Was the Apostle Paul a Mental Case?

[SkyBird]

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?

I think anyone who thinks Apostle Paul was a mental case falls into the same folly as Laman and Lemuel:

" Now this he spake because of the stiffneckedness of Laman and Lemuel; for behold they did murmur in many things against their father, because he was a visionary man, and had led them out of the land of Jerusalem, to leave the land of their inheritance, and their gold, and their silver, and their precious things, to perish in the wilderness. And this they said he had done because of the foolish imaginations of his heart."
(Book of Mormon | 1 Nephi 2:11)

[inquirringmind]

Thank you SkyBird.

[drjme]

I can only guess what log gets from this.

That would be precisely my point.

what is the point if you have none

[Epistemology]

I can only guess what log gets from this.

That would be precisely my point.

what is the point if you have none

Logs point is that you can only guess what his point is and that guessing makes your assumptions erroneous.

Unfortunately logs refusal to admit his meaning of the two statements in question, which is clear to all who can read, shows that he uses distraction techniques and doesn't take ownership of much of anything.

[lemuel]

Unfortunately logs refusal to admit his meaning, which is clear to all who can read, shows that he uses distraction techniques and doesn't take ownership of much of anything.

Out with it log. Are you or are you not Gob Bluth?

[Epistemology]

Unfortunately logs refusal to admit his meaning, which is clear to all who can read, shows that he uses distraction techniques and doesn't take ownership of much of anything.

Out with it log. Are you or are you not Gob Bluth?

I wish I had a video for me...

[inquirringmind]

Logs point is that you can only guess what his point is and that guessing makes your assumptions erroneous.

Unfortunately logs refusal to admit his meaning of the two statements in question, which is clear to all who can read, shows that he uses distraction techniques and doesn't take ownership of much of anything.

Log says that I'm judging him unrighteously, because Christ Himself wouldn't have measured up to my standard.

John 6
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

66 ¶From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Could he be right?

[inquirringmind]

Deleted.

[lemuel]

Unfortunately logs refusal to admit his meaning, which is clear to all who can read, shows that he uses distraction techniques and doesn't take ownership of much of anything.

Out with it log. Are you or are you not Gob Bluth?

I wish I had a video for me...

;) :ymhug:

[Epistemology]

I wish I had a video for me...[/quote]







;) :ymhug:[/quote]

=)) =)) =)) =)) =)) =))

I still wear that outfit on occasion

[inquirringmind]

So could Log have a point when he quotes John 6:61-66?

Why did Christ speak in parables?

Did He care if people misunderstood, or walked away, or were offended?

Should we?

[drjme]

So could Log have a point when he quotes John 6:61-66?

Why did Christ speak in parables?

Did He care if people misunderstood, or walked away, or were offended?

Should we?

Jesus sometimes taught in parables. When he spoke in parables he would speak truth and wisdom that was both revealed and hid.
Meaning someone who understood what he was saying on a 'temporal level' would see it as wisdom and truth, and those who coprehended in a spiritual level would see it as wisdom and truth also.
It was through love that he spoke in parables, to not increase the responsibility to God, for those who weren't ready to comprehend and take action, but yet that those who weren't ready to take that responsibility would still see His words as wise.

edit to make clearer. Christ did not want to 'condemn' those that were not ready to act on a revealed truth, and so a parable would be both truth revealed and hid according to each individual hearing it.

They weren't some sort of cryptic puzzle like logs arguments, that leave you wondering wtf he is talking about, but rather they were layers upon layers of wisdom and truth, that you understand and comprehend as wise and truthful, according to what God sees you as ready to comprehend and take action on.

[Simon]

Einstein was a authist, and he was one of the brightest minds out there ;)

[durangout]

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

First time I've ever heard this in 49 years of church membership.

[hyloglyph]

Bump

[Thinker]

So could Log have a point when he quotes John 6:61-66?

Verse 63: "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

IMO, Jesus is basically saying taking words literally and focusing on the concreteness (ie flesh) will do nothing for you. The SPIRIT of the words - they are what inspire you - the spirit is what you really want. The flesh and all of the details that religion (like maybe some aspects that Paul and others taught &) brought - are often distractions or even misleading substitutes for what is truly desired.

BTW - I have heard in more open discussions online (not in church), that both Paul and Brigham Young took religion in a different direction than Jesus and Joseph Smith intended.

Does it bother you that someone (ie Log) may have mentioned something that made Paul seem less than perfect? If so, why?
Is it Paul, or Log's communication style that concerns you? Either way, it's worth exploring.

Why did Christ speak in parables?

Did He care if people misunderstood, or walked away, or were offended?

Should we?

Any profound truth must be told symbolically - there is no other way to relate it, since truth depends on perspective, as Drjme implied.
Actually, we take for granted how very much we depend on symbols for almost all communication - and even a lot of thought processes - each letter I type, each word, put together in context - all symbols.

Of course Christ (which is symbolic for pure love) cares if people understand and how they feel, but what can he do about it? Only so much... and often he wished to gather them as a hen gathers chicks, but "They would not." He tries and tries to share truths in various ways - often the same truths over and over in different symbolic parables - but so many just didn't/don't get it because they're focused on superficial (flesh) aspects.

We should care because misunderstandings of Judaic and Christian doctrine are considered to be the cause of up to 80% of mental illnesses. Religion is like an opium (as a philosopher said) - it can be productive or destructive, depending on how one interprets ideas, which affects one's e-motions etc.

