If the bible says there is none righteous, no not one, then how can any of us be worthy to partake of the Lord's supper? It is only because the God imparts righteousness on to us when we accept the Lord as our Lord and savior. So when Paul was instructing the believers in Cornith concerning the Lord's supper he said there were many sick and weak and even dead because they didn't discern the body of Christ. They partook in an unworthy manner. Do you think Paul was actually speaking of their sinful lifestyle and they needed to examine themselves and confess sin, OR they came together and ate and drank like it was any old meal. Could it be they didn't discern the Lord's body by understanding Jesus bore all of our sickness and disease on the cross and that by his stripes we are healed? And therefore this was a very special meal and to be treated as such. What do you think?

The reason I ask is because I have heard Pastors say to get really quiet and pray before you take it. Exam your life and see if there is any wicked way... I'm thinking that is NOT what Paul meant. What say you?

Paul's warnings about eating and drinking unworthily are often taken out of context. The context is that, in early Christian communities, the Eucharist was part of a full meal. The wealthier ate and drank to excess while making less important the presence and contributions of the poorer members of the congregation. Paul was angry that some Christians were using the Sacrament -- the very embodiment of Christian community, of believers being as one body in Christ -- not only as an exercise in gluttony, but also as a means of division/disrespect.

When Paul said to discern the body, he was talking about recognizing the community and the needs of one's fellow Christians, not about recognizing the Body of Christ, i.e. the Church, which consists of individual believers. 1 Cor.12:12, "For as the body is one, and hath many members, all the member of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ who is the head."

This all plays into the Second Greatest Commandment and Matthew 25:40: Love one another and "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me."

Yes, agree with Wondergirl, thus the reason that communion has been normally taken out of the social gathering or meal.
As with the Lord his "Last Supper" was part of a real meal they shared together.

But as with all people, they lost the special nature of it, and lost the importance. They were eating too much, drinking too much and the such. And the meal and the social time was becoming the important event not the remembering Christ in it.

OK. Why were they sick, weak and some dead? Because they didn't make it a "special" meal. Or because they didn't understand what Christ did on the cross?

WG... I don't think I agree with you. When Paul is speaking of the body he is clearly speaking of the Lord Jesus and what he physically endured. Just as Christ was speaking of HIS own body and how it would be broken for us.

They were suppose to be Christian just to be at the meal. So we have to assume that they had heard about Christ and should have understood. But then how many church members in our churches today understand. But they were not given Christ the honor of the meal, It would be to me a comparison of going into a church alter area today and not being respectful. Example I remember seeing a janitor one day smoking when he was cleaning up the alter area, he had a cup sat on the alter for his ashes. I was waiting for the lightening to strike.

But then we are to examine ourself, and if we fnd a problem in our life, we are to go take care of it before we come back to the alter

Because some were unworthy in their participation in the Lord's Supper, they not only fell victim to their own intemperance but also may have "provoked God to plague them with divers diseases and sundry kinds of death" (Adam Clarke).

Therefore, Paul may have been speaking of both spiritual and physical sickness, weakness, and death due to their lack of discerning of the body of believers, the Christian community.

Fr_chuck,

Interesting. Now see, I personally don't see the alter of a church as any more important than the back of the church. To me, that is just man made stuff. I'm not trying to be disrespectful but... I don't get it?

And if we examine ourselves, we will ALWAYS find a problem. We will NEVER be worthy without the gift of righteousness. Course I'm speaking of me... I know me best.. I am NOT worthy in and of myself EVEN in when I examine myself.. I always seem to forget something.

Because some were unworthy in their participation in the Lord's Supper, they not only fell victim to their own intemperance but also may have "provoked God to plague them with divers diseases and sundry kinds of death" (Adam Clarke).

Therefore, Paul may have been speaking of both spiritual and physical sickness, weakness, and death due to their lack of discerning.

We are under grace! How are we going to provoke the Lord to give us a plague? Didn't Jesus die for that? What of the verse that states he was bruised for us and by his stripes we are healed. Is God going to give us a disease when he already judged Christ. Do you REALLLY believe that?

