What Was the Thorn in Paul's Flesh?

[@johnnylego807]

I got two thorns in my flesh. And it pains me everyday. God , the Holyspirit and the stories of the apostles like Paul, keeps me going. Love you God, love all the apostles, Jesus the Son of God. ❤❤

[@adamlindquist4854]

It was an eye infection that was extremely painful and he prayed over it and the Lord said "my grace is sufficient for thee". Have you read the bible?

[@duncan1356]

I have one now.. it's stuck to me and hurts Jesus is humbling Mr through this amen

[@drewandcharlie7583]

I always thought he had a drinking problem. Or some kind of addiction. It makes the most sense. He says he does the things that he does not want to do. And doesnt do the things he wants to do. The proverbial thorn sounds like an addiction that dogs him. Coupled with the those verses about impulse control, that makes sense.

[@mahatmarandy5977]

I've always taken the "Thorn in the Flesh" to be failing eyesight. "I am writing this with my own hand. See how big the words are." He also says in Galatians that the believers there would have given their own eyes to help him, had it been possible. And of course he doesn't recognize the high priest in Acts. Which is odd since, presumably, this was someone he would have known when he (Paul) was on the Sanhedrin.

[@nonameronin1]

Paul referring to his large handwriting the Letter to the Galatians (in the portion he handwrote at the end) is usually taken to mean that he is admitting he isn't a skilled scribe. That's understandable as being a scribe was its own profession and just because you were literate didn't mean you had particularly legible handwriting (also, given the writing tools of the time, writing was apparently enough of a hassle that you would prefer the professional do it if you could afford it).

[@mahatmarandy5977]

@@nonameronin1 That seems a little tendentious. Paul was, after all, extremely well educated and rich and a member of the Sanhedrin at a ridiculously young age, yet trusted enough to be placed in charge of important, sensitive operations. It makes no sense to me that he wouldn't be able to write well. Particularly given the very large amount of correspondence in the Empire. And there's no reason to assume Paul was using an actual scribe, just a secretary. ("Amanuensis") Scribes were extremely precise, amanuenses as much. Added to which, unless he was particularly known for having extravagantly bad penmanship, that doesn't really make sense. On the other hand, in the same letter, Paul makes reference to how the people in the church would have gladly have given him their own eyes to help, had it been possible. Which is probably not something you'd say unless someone *needed* better eyes. That's my take on it, anyway

[@digitaurus]

I think the idea that failing eyesight was his "thorn" is an interesting one and is no less likely an explanation than any other given the lack of evidence. My personal reflection, however, is that Paul's thorn was something buried deep inside himself that had plagued him throughout his adult life - a thorn buried deep inside, planted by the Adversary (Devil). So I have always thought the most likely explanation was that Paul was sexually attracted to men, but the evidence is extremely thin. As a man, I would say that (absent other addictions e.g. to drugs or alcohol), sexual feelings and sexual attraction are the most "thorn-like" impediments to a more straightforward (but boring?) life.

[@mahatmarandy5977]

@@digitaurus Objectively, we know that he was blind at one point. The large print and talking about people who would give their eyes if it would have helped him seems pretty straightforward. By which I mean those are solid points of evidence we can point to. The interpretation may not be correct, but those are concrete things. The idea that he was gay has absolutely no basis in scripture nor really any extracanonical source, and Paul is absolutely the most anti-gay guy in the New Testament. He was celibate and unmarried, and says that he wished that if it were possible all people could be as he was. So if you wanna make an argument that he had a nonstandard sexuality, I think it'd be much easier to say he was asexual than gay. When we're trying to sort these things out, we need to look at available evidence, which is defined as "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid, without subject to bias." IOW, we have to look at what's available (3 points of evidence) and not what's NOT available (Anything else), or what we want or fear to be true. If we're not gonna do that, then we might as well say that Paul was an 11-foot-tall alien, because the Bible never expressly says he *wasn't* an 11-foot-tall alien. That's just not how historical inquiry works. The idea that Paul was gay seems to be a mid-20th century invention taking place (unsurprisingly) during the 'gay revolution', and whenever a disadvantaged minority is trying to establish themselves by 'claiming' some highly-regarded public figure and saying, 'he was one of us,' in an attempt to gain legitimacy and respect. So, from my looking into it, I see no reason to consider Paul's alleged homosexuality to be any more valid than the claims that Beethoven was secretly African, or that Plato was secretly an Atheist. There's just no evidence to support any of that, and claims like these *require* evidence.

[@rkooyers]

It’s hard to fathom why a mature adult would believe absurd Stone Age ghost stories about talking snakes, golem spell dirt men, enchanted fruit, talking shrubbery, food falling from the sky, a female salt shaker, talking donkeys, Noah's magic zoo boat, ghost sex, alien landings, zombies, magic hair, magical goblins, giants (Bigfoot), magically multiplying food, magic blood, an invisible magic kingdom, the heebie-jeebies, 900 year old humans, and a man who lived in a fish.

[@T-bone1223]

It's not revealed for a reason. Just let it go. The point is God's grace is sufficient for us too.

[@MimiCavelli]

I have a thorn in my mind! It keeps me humble...

[@andrewnichols800]

He said it plainly but we don't believe in demons.

[@MWhite-fq6kh]

Yeah the bible does say he was tormented by demons. But they dont even mention that in the video. Weird….

[@bradw3153]

Severe Sciatica, was always my thought

[@Nah_Bohdi]

He resisted the urge to do the needful.

[@writerblocks9553]

God uses evil he does not cause for his purposes, which are good :)

[@SKF358]

Wine addiction?

[@jameshold668]

He had kidney stones. If you ever passed one you know that is exactly what it feels like.

[@mahatmarandy5977]

Normally I like you guys' stuff a lot and look forward to it, but this one was a little clickbaity. "What was Paul's thorn in the flesh? Dunno, so let's talk about a far more vague concept...."

[@dasdrei5059]

Horrible video. Wrong interpretation of Paul’s thorn in the flesh.

[@carvalone3076]

Could you provide the correct interpretation or reference therein, please? 🙏✝️