Numbers 33:55

55 But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes , and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell.
KJV

Joshua 23:13

13 Know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides , and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.
KJV

Yee-Haw !! Looks like it's referring to people - not infirmities.

Judges 2:3

3 Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides , and their gods shall be a snare unto you.
KJV

It's remarkable how some commentators will sit around for days speculating on a word they twist the meaning of, rather than get a concordance and see how the bible's own context applies first.

I probably should have pasted the verses in the first place to speed up things.

 

[winslow]

read somewhere that possibly his eyesight was feint because of his Damascus road experience.

 

[justinstout]

read somewhere that possibly his eyesight was feint because of his Damascus road experience.

Would that have been a "messenger of Satan" ? I don't think so... not unless God and Satan are working hand in hand.

Paul's thorn was a "messenger of Satan", just like he said. People need to stop reading stuff into the Scriptures that are not there.

http://members.tripod.com/preachalways/template667128.htm