Was the Apostle Paul a Mental Case?

[inquirringmind]

I've been told.

It is hypothesized by some that Paul had mental instability due to injuries sustained from having been stoned - that this was the famous "thorn in the flesh".

And that the book of Galatians may record one of his mental "episodes."

I believe Peter was born again on the day of Pentecost, and I believe he did sin and repent after that.

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? (Gal. 2:11-14.)

I think rather this may well have been a demonstration of one of Paul's ... interesting episodes.

As an investigator, can anyone tell me if that's a common Mormon point of view?

When Joseph Smith Jr. said "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly (8th article of faith)," does that mean except for what was written by The Apostle Paul during one of his mental episodes?

[log]

I didn't say "mental episodes". Just to clarify. Thanks for not putting that phrase in my mouth.

[inquirringmind]

I didn't say "mental episodes". Just to clarify. Thanks for not putting that phrase in my mouth.

You said "interesting episodes," and when asked to explain what you meant by that you said "It is hypothesized by some that Paul had mental instability due to injuries sustained from having been stoned - that this was the famous 'thorn in the flesh".

If you didn't mean "mental episodes," please clarify yourself.

[log]

I decline to clarify myself. I will thank you for not putting words in my mouth.

[inquirringmind]

I haven't put any words in your mouth.

Your meaning is obvious (unless you choose to clarify yourself.)

[log]

Apparently it's not obvious, or clarification would not be requested. Thanks for not putting words in my mouth.

[inquirringmind]

Apparently it's not obvious, or clarification would not be requested. Thanks for not putting words in my mouth.

I haven't put words in your mouth.

You used the word "mental," and you used the word "episodes."

It is hypothesized by some that Paul had mental instability due to injuries sustained from having been stoned - that this was the famous "thorn in the flesh".

I think rather this may well have been a demonstration of one of Paul's ... interesting episodes.

Those are your words, and I have not put them in your mouth.

All I've done is ask you to clarify them (and without clarification, they can only be taken one way.)

[Hyrcanus]

I've been told.

It is hypothesized by some that Paul had mental instability due to injuries sustained from having been stoned - that this was the famous "thorn in the flesh".

And that the book of Galatians may record one of his mental "episodes."

I believe Peter was born again on the day of Pentecost, and I believe he did sin and repent after that.

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? (Gal. 2:11-14.)

I think rather this may well have been a demonstration of one of Paul's ... interesting episodes.

As an investigator, can anyone tell me if that's a common Mormon point of view?

When Joseph Smith Jr. said "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly (8th article of faith)," does that mean except for what was written by The Apostle Paul during one of his mental episodes?

Two thoughts.

First, I don't believe it is a common belief among Mormons, although I have nothing to support that other than my own observations.

Second, would it substantially damage your view of Paul if you learned he suffered from some mental issues? Would God need to call someone else if Paul had some form of schizophrenia? What about severe depression?

[log]

Apparently it's not obvious, or clarification would not be requested. Thanks for not putting words in my mouth.

I haven't put words in your mouth.

You uses the word "mental," and you used the word "episodes."

I have not used the phrase "mental episodes" with respect to Paul. I will thank you to cease and desist from attempting to place that phrase in my mouth.

And that is covered under the phrase "putting words in my mouth," as you well know.

[inquirringmind]

First, I don't believe it is a common belief among Mormons, although I have nothing to support that other than my own observations.

Thank you.

Second, would it substantially damage your view of Paul if you learned he suffered from some mental issues?

I don't think there's any evidence that Paul suffered from mental issues.

What about severe depression?

That wouldn't bother me, but I don't think he had that problem.

Most of us would probably experience situational depression if we suffered all that he suffered, but he seems to have been content regardless of his physical circumstances, and to have endured it all with faith, hope, and courage.

Would God need to call someone else if Paul had some form of schizophrenia?

Schizophrenia is a form of psychosis, and I don't believe he could have performed his functions as an Apostle and prophet if he were psychotic.

And it would call his testimony and his writings into question if he had auditory and visual hallucinations.

[inquirringmind]

Apparently it's not obvious, or clarification would not be requested. Thanks for not putting words in my mouth.

I haven't put words in your mouth.

You uses the word "mental," and you used the word "episodes."

I have not used the phrase "mental episodes" with respect to Paul. I will thank you to cease and desist from attempting to place that phrase in my mouth.

And that is covered under the phrase "putting words in my mouth," as you well know.

Get real.

You used the words "mental instability," and "interesting episodes" in respect to Paul (as you well know.)

If you want to clarify your meaning (though it seems obvious to me, and I don't really see what fine points you could possibly make to explain your words to mean anything less than they suggest to me), please do so yourself.

I've given you multiple opportunities.

I have not put words in your mouth.

[log]

I haven't put words in your mouth.

You uses the word "mental," and you used the word "episodes."