We are under grace! How are we going to provoke the Lord to give us a plague? Didn't Jesus die for that? What of the verse that states he was bruised for us and by his stripes we are healed. Is God going to give us a disease when he already judged Christ. do you REALLLY believe that?
But were those who were afflicted ("sick, weak, and dead") under grace? Jesus died for them too and they may have made all the right motions in order to become members, but was the Lord Jesus in their hearts? The manner in which they conducted themselves at the Lord's Table and in the body of community of believers says no.

WG,

I'm slow. Are you saying that these people were not saved? Then why did Paul say they were asleep. If they were dead in their sins... he would have said some of them were dead. He simply said asleep. To me that would indicate they were in fact believers under grace. He was writing to believers. But that is interesting, I have never heard their salvation was in question before.

WG,

I'm slow. Are you saying that these people were not saved? Then why did Paul say they were asleep. If they were dead in their sins...he would have said some of them were dead. He simply said asleep. to me that would indicate they were in fact believers under grace. He was writing to believers. But that is interesting, I have never heard their salvation was in question before.

I've never heard their salvation questioned, either, but I do know that there have been times when God used sickness or even death to discipline people who are brazen enough in their misbehavior. It has nothing to do with being under grace, because the Lord does chasten those he loves.

WG,

I'm slow. Are you saying that these people were not saved? Then why did Paul say they were asleep. If they were dead in their sins...he would have said some of them were dead. He simply said asleep. to me that would indicate they were in fact believers under grace. He was writing to believers. But that is interesting, I have never heard their salvation was in question before.
They ate and drank judgment to themselves, evident by the fact that their behavior did not match their words. They received the Lord's Supper unworthily. They talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk.

Commentaries mostly say the same as Matthew Henry's: "The apostle was addressing Christians, and warning them to beware of the temporal judgements with which God chastised his offending servants. And in the midst of judgement, God remembers mercy: he many times punishes those whom he loves."

I've never heard their salvation questioned, either, but I do know that there have been times when God used sickness or even death to discipline people who are brazen enough in their misbehavior. It has nothing to do with being under grace, because the Lord does chasten those he loves.

Brazen? Ha ha sorry... I enjoyed that word.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... like A&S back in Acts. Not buying it. I discipline my bratty boys all the time... but they are still breathin. I'd have been dead long ago if that is how the Lord deals with us Dave. He corrects us.. he doesn't KILL us. You got to trust me on this... I know I seem so sweet ( cough, cough )and it is hard to believe but I have done far worse than A&S and these guys in Cornith.

Why is it soooo hard to believe they got in trouble because they didn't believe, understand or remember the Lord in his death and what he endured for us on the cross. What does... "by his stripes we are healed" mean?

They ate and drank judgment to themselves, evident by the fact that their behavior did not match their words. They received the Lord's Supper unworthily. They talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk.

Commentaries mostly say the same as Matthew Henry's: "The apostle was addressing Christians, and warning them to beware of the temporal judgements with which God chastised his offending servants. And in the midst of judgement, God remembers mercy: he many times punishes those whom he loves."

But is that what YOU believe? You think they were not even real?

Brazen? ha ha sorry...i enjoyed that word.

yeah, yeah, yeah....like A&S back in Acts. Not buying it. I discipline my bratty boys all the time...but they are still breathin. I'd have been dead long ago if that is how the Lord deals with us Dave. He corrects us..he doesn't KILL us. You got to trust me on this...I know I seem so sweet ( cough, cough )and it is hard to believe but I have done far worse than A&S and these guys in Cornith.

why is it soooo hard to believe they got in trouble because they didn't believe, understand or remember the Lord in his death and what he endured for us on the cross. What does..."by his stripes we are healed" mean?

He sets the criteria for how far my chastisement goes, not I. If God has concluded that some are so far gone the best way to discipline them is in person, that's his prerogative. I might think I was worthy of that level of discipline at some point (several, actually), but clearly He disagreed. That's fine with me. If someday I get so far out there He decides it's time to take me home to deal with me, I'll humbly stand before Him and say "Oops."

