The Thorn in Paul's Flesh

[sojourner]

In old Ireland, epilepsy was known as 'Saint Paul's disease'.

there's also a quaint British legend that Jesus came to Glastonbury as a child. Doesn't mean that he actually did, though.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Many people believe the thorn was homosexuality.

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2004/04/Was-The-Apostle-Paul-Gay.aspx

 

[Ben Masada]

Many people believe the thorn was homosexuality.

Was the Apostle Paul Gay?- Beliefnet.com

Well, everything is possible. As a matter of fact, he was not too fun of women.
Ben

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Ben, Paul wasn't rejected by the disciples. Acts 15 and Galatians 2 agree that he was accepted.

As for being epileptic, you didn't even try. And your understanding of Pauline theology is just appalling. Paul was not a Hellenistic Jew. He was a Pharisee (both acts and Paul agree on this). He didn't teach replacement theology. He didn't teach that Jesus died in our place. And there is no suggestion in his work that he founded a new religion.

You might as well have said that he had herpes and was a male prostitute, as that would be just as convincing as your argument and supported by just as much evidence; none.

I missed this the first time I read the post.

Have you really not encountered scholars who say that Paul is a Hellenized Jew? His epistles indicate that he received a full Greek education. In my world, everyone and his dog says that Paul is a Hellenized Jew, from the entire Ph.D. class to the professors to scholars at conferences. (Being a Hellenized does not automotically disqualify someone from being a Pharisee)

 

[Ben Masada]

I missed this the first time I read the post.

Have you really not encountered scholars who say that Paul is a Hellenized Jew? His epistles indicate that he received a full Greek education. In my world, everyone and his dog says that Paul is a Hellenized Jew, from the entire Ph.D. class to the professors to scholars at conferences. (Being a Hellenized does not automotically disqualify someone from being a Pharisee)

Yes, it did. Pharisees belonged to an elite of Jewish Sect. They would never accept a Hellenist Jew in their ranks. Read Josephus in his "The War of the Jews." I learned this in my course of Judaica at the University of Judaism in Los Angeles.
Ben

 

[fallingblood]

I missed this the first time I read the post.

Have you really not encountered scholars who say that Paul is a Hellenized Jew? His epistles indicate that he received a full Greek education. In my world, everyone and his dog says that Paul is a Hellenized Jew, from the entire Ph.D. class to the professors to scholars at conferences. (Being a Hellenized does not automotically disqualify someone from being a Pharisee)

I was thinking a little bit differently. I was thinking of a Hellenistic Jew as a Jew subscribed to a Hellenistic form of Judaism (as compared to say being a Pharisaic Jew). Now thinking about it, I probably was mixing up several terms.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I was thinking a little bit differently. I was thinking of a Hellenistic Jew as a Jew subscribed to a Hellenistic form of Judaism (as compared to say being a Pharisaic Jew). Now thinking about it, I probably was mixing up several terms.

OK, that's cool man. It's hard to be specific all the time.

 

[Ben Masada]

I missed this the first time I read the post.

Have you really not encountered scholars who say that Paul is a Hellenized Jew? His epistles indicate that he received a full Greek education. In my world, everyone and his dog says that Paul is a Hellenized Jew, from the entire Ph.D. class to the professors to scholars at conferences. (Being a Hellenized does not automotically disqualify someone from being a Pharisee)

You are not reading your NT. Christ in Greek means Messiah, and he was the one who fabricated the idea that Jesus was the Messiah and that he had resurrected . Read II Timothy 2:8. He was the one who inspired the gospel writers with the Hellenistic theme with reference to Jesus. (Acts 11:26)

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yes, it did. Pharisees belonged to an elite of Jewish Sect. They would never accept a Hellenist Jew in their ranks. Read Josephus in his "The War of the Jews." I learned this in my course of Judaica at the University of Judaism in Los Angeles.
Ben

I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing here.

Yes, obviously the Pharisees were elitest.

I think that Paul received a full Greek education in Tarsus and went to Jerusalem to train in Judaism and later joined the Pharisees, and most likely wasn't a Pharisee for very long.

The precise meaning of Paul as a Pharisee is a subject of much debate.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You are not reading your NT. Christ in Greek means Messiah, and he was the one who fabricated the idea that Jesus was the Messiah and that he had resurrected . Read II Timothy 2:8. He was the one who inspired the gospel writers with the Hellenistic theme with reference to Jesus. (Acts 11:26)

Really? Are you certain about that?

And why the heck are you even talking about this?

Neither 2 Timothy nor Acts are written by Paul.

 

[Ben Masada]

I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing here.

Yes, obviously the Pharisees were elitest.

I think that Paul received a full Greek education in Tarsus and went to Jerusalem to train in Judaism and later joined the Pharisees, and most likely wasn't a Pharisee for very long.

The precise meaning of Paul as a Pharisee is a subject of much debate.

Paul was well known as a Hellenist Jew. And for that reason, he could never join the Sect of the Pharissees. On the contrary, he kept always a grudge against the Priests and Pharisees, because they never allowed him to build a church in Israeli soil.
Ben

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Paul was well known as a Hellenist Jew. And for that reason, he could never join the Sect of the Pharissees. On the contrary, he kept always a grudge against the Priests and Pharisees, because they never allowed him to build a church in Israeli soil.
Ben

Interesting theory.

Do you think that the Priests and Pharisees let James and Peter build a church on Israeli soil?

 

[Ben Masada]

Interesting theory.

Do you think that the Priests and Pharisees let James and Peter build a church on Israeli soil?