[inquirringmind]

So could Log have a point when he quotes John 6:61-66?

Why did Christ speak in parables?

Did He care if people misunderstood, or walked away, or were offended?

Should we?

Jesus sometimes taught in parables. When he spoke in parables he would speak truth and wisdom that was both revealed and hid.
Meaning someone who understood what he was saying on a 'temporal level' would see it as wisdom and truth, and those who coprehended in a spiritual level would see it as wisdom and truth also.
It was through love that he spoke in parables, to not increase the responsibility to God, for those who weren't ready to comprehend and take action, but yet that those who weren't ready to take that responsibility would still see His words as wise.

edit to make clearer. Christ did not to 'condemn' those that were not ready to act on a revealed truth, and so a parable would be both truth revealed and hid according to each individual hearing it.

They weren't some sort of cryptic puzzle like logs arguments, that leave you wondering wtf he is talking about, but rather they were layers upon layers of wisdom and truth, that you understand and comprehend as wise and truthful, according to what God sees you as ready to comprehend and take action on.

Thank you.

...Of course Christ (which is symbolic for pure love) cares if people understand and how they feel, but what can he do about it? Only so much... and often he wished to gather them as a hen gathers chicks, but "They would not." He tries and tries to share truths in various ways - often the same truths over and over in different symbolic parables - but so many just didn't/don't get it because they're focused on superficial (flesh) aspects.

We should care...

Thank you.

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

First time I've ever heard this in 49 years of church membership.

Thank you.

[Simon]

Why did Christ speak in parables?

Did He care if people misunderstood, or walked away, or were offended?

Should we?

Parables and symbolism do also have a protecting function.

First, truths getting protected. For example Isiaha, one of the least understood books, but one that contains many truths. Translators that willfully changed doctrine in the bible probably did not care much about Isiah, since they didnt understand its real meaning.

Second, only those with a prepared mind do understand, and those who are not prepared will not have "too much truth" in front of them. Therefore, it may protect both to a certain extent.


I believe that Christ did care very much about the listeners, but I think that also knew that those who were offended by his parables, were not ready for the truth.

Its the spiritual awareness of the listener that "decides" wether a parable makes sense to them, or not.

[drjme]

I think the writings of Paul are so relevant because he is the epitome of coming out from under law and into the grace of Christ.
God took a law 'enforcing' , killer who was everything 'otherwise' of what Christ is, and turned him into His most dedicated disciple.

It's like a type for every person of the path of coming to Christ, no matter how far at odds we are with Him, He is waiting to encounter us, and those encounters will blow our worlds apart.

Edit: interesting mental episode on my part, paul/peter needs correcting in next paragraph for vision. Thanks inquirringmind.

Even after His conversion, Paul struggled to let go of a lot of aspects of the law that were engrained into him (eg the call thou not unclean that which I have made clean vision), and IMHO the turmoil he experienced was solely a result of trying to hang onto beliefs and religious identity that no longer applied under the new covenant in Christ.

Maybe some see this as instability? I see it as the beautiful struggle that applies to not only ancient Jews coming out of mosaic law and Judaism, but also modern Christians coming out of religion and into Christ, the struggle reveals not the weakness or instability of men, but rather the trustworthiness of Christ.

[inquirringmind]

Even after His conversion, Paul struggled to let go of a lot of aspects of the law that were engrained into him (eg the call thou not unclean that which I have made clean vision), and IMHO the turmoil he experienced was solely a result of trying to hang onto beliefs and religious identity that no longer applied under the new covenant in Christ.

That was Peter (Acts 10), the "call thou not unclean that which I have made clean" vision is what Peter forgot in Galatia (when "certain men came from James"), and that's why Paul had to correct him in front of them (Galatians 2), and it's that whole incident which Log regards as "a demonstration of one of Paul's...interesting episodes."

[drjme]

Even after His conversion, Paul struggled to let go of a lot of aspects of the law that were engrained into him (eg the call thou not unclean that which I have made clean vision), and IMHO the turmoil he experienced was solely a result of trying to hang onto beliefs and religious identity that no longer applied under the new covenant in Christ.

That was Peter (Acts 10), the "call thou not unclean that which I have made clean" vision is what Peter forgot in Galatia (when "certain men came from James"), and that's why Paul had to correct him in front of them (Galatians 2), and it's that whole incident which Log regards as "a demonstration of one of Paul's...interesting episodes."

Yeah added the edit in there, had a early morning recollection episode there.

So wouldn't log then take issue with Peter having an episode rather than Paul? Peter denied the meaning of that vision 3 times

[drjme]

hey inquirringmind not sure where your post went but:

9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

in galatians he appears to have this double standard that paul calls cephas out on. one would think if anything peter would have 'an episode' because of his revelations from God as to how the new covenant works? yet it appears he still maintains an image of exclusivity and separation, that God has told him to stop.

[inquirringmind]

hey inquirringmind not sure where your post went...

Hi drjme,

I deleted the post when I remembered the vision was repeated three times.

...but:

9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

in galatians he appears to have this double standard that paul calls cephas out on. one would think if anything peter would have 'an episode' because of his revelations from God as to how the new covenant works? yet it appears he still maintains an image of exclusivity and separation, that God has told him to stop.

Thank you.