"By his stripes we are healed" is another topic that I don't think really has a bearing on this question.

but is that what YOU believe? you think they were not even real?
Huh?

I've never heard their salvation questioned, either, but I do know that there have been times when God used sickness or even death to discipline people who are brazen enough in their misbehavior. It has nothing to do with being under grace, because the Lord does chasten those he loves.
I'm with you. Those Christians apparently ate and drank themselves into a sickbed--or worse, a grave.

Maybe He just hasn't gotten around to chastening classyT yet. ;)

I'm with you. Those Christians apparently ate and drank themselves into a sickbed--or worse, a grave.

Maybe He just hasn't gotten around to chastening classyT yet. ;)

A hearty har har. I have been disciplined. It wasn't a fun time but I'm still alive and kicking. I did far worse than eat or drink too much when I should have been thinking on the Lord.

I'm just saying.. shouldn't we consider that there is something MORE to this than the Lord struck them dead or sick. Couldn't it be they didn't get it. They came together and really didn't get what the Lord Jesus did for them on the cross?

Dave,

I disagree with you. IF I am correct and not on another radical grace tangent, then what Jesus bore on the cross was more than just sin.It was all of our diseases and sickness. They came together and failed to believe it. They ate the meal as if it were any other meal. AND are we not the same today? Ok maybe we don't come together to actually eat a MEAL.
But we come together and we don't discern what all he bore on the cross. That verse in Isaiah 53 IS very much relevant here. I think.

Have I completely gone off the deep end? I just don't believe the Lord takes us when we go too far into sin. And while I don't consider myself a wild woman compared to most people in this world today, I have done FAR worse. But it isn't about our performance.. it is about our belief. And these christian believers in cornith were not believing all they needed to concerning the Lord's work on the cross. I don't even think it was delibrate... it just wasn't important to them. Isn't that the only thing the Lord really can't work with... UNbelief?

something MORE to this than the Lord struck them dead or sick. Couldn't it be they didn't get it. They came together and really didn't get what the Lord Jesus did for them on the cross?

You're not paying attention. The Lord didn't do much of anything -- they mostly did it to themselves with their ghastly, undisciplined eating and drinking and unlovingness.

You're not paying attention. The Lord didn't do much of anything -- they mostly did it to themselves with their ghastly, undisciplined eating and drinking and unlovingness.

Eating and drinking too much only gives most people a bigger bottom. So I am not buying it. It WAS an important thing and they were making light of it but I don't think it was about how much they ate or drank. I think it was more about what they BELIEVED about what they were eating or drinking.

Dave,

I disagree with you. IF i am correct and not on another radical grace tangent, then what Jesus bore on the cross was more than just sin.It was all of our diseases and sickness. They came together and failed to believe it. They ate the meal as if it were any other meal. AND are we not the same today? Ok maybe we don't come together to actually eat a MEAL.
But we come together and we don't discern what all he bore on the cross. That verse in Isaiah 53 IS very much relevant here. I think.


It's a question that's been around for ages: is there healing in the atonement? Read extensively enough and you'll find an array of opinions that covers the entire spectrum from "yes" to "no." My view? Idunno. When Matthew cites the reference in the context of Jesus healing scads of people, he says that prophecy was fulfilled. So maybe Isaiah only foresaw Jesus' public ministry and the miracles of healing that he used to validate his identity. Does God still heal? Yeah, my left hand is constant proof of that. Does the verse refer to ALL our sickness and disease? I wish, because my sister would still be alive. And my neck wouldn't hurt.

One of my favorite things to do is nail faith healers who tell someone "you weren't healed because you didn't have enough faith." Because there's an episode in the gospels where some people brought a person to Jesus for healing when the disciples couldn't do it. When they asked him later why they couldn't heal the person, he said "Because of YOUR lack of faith." I.e. the lack of faith was on the part of the healER, not the healEE. The ones that really are charlatans can't handle that and usually get angry. At that point I will rest my case and walk away.

