Steven Carr

There don't have to be real angels from Satan before somebody can think they are being tormented by real angels from Satan.

When Paul talks about an angelos of Satan, do any commentaries say he thought he was being tormented by one of those creatures?

storytime

Jesus had said that the gospel must be preached in all the world and then the end would come.

Paul says that the gospel had been preached in all the world and yet the end had not come.

Maybe the thorn in his flesh was doubt and of which he contemplated the faith he had left was enough to sustain him in his belief.

Or.. maybe the thorn was describing an actual enemy, such as the merchant who made idols of Diana for sale to the believers in that goddess. Paul said he had caused him much distress.

OT prophets wrote how God was credited with leaving seven nations that would be thorns in the side of Israel because Israel did not exterminate them all.

I think I'll go with Paul being doubtful in what he preached was truth. The end had not come with the gospel being preached in all the world, so he was probably disappointed but not enough to call his efforts misguided. Like preachers today Paul simply excused himself and moved on to another present day problem with the church.

storytime

Satan was said to disguise himself as a minister of light. Pretending to be righteous when he was actually promoting evil. I would compare Satan to George Bush and his demons of democracy.

However, Paul was probably aiming his statements at his Jewish leaders whom he feared would kill him. The anti-Christs already being recognized by Paul within their midst, (for there were many anti-Christs who made a vow to kill Paul) those who denied Jesus was the Christ. The Pharisees in particular who paraded themselves as righteous but failed to observe[keep] the laws themselves. (no mercy just because they were human) And the Sadducees who neither believed in angels or spirits or resurrection.

S.C.Carlson

I'll raise this question in my 2 Corinthians class this term.

Stephen

DCHindley

Its a crying shame Ben will miss this, but I think for a change he has not thought through this Satan thing. Satan, in Job, is an angel of God sent by God to tempt the man into blaspheming God. Wasn't it God himself who smote (or was it authorized Satan to smote) the poor man, took his children and goods and health to prove to Satan that Job would not blaspheme him?

Do not confuse Satan or satans with daimones which existed in the popular mind to explain how bad - as well as good - things occur. The whole universe is full of powers that effect things at the command of higher powers, like a hierarchy. My guess is the idea derives from Zoroastrianism, but maybe it was more widely believed than that. Zoroastrian magi (priests) were supposedly able to exert control these beings by knowing the passwords and sigils that will tell them when to act and whom to affect.

So, then, when "Paul" says "On account of this, in order that I may not be overly lifted-up, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger (angel) of satan, in order that he/it may be slapping me ..." it is understandable that some might take this as a reference to temptation of some kind. Why should someone suspect homosexuality? I don't know for certain, but suspect that it has more to do with temptations of the critic projected onto Paul than anything Paul may have been actually tempted by.

Elsewhere, flesh and spirit are used as metaphors for human urges and godly impulses, so perhaps it is nothing more than Paul expressing periodic doubt about the very message he feels he has been divinely appointed to deliver. If he really has such a wild and confused way of thinking (and he does, no question, if the writings attributed to him are taken at face value), he may well have some sort of bi-polar disorder, and these disorders are often accompanied by manic-depressive symptoms.

Look at it from his POV. He is not making headway like he thinks he should: any small successes he is able to achieve are offset by too many insults, shortness of necessities, harassment by others, or another distressing situation gets in his way (vs 10). Just when he wants to give up and complains to God that his glass is always half empty, God shows him instead that it is really half full: When you are weak, even little successes seem big.

It ain't much, but its is better than dwelling on whether he was blind from his Damascus vision (them scales you know), or vexed by all those whippings and cudgel blows, etc. Or was it emphysema from inhaling seawater while surviving one of those shipwrecks? That is not how he uses "flesh" in the other writings attributed to him, whether dispute or no. They always refer to psychological attributes, although those who indulge in the fleshy ones are given over to unhealthy living and even unhealthy bodies, it seems.

DCH

Doug Shaver

I have no problem believing he was sane.

As best I can tell, the existence of an oral tradition is strongly implied by two presuppositions that govern most historicist theorizing: (1) There was a real Jesus, and (2) the gospels contain some factual information about the man.

Most scholars, except those committed to certain evangelical dogmas, accept the fact that the gospels could not have been written by, or dependent on, eyewitnesses. The only other source the authors could have used was oral tradition. Therefore, there existed an oral tradition.

Sheshbazzar

Week after week the Fundy televangelists relate the details of their many "conversations" with Gawd and Jee'ses.
They claim that this, that, or the other one of the big-three carries on conversations with them day in and day out, not just on a few rare occasions like old Paul. They now-days got a high-tech direct sattelite link-up to high-heaven, all lines are open and every call is answered in person, and answered with intricately detailed instructions, that would put Paul's few paltry communications to shame.
"Yeaaa'ah, I asked Gawd for a new Lincoln auto'mo'bile.....and'ah he said'ah to me'ah....
To hear them talk, it sounds like many of them won't even take a shit unless they first ask for gawds permission, and he gives them a favorable reply.

So, I don't think the ancient preachers were any more insane than that group that you can tune into on any given Sunday.
There were suckers then just like there are suckers now, are all those that are suckerd in by these preachers glib lines, and imaginary conversations with Jee'bus insane?
Naw, I wouldn't go quite that far, maybe some, but there are some better, other words that describe the majority of cases.

Solo

Three control questions which will instantly qualify your belief:

1) Have you registered Galatians 1:15 ?


2) Have you ever heard the terms "ideas of reference" and "delusions of reference" ? What are they and to what mental challenges do they usually refer ?

3) Do you know another historical person who believed God imparted on him (her) the knowledge of the ultimate secrets of the creation which God was about to destroy, and whose sanity was not questioned ?

Much obliged.

Jiri

Solo

Here is a small quiz. I believe there is hard-to-argue-against textual evidence Paul knew he was perceived as a person of questionable sanity by the community at large.

What verses from the genuine Paulines do you think bespeak of this knowledge, directly or indirectly ?

Jiri

Analyst

Actually that is a reasonable hypothesis. Our brains are substantially different from those of other mammals and we haven't existed long enough to breed all of the defects out. Further, we tend to protect the mentally ill and not prevent them from breeding as would happen with other species.