I have not used the phrase "mental episodes" with respect to Paul. I will thank you to cease and desist from attempting to place that phrase in my mouth.

And that is covered under the phrase "putting words in my mouth," as you well know.

Get real.

You used the words "mental instability," and "interesting episodes" in respect to Paul (as you well know you did.)

If you want to clarify your meaning (though it seems obvious to me, and I don't really see what fine points you could possibly make to explain your words to mean anything less than they suggest to me), please do so yourself.

I've given you multiple opportunities.

I have not put words in your mouth.

You said this, sandwiched between two quotes from me.

And that the book of Galatians may record one of his mental "episodes."

You asserted

If you didn't mean "mental episodes,"...

And then

Your meaning is obvious...

So, I think this is as real as it gets.

Please cease and desist from attempting to place the phrase "mental episodes" in my mouth with respect to Paul.

[inquirringmind]

In speaking of the exchange between Peter and Paul (recorded in the book of Galatians), you said:

I think rather this may well have been a demonstration of one of Paul's ... interesting episodes.

When I asked you what you meant by this, you said:

It is hypothesized by some that Paul had mental instability due to injuries sustained from having been stoned - that this was the famous "thorn in the flesh".

Notice the underlined words Log.

Do you deny that they were yours?

Do you deny that you were speaking in reference to the Apostle Paul?

If there is anything to clarify here, do it yourself (and cease and desist from denying that you said what we both know you said.)

[log]

In speaking of the exchange between Peter and Paul (recorded in the book of Galatians), you said:

I think rather this may well have been a demonstration of one of Paul's ... interesting episodes.

When I asked you what you meant by this, you said:

It is hypothesized by some that Paul had mental instability due to injuries sustained from having been stoned - that this was the famous "thorn in the flesh".

Notice the underlined words Log.

Do you deny that they were yours?

Do you deny that you were speaking in reference to the Apostle Paul?

If there is anything to clarify here, do it yourself (and cease and desist from denying that you said what we both know you said.)

I have no need to clarify anything other than I never used the phrase "mental episode" with respect to Paul, as you have attempted to make it appear, and I will thank you to cease from attempting to place that phrase in my mouth.

That's all. I have no purpose in this thread except to get that particular point - that I never used the phrase "mental episodes" with respect to Paul - clarified.

[inquirringmind]

In speaking of the exchange between Peter and Paul (recorded in the book of Galatians), you said:

I think rather this may well have been a demonstration of one of Paul's ... interesting episodes.

When I asked you what you meant by this, you said:

It is hypothesized by some that Paul had mental instability due to injuries sustained from having been stoned - that this was the famous "thorn in the flesh".

Notice the underlined words Log.

Do you deny that they were yours?

Do you deny that you were speaking in reference to the Apostle Paul?

If there is anything to clarify here, do it yourself (and cease and desist from denying that you said what we both know you said.)

I have no need to clarify anything other than I never used the phrase "mental episode" with respect to Paul, as you have attempted to make it appear, and I will thank you to cease from attempting to place that phrase in my mouth.

That's all. I have no purpose in this thread except to get that particular point - that I never used the phrase "mental episodes" with respect to Paul - clarified.

The particular point I want to get across here is that you used the words "mental" and "episodes" in respect to the Apostle Paul, and I did not put those "words" in your mouth.

If it makes you happy, I will acknowledge here that you did not stick those two words right next to each other in one sentence, but unless you want to clarify what you meant by calling the verbal exchange between Peter and Paul (recorded in the book of Galatians) one of Paul's "interesting episodes," and then suggesting that he suffered "mental instability," the point you're trying to make is meaningless.

[log]

If it makes you happy, I will acknowledge here that you did not stick those two words right next to each other in one sentence, but unless you want to clarify what you meant by calling the verbal exchange between Peter and Paul (recorded in the book of Galatians) one of Paul's "interesting episodes," and then suggesting that he suffered "mental instability," the point you're trying to make is meaningless.

Thank you for acknowledging the truth.

Just because you think the point I'm trying to make is meaningless doesn't mean that it is meaningless.

Have a good thread, and a good night.

[inquirringmind]

Are you trying to make a meaningful distinction between "mental instability" and "mental episodes," or are trying to make some meaningful distinction between "mental episodes" and "... interesting episodes"? 8-|

Whatever distinction you're trying to make here, you still suggested that The Apostle Paul suffered from "mental instability," and you' clearly said that you think the second chapter of Galatians is "a demonstration of one of Paul's ... interesting episodes."

It is hypothesized by some that Paul had mental instability due to injuries sustained from having been stoned - that this was the famous "thorn in the flesh".

I believe Peter was born again on the day of Pentecost, and I believe he did sin and repent after that.

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? (Gal. 2:11-14.)

I think rather this may well have been a demonstration of one of Paul's ... interesting episodes.

Are you sure there isn't anything you'd like to clarify?