But we digress. As I said, I think the question of healing in the atonement is somewhat separate from this question of participating in the Lord's table in an unworthy manner. I see what you're saying, but I don't really think the two questions are bound up in each other in any essential way.

then what Jesus bore on the cross was more than just sin.It was all of our diseases and sickness.
Then why do Christians still get sick?

I think those Corinthians were saved, but just got out of hand and forgot that tidbit during the pleasures of the meals and lording it over "lesser" Christians. The main thing Paul pointed out was, don't partake of the Lord's Supper without examining your heart and asking for forgiveness. As Matthew Henry wrote: "If we would thoroughly search ourselves, to condemn and set right what we find wrong, we should stop Divine judgements."

Then why do Christians still get sick?



Back in the early 80's I was working in a Christian bookstore; this was around the time that the whole "prosperity gospel" was picking up steam. I was at work one day and was battling a nasty cold. A local pastor was checking out, and while working the register I was chatting with him. I handed him his receipt and as he turned to go he looked at the woman in line after him and said "Keep your distance. He has a cold." She grinned and said "That's okay, I don't receive germs any more."

Bear in mind, this was before I went on ADD medication, so in normal fashion I just blurted out the first thing that came to my mind:

"That's nice, but they don't always ring the doorbell first." :D

I figured I'd toss that little tee-hee out just for fun. I'm enjoying this discussion but I may be out of touch for a few days. The family and I are heading out of town for most of the week and I don't know what kind of access I'm going to have while we're gone.

Later, all!

Yes, and all of the 12 ( or 11) followers of Christ all retired rich and without sickness to mansions on the ocean front.

Fr Chuck,

They didn't die from sickness or disease. They died horrible deaths for the Lord Jesus according to history BUT they weren't sick.

I don't know, I am not sayiing I have it right. I just don't know.

Fr Chuck,

They didn't die from sickness or disease. They died horrible deaths for the Lord Jesus according to history BUT they weren't sick.

I don't know, I am not sayiing I have it right. I just don't know.
It doesn't say they died horrible deaths; they weren't struck down like A&S. I'm thinking their overindulgences and nastinesses caught up with them fairly quickly, and Paul linked that with their behavior at the Lord's Table and their general attitude about poorer Christians. A medical examiner would have had a field day.

Tradition has Paul, he talks of a "thorn in the flesh" some problem that effected him, He also refers to "slow of speech"

And of course there would be no need for Healing, which we are told that the followers of Christ can do, if there was no illness or sickness to heal.

Then why do Christians still get sick?

I think those Corinthians were saved, but just got out of hand and forgot that tidbit during the pleasures of the meals and lording it over "lesser" Christians. The main thing Paul pointed out was, don't partake of the Lord's Supper without examining your heart and asking for forgiveness. As Matthew Henry wrote: "If we would thoroughly search ourselves, to condemn and set right what we find wrong, we should stop Divine judgements."

Maybe we get sick because we don't believe that he bore all of our diseases. Unbelief is the only thing that God can't and won't work with.
And I am not saying that people don't have enough faith. It isn't about enough.. it is about not believing that the gospel is MORE than just for salvation. It is believing he bore EVERYTHING on the cross, including the curse.

I don't know if that is what the verse means WG. I use to believe that is what it meant. But none of us are without sin anytime we come to take the elements. SO maybe it is examining what we believe about them. Maybe it is about what we believe concerning the finished work on the cross.

It doesn't say they died horrible deaths; they weren't struck down like A&S. I'm thinking their overindulgences and nastinesses caught up with them fairly quickly, and Paul linked that with their behavior at the Lord's Table and their general attitude about poorer Christians. A medical examiner would have had a field day.

I was referring to the 12 disciples that Fr_chuck mentioned. They didn't die of disease according the history.