Yes, of course!. The converts of the Nazarenes would become fully Jewish. (Acts 21:20) The converts of Paul would return to their condition of Gentiles.
Ben

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yes, of course!. The converts of the Nazarenes would become fully Jewish. (Acts 21:20) The converts of Paul would return to their condition of Gentiles.
Ben

If Peter and James could build churches on Israeli soul, why does it seem like they have a grudge against Pharisees and Priests in the Gospels?

The Gospels, which mention Pharisees, do so negatively.

Paul never, ever refers to Pharisees in a negative way.

 

[Ben Masada]

If Peter and James could build churches on Israeli soul, why does it seem like they have a grudge against Pharisees and Priests in the Gospels?

The Gospels, which mention Pharisees, do so negatively.

Paul never, ever refers to Pharisees in a negative way.

All the negative remarks against the Priests and Pharisees were referred to as coming from Paul and not from Jesus. Jesus never had anything against Priests and Pharisees. Jesus was of the lineage of the Pharisees himself. He would never offend them with remarks of being hypocrites and vipers. There was nothing Paul dreamed or wanted the most than to raise a Christian Church in Jerusalem, and the Priests and Pharisees would never permit him to realize it. Indeed, the Apostles of Jesus did build a sumptious synagogue in Jerusalem, which served as the headquarters of the Sect of Nazarenes. Even Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews would refer to Jesus as Rabbi. (John 3;1,2) Besides, Pharisees would be members of the Nazarene headquarters in Jerusalem.

Ben

 

[angellous_evangellous]

All the negative remarks against the Priests and Pharisees were referred to as coming from Paul and not from Jesus. Jesus never had anything against Priests and Pharisees. Jesus was of the lineage of the Pharisees himself. He would never offend them with remarks of being hypocrites and vipers. There was nothing Paul dreamed or wanted the most than to raise a Christian Church in Jerusalem, and the Priests and Pharisees would never permit him to realize it. Indeed, the Apostles of Jesus did build a sumptious synagogue in Jerusalem, which served as the headquarters of the Sect of Nazarenes. Even Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews would refer to Jesus as Rabbi. (John 3;1,2)

Ben

That is truly a strange way to go about things.

So you really think that Paul somehow influenced the Gospels?

You realize that the Gospels were written after Paul's death?

The writings of Paul are from about 50CE-65CE, and the Gospels are dated 70CE-120CE [and the 70CE date is a little early].

 

[fallingblood]

All the negative remarks against the Priests and Pharisees were referred to as coming from Paul and not from Jesus. Jesus never had anything against Priests and Pharisees. Jesus was of the lineage of the Pharisees himself. He would never offend them with remarks of being hypocrites and vipers. There was nothing Paul dreamed or wanted the most than to raise a Christian Church in Jerusalem, and the Priests and Pharisees would never permit him to realize it. Indeed, the Apostles of Jesus did build a sumptious synagogue in Jerusalem, which served as the headquarters of the Sect of Nazarenes. Even Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews would refer to Jesus as Rabbi. (John 3;1,2) Besides, Pharisees would be members of the Nazarene headquarters in Jerusalem.

Ben

Wow. So you haven't ever read the Gospels then? Or are you just saying that everything in the NT is wrong, and you simply know better? Because if one is to believe the Gospels, Jesus had many confrontations with the Pharisees, and said quite a few negative things about the Pharisees. The Gospels make Jesus and the Pharisees opponents. More so, Jesus is never called a Pharisee. He is opposed to the Pharisees.

On the other hand, Paul never said a bad thing about the Pharisees. He claimed to be a Pharisee himself, and in that context, spoke positively about them.

More so, it is never stated that Paul wants to build a Christian church anywhere. He is never called a Christian. His churches are never called Christian churches. And he is never said to have tried to start a church of any kind in Jerusalem. Neither Acts or Paul speaks of such an ambition.

Also, James is never said to be of the sect of the Nazarenes. In fact, Paul is said to be the ringleader of the Nazarenes, the one and only time the term is used in the New Testament. Which causes your idea to have problems, because if Paul is the ringleader of the Nazarenes, then James wouldn't have been opposed to him (as you keep trying to say).

So obviously, you are not getting your information from the NT. So where are you getting it? It doesn't come from mainstream scholarship.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So obviously, you are not getting your information from the NT. So where are you getting it? It doesn't come from mainstream scholarship.

Perhaps...

Yes, it did. Pharisees belonged to an elite of Jewish Sect. They would never accept a Hellenist Jew in their ranks. Read Josephus in his "The War of the Jews." I learned this in my course of Judaica at the University of Judaism in Los Angeles.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

That is truly a strange way to go about things.

So you really think that Paul somehow influenced the Gospels?

You realize that the Gospels were written after Paul's death?

The writings of Paul are from about 50CE-65CE, and the Gospels are dated 70CE-120CE [and the 70CE date is a little early].

Yes, I really believe that Paul influenced the gospel writers. Being they all of Hellenistic orientation, they were heavily influenced by their master, Paul, a Jew born Hellenistic and educated as such during all his life. Hellenistic Jews in the First Century was like today about "Messianic Jews" and "Jews-for-Jesus."

Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

Perhaps...

Jesus did not say "he was the resurrection and the life." If resurrection was not something forbidden by the Scriptures, speaking indvidually, he could say I have the resurrection and the life, and not I Am. Only God is. Men have what is attrituted to them. "So, to be or not to be, that's the question" The answer from God would be "I am,": but from man, it would be we have. What one has it can be taken away; but what one is, he is, no matter what.

Ben