If not, I still don't see how my paraphrase of your comments was anything but fair.

[drjme]

I've been told.

It is hypothesized by some that Paul had mental instability due to injuries sustained from having been stoned - that this was the famous "thorn in the flesh".

And that the book of Galatians may record one of his mental "episodes."

I believe Peter was born again on the day of Pentecost, and I believe he did sin and repent after that.

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? (Gal. 2:11-14.)

I think rather this may well have been a demonstration of one of Paul's ... interesting episodes.

As an investigator, can anyone tell me if that's a common Mormon point of view?

When Joseph Smith Jr. said "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly (8th article of faith)," does that mean except for what was written by The Apostle Paul during one of his mental episodes?

what do you see that is so confusing about this situation?

[inquirringmind]

I find it confusing that one who claims to believe in the standard works of the COJCOLDS would suggest that the author of two thirds of the new testament (one of the standard works) suffered from "mental instability," and that the words he addressed to Peter in the second chapter of Galatians (which Christians and Mormons regard as scripture) are the product of one of his "...interesting episodes."

I've asked the poster who made those comments to clarify his meaning, but he's declined to do so, while repeatedly insisting that he did not use the exact phrase "mental episodes," and I find that confusing. :-\

Don't you?

Do you see some meaningful distinction between "...interesting episodes" caused by "mental instability," and "mental episodes"?

I would like to know if other Mormons share Log's pov here?

Do you think the Apostle Paul suffered from mental instability?

Do you think the second chapter of Galatians was one of his "...interesting episodes"?

And if you do, would you shy away from saying he had "mental episodes"?

[AGStacker]

Being a Mormon for 27 years I've never heard anything about Paul being a mental case.

[inquirringmind]

Being a Mormon for 27 years I've never heard anything about Paul being a mental case.

Thank you.

[log]

Do you see some meaningful distinction between "...interesting episodes" caused by "mental instability," and "mental episodes"?

Please cease and desist from attempting to place the phrase ""interesting episodes" caused by "mental instability"" in my mouth. I never said that either, and I decline in advance to clarify anything I have said beyond what I have already said.

[inquirringmind]

Please cease and desist from attempting to place the phrase ""interesting episodes" caused by "mental instability"" in my mouth. I never said that either...

Those are two phrases (not one), and you did use them.

You used those exact phrases in reference to the Apostle Paul, and you used them in the context of suggesting that the second chapter of Galatians was one of a number of episodes caused by Paul's hypothesized mental instability.

The record is clear.

This is exactly what you said (in regards to Paul and his encounter with Peter in the second chapter of Galatians.)

I think rather this may well have been a demonstration of one of Paul's ... interesting episodes.

When I asked you what you meant, you posted this:

Earlier in this thread you asked me for some straightforward answers, and I gave them to you.

May I now ask you what you mean by "one of Paul's interesting episodes"?

It is hypothesized by some that Paul had mental instability due to injuries sustained from having been stoned - that this was the famous "thorn in the flesh".

I think it's clear that Peter was in the wrong here, but if he wasn't, wouldn't that mean that Paul was?

It does seem that is the choice.

So you're not suggesting that he wasn't abiding in Christ when he confronted Peter, and wrote Galatians, 1 and 2nd Corinthians, and Philippians, are you?

It is possible. Can't really know without getting the answer directly from God, can we?

Care to clarify?

[drjme]

I find it confusing that one who claims to believe in the standard works of the COJCOLDS would suggest that the author of two thirds of the new testament (one of the standard works) suffered from "mental instability," and that the words he addressed to Peter in the second chapter of Galatians (which Christians and Mormons regard as scripture) are the product of one of his "...interesting episodes."

I've asked the poster who made those comments to clarify his meaning, but he's declined to do so, while repeatedly insisting that he did not use the exact phrase "mental episodes," and I find that confusing. :-\

Don't you?

Do you see some meaningful distinction between "...interesting episodes" caused by "mental instability," and "mental episodes"?

I would like to know if other Mormons share Log's pov here?

Do you think the Apostle Paul suffered from mental instability?

Do you think the second chapter of Galatians was one of his "...interesting episodes"?

And if you do, would you shy away from saying he had "mental episodes"?

I think this passage is very simple to understand and cant see how it can be misunderstood and see paul having any sort or 'interesting' or 'mental' episode.
log, though, Likes to see things that aren't there, and likes to waste peoples time in pointless arguments, as you have just spent some time arguing with a point she implied, but once call her out on she will deny she implied anything. It seems to me she likes to use such pointless arguments to get 'one up', or whatever it is its boring.

NIV tells the story in plain english, log though, it appears, does herself a disservice by not accepting any version except the KJV.

Paul Opposes Cephas

When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

“We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

“But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.

“For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”

pretty straightforward and consistent with His NT teachings. I can only guess what log gets from this.

[log]

I can only guess what log gets from this.

That would be precisely my point.