Back in the early 80's I was working in a Christian bookstore; this was around the time that the whole "prosperity gospel" was picking up steam. I was at work one day and was battling a nasty cold. A local pastor was checking out, and while working the register I was chatting with him. I handed him his receipt and as he turned to go he looked at the woman in line after him and said "Keep your distance. He has a cold." She grinned and said "That's okay, I don't receive germs any more."

Bear in mind, this was before I went on ADD medication, so in normal fashion I just blurted out the first thing that came to my mind:

"That's nice, but they don't always ring the doorbell first." :D

I figured I'd toss that little tee-hee out just for fun. I'm enjoying this discussion but I may be out of touch for a few days. The family and I are heading out of town for most of the week and I don't know what kind of access I'm going to have while we're gone.

Later, all!

Have fun Dave!

SO maybe it is examining what we believe about them. Maybe it is about what we believe concerning the finished work on the cross.
Maybe it means we are saved and living in God's grace, but are still caught in a sinful condition, must examine our actions and attitudes for where we have failed, then repent and ask for forgiveness, and try harder to show love.

Well, I use to think that we needed to examine ourselves and see if there is any wicked way in us before we came to the Lord's table. But the truth is, even when I would ask the Lord to reveal everything, I would later remember something I hadn't confessed. I just don't think Paul was saying these people died, were sick and weak because of their shananigans. I think they didn't understand the importance of what they were doing and THAT is what went wrong. I don't even believe the Lord was disciplining them for not understanding. I think that because of their lack of knowledge and wrong BELIEVING that is why they were ill. God says his people perish for lack of knowledge. They simply didn't BELIEVE the Lord's table was something BIG. And I don't think we believe it today. We go through the motions.

I don't believe God is judging anyone of us by what we do when we are in Christ.

When the Lord instructed the 12 in the upper room before he was cruicified, he never told them to search their hearts. He told them what the bread represented and what the wine represented. All he said was to do it and remember him. Why? Because we show the Lord's death until he comes. What does THAT mean? Couldn't it mean that not only does the Lord's death save us from hell but also the curse and all that came with it.

I just don't think Paul was saying these people died, were sick and weak because of their shananigans.
Well, that's what I've always been told, plus I checked five commentaries before I posted. All five agreed with what I had been taught. Just sayin'.

Ok... I've been told that too. But why didn't the Lord tell them that when they had the last supper together. What does.. showing the Lord's death until he comes mean?

I hope I never just go by what someone says because they are smarter than I am in the word. Maybe they are all wrong and I'm right. Ha ha.. headstrong and myself are lonely souls with no one to agree with us. :D

But why didn't the Lord tell them that when they had the last supper together.
Who was at the Last Supper? Compare that to the verses (and NT people) we have been talking about.

Ok, there was a guy named Thomas who doubted the Lord, There was a guy named Peter who thought way more highly of himself than he should have, there was Judas Iscariot who betrayed Jesus.. I guess it was a bunch of sinners who needed a savior. Same as the guys in cornith.

Ok, there was a guy named Thomas who doubted the Lord, There was a guy named Peter who thought way more highly of himself than he should have, there was Judas Iscariot who betrayed Jesus.. I guess it was a bunch of sinners who needed a savior. Same as the guys in cornith.
But those guys breathed the same air as Jesus for three years. Jesus had spoken often of repentance and forgiveness. The Last Supper with the Twelve was the first time that meal was observed, the first time it happened, and it had a different emphasis from Corinth or now.

Tradition has Paul, he talks of a "thorn in the flesh" some problem that effected him, He also refers to "slow of speech"

And of course there would be no need for Healing, which we are told that the followers of Christ can do, if there was no illness or sickness to heal.

Once again, I always believed it was a REAL problem with his physical body. But now I don't think so. Look this guy just had to touch a piece of cloth and people were healed. I can't imagine him running around with a physical problem and he has the gift of healing. I once heard someone say his thorn was a personal sin. I think that is soooo wrong. Paul learned to die daily. That couldn't have been it either. I don't know what it was but I am starting to think it wasn't a sickenss or physical issue. If it was a messenger of Satan... it had to be something or someone bothering him. That's my take. Not that anyone asked.

it had to be something or someone bothering him. Thats my take. not that anyone asked.
I've read in a number of places that Paul may have been a homosexual. The treatment he got when he entered various communities doesn't make sense if he had a physical infirmity or deformity, even something as awful as leprosy. He had tremendous self-loathing. He had great disdain for exploitative homosexual activity in pagan temples. He never married. There was a constant war between what he desired in his mind and what he desired in his body.

We'll never know in this life if Paul was really gay. A scandal? Yes, but then Jesus was born apparently illegitimate, hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors, and was crucified like a common criminal. Sometimes "scandals" are the way God works. Paul defined grace for the Christian. Grace is the ineffable love of God, an unconditional love, that loved Paul just as he was.

WG,

Now see, that is what one woman brought up at a bible study I was attending. I don't believe that for one single second. There is absolutely NO evidence of that. I have heard people say that about our Lord too. Just because John called himself the disciple who Jesus loved. It has NOTHING in the world to do with hating homosexuals either. I feel the same when they imply the Lord had a thing for Mary of Magdala. I dislike very much when people try to put any kind of sinful nature to the Lord Jesus. Jesus didn't come here to fall in love and get married and lust. He didn't have a thing for John or Mary. UGH..

And I sincerely doubt Paul was homosexual. For the LOVE, he totally condmened it. He wasn't married. So big deal, lots of people are single. And I have experienced the same war Paul spoke of in Romans 7. Geesh. It doesn't mean it was a sexual war. Anyone who gets saved and tries to live pleasing to Jesus will be in that same war. Just losing my temper, or not getting my way, or giving up things I want that aren't good for me can put me in that very struggle that Paul spoke about.

Jesus hung out with sinners, tax collectors and prostitues but I can assure you they weren't turning tricks or swindling money after spending hours listening to the Lord. We ALL have a past. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

That sort of fact-less based thinking sickens me. Unfortunately we can expect this type of thought from the world... it just saddens me that people miss the SIMPLE message of the Gospel and try and turn love into something filthy and perverse.

Comment from HH
That sort of fact-less based thinking sickens me. Unfortunately we can expect this type of thought from the world...it just saddens me that people miss the SIMPLE message of the Gospel and try and turn love into something filthy and perverse

Thanks for the "reddie." I did not deserve that.

I said I'd read that about Paul (and classyT mentioned she had heard it at a Bible class), but I didn't say I believed it.

I think it's important for Christians to know what's out there that doesn't agree with their beliefs and be able to refute it.

We are all very aware of what is out there... but it doesn't mean it needs to be spread. Like I said, that kind of thing can really screw someone up who is naïve enough to believe it. YES, the bible was written by men, but we also have to recognize who inspired it. God is NOT going to use a homosexual like that. God is NOT going to call homosexuality an abomination and then turn around and have a nice little homosexual man write most of the New Testament. The Blood of Jesus Christ is not a sin credit card and DOES NOT EXCUSE A WILLING SINFUL LIFESTYLE. I know that is "offensive" in this day and age, but quite frankly being "P.C." is what is screwing this society. When are Christians going to stand up for what the Bible actually says and not what they WANT it to say? I am in NO way preaching hatred towards homosexuals... they need to be shown love just like anybody else... but there is a call to holiness in the Christian life than is being all but forgotten by today's church.

Next how dare you assume what God can or can't use for his works

Remember a old Testement man who had sex with his daughters. A OT leader and King who sleep with someone else's wife and had them killed to have her.
Or even Paul who was a killer and murder of many early Christians.

Sorry I assumed wrong in what you believe.

Comment by HH
Sorry I assumed wrong in what you believe.

I accept your apology. Thank you for saying that.

If I offended you, I am sorry.

I never said we get away with sin with no consequences. David was SEVERALLY rebuked because of his actions. And I'm sure Paul's past haunted him until the day he died. Paul's thorn was NOT homosexuality. God's not going to say "sure, go ahead and live in sin, my grace is enough to cover that." He will work with us through our sin and meet us there to change us... but to actively live a lifestyle that way is not something He is going to bless.

I never said God CAN'T do anything... but there are some things He WON'T do. Judging from scripture, it's a fairly safe assumption.

God's not going to say "sure, go ahead and live in sin, my grace is enough to cover that."
I never said Paul actively lived as a homosexual. (A homosexual can be a Christian just as a Christian can be a homosexual.) In fact, I mentioned that Paul wrote that his flesh wanted him to do one thing and his mind/will another, and he struggled mightily over that. He definitely was stressed about something.

Oh, no doubt. But there are some that reference his "thorn" as dealing with that sin.

Struggling with a temptation/sin is one thing. But to actively live the lifestyle is another situation altogether. The Blood of Jesus does not give up license to do whatever we want. Sin is still sin.

Struggling with a temptation/sin is one thing. But to actively live the lifestyle is another situation altogether.
So you see there is a difference? One can be a homosexual and not live as one?

I think ALL of us have been where Paul has. Romans 7 is where I have lived most of my Christian life because I didn't get the revelation of Romans 8. I don't think Paul is unusual and I certainly don't think I am. In fact, haven't you ever been there WG... torn between what you know you should do and what you WANT to do.

Tess,
Paul specifically said his "thorn in the flesh" was given to keep him from getting too proud, so there's no reason he couldn't have had some physical ailment. Based on the last verses of Galatians, some believe he had poor vision. I can empathize with that, me and my progressive bifocals. Whatever it was, he didn't see any inconsistency between it and his gift of healing.

Based on his extensive understanding of the subject, I also firmly believe Paul was married at some point in his life. It was part and parcel of the whole Pharisee thing, so I suspect he was widowed. But he knew an awful lot about marriage for someone who had never actually been there.

Dave,

I know. I think he was married at one time because of him being involved with that certain sect of pharisee's.

I always thought it was his vision too. I just really like Joseph Prince ( Grace preacher) and he believes that Jesus did much more than save us from our sins. That he bore all of our diseases and poverty too. I want it all if it is in fact the truth.

Does it bug you when people imply that paul struggled with some personal sin. I have even heard masturbation. UGH... makes me mad. And don't you think every single christian winds up in Romans 7 at some point in their life? I do. He wasn't so strange.. it is normal.

I always thought it was his vision too.
2nd Corinthians 12:8, "For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me." I find it difficult to believe that a man as strong and as faithful as Paul would be so distraught as to plead with the Lord three times to have poor eyesight or a physical ailment removed.

2nd Corinthians 12:8, "For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me." I find it difficult to believe that a man as strong and as faithful as Paul would be so distraught as to plead with the Lord three times to have poor eyesight or a physical ailment removed.

Maybe it was a case of really bad pink eye. They didn't have antibiotics back then. Just a thought

maybe it was a case of really bad pink eye. They didn't have antibiotics back then. just a thought
Pink eye doesn't last that long, even without treatment.

Oh... well you know he was struck blind by the Lord Jesus on the road to damascus. He also mentions something about how big he has to write. It is possible it was something with his eyes.. if it was in face a physical problem. Not convinced...

If you're not a practicing one... then you aren't one. Just because someone is tempted as such... doesn't mean they have to follow it. So, NO, one can not be a homosexual unless they act on it.

Hauntin helper,

Well you know I guess I sort of agree with you on that. I really hate labels unless it is CHRISTIAN. I like that one! One of the biggest reasons that I dislike the 12 step programs is because in meetings people are constantly getting up repeating over and over that they are a drug addict, alcoholic, sex addict, whatever. NO THANK YOU. There is power in the tongue.

Very much so. You don't have to be what you're tempted to be. You are what your actions make you.

We must remember that the Lord also prayed to have his burden taken from him, but he went on for Gods will. In his flesh the Lord also did not want to endure what was ahead.

So even being strong does not mean one will not plead or pray to the Lord to have a burden taken