Polycarp

We find throughout Paul's writings repeated defensive statements that he is 'not lying'. In historical studies this must be taken as strong evidence that he WAS being accused of lying by someone. It is fairly evident that these accusations were coming from the Jerusalem apostles.

What implications might this have for our understanding of Pauls motivation?
Could this affect our estimation of Pauls account of 'historical' events?

Your posts suggest that your interpetation of the Bible is dominated by your devotional commitment to the text as 'Scripture'. From an historical studies point of view this is a deeply unreliable interpretive framework. Your devotional prejudice leads to an unacceptable bias in your historical judgement.

Any historical assessment of the 'Damascus road' episode must be sceptical. It is much safer to regard it as a literary device following OT patterns intended to establish Pauls apostolic credentials. Its similar to the interpretive framework contrived to establish the 'miracles' performed by Mother Theresa in order to progress her sanctification.

Whatever happened on the Damascus road Paul interpreted it as an encounter with Jesus. That sort of thing happens all the time today. People see miracles in all sorts of ordinary events. Others claim to be preaching the Gospel and are not. And some people believe them!

Waterboy,
By traditional masculinity I mean the stereotypical focus on strength without vulnerability, tenderness or kindness; action without deliberation and retribution without any show of mercy. I can easily recall, the worst insult to be leveled against a man in this country was that he was behaving "like a girl", that he was as "moody" or as "changeable" as "a woman", that he was "feminine", or worse, "effeminate".

Alan Watts quotes a Chinese text in his book 'The Two Hands of God', "One Yang and one Yin, that is the fundamental principle. The passionate unity of Yin and Yang in the copulation of husband and wife is the eternal rule of the universe. If heaven and earth did not mingle, whence would all things receive life?" Plato viewed the archetypical man as bisexual and spherical in form, and his neoplatonic disciples (some of them Christian) imagined human perfection as an unbroken unity. Such philosophical speculations were also rooted in earlier mythological convictions, where the concept of God was neither entirely masculine nor feminine.

The Jewish community in Elephantiné in Egypt reverenced the Virgin Anath (A canaanite goddess) and was in some sense attached to Yahweh. There were, then, traces of the female deity even in the most refined manifestation of Yahwism - and much stronger traces, it would appear, in Hebrew folk religion. It is precisely to those traces we look if we are to begin to understand the emergence of Mary.

It is interesting to note Clement of Alexandria where he records the response of Jesus to Salome, the exotic dancer (in the Gospel according to the Egyptians), who wondered about the fulfillment of the prophecy. He answered in terms she would doubtless understand, "When you have trampled on the garment of shame, and when the two become one, and the male with the female is neither male nor female." The Gnostic Gospel of Thomas also holds a similar reflection.

Perhaps a little ironically, the cautious Romans with their "Sive Deus, sive Dea" (whether god or goddess), were theologically quite precise.

waterboy,
I can only endorse relda's thorough exposition of the Yin-Yang complementarity manifested indeed in female-male, or passive-active, but also (cultural) East-West etc. interactions. I think Yin-Yang is a more insightful way of interpreting reality - at least for me - than the Western coincidentia oppositorum (from Heraclitus to Nicholas of Cusa). Therefore I avoid referring to them as opposites (they are not supposed to cover rational opposites like true-untrue or ethical opposites good-bad, etc.) which might lead to seeing e.g. the male or West as superior to the female or East. I prefer to see them as complementing each other, and I think this is also the original meaning of it. Actually, the well known Yin-Yang icon is even more subtle about this complementarity, depicting the Yang in Yin complementing the Yin in Yang.

[Niels Bohr, the author the principle of complementarity in QM, had his own coat of arms featuring this icon and the Latin motto contraria sunt complementa. Here I beg to differ: some opposites (contraria), like good and bad, plus and minus, agreement and disagreement, etc., do not complement each other towards something higher, in spite of the fact that mostly the one cannot be conceived without the other. Here the dynamic scheme thesis-antithesis-synthesis of dialectics is perhaps a more appropriate model.]

This way of seeing things is a firm component of my world view, in distinction to my reservations, mostly grounded in my Catholic cultural tradition, about Catholic priestesses. Here the Catholic context is very important, since I do not see anything objectionable to female priests from a general Christian perspective with its variety of theological interpretations. Apparently traditionally - and possibly also doctrinally - a Catholic priest stands for something somewhat different from that of a priest in a non-Catholic Church. In spite of this, the relatively recent introduction of female priests and bishops in some traditional Churches did not help them to fare better than the Catholic Church in preventing the dwindling of their congregations. (ctd)
(ctd)

(ctd)
>>I have a problem with women being excluded from any role in the church simply on the basis of gender.<<

So have I (with emphasis on “any role“), even in the Catholic context. It reflects the situation inherited from the past, that I referred to above as confusing the Yin-Yang complementarity (manifested as female-male genders) with the idea of the supremacy of one over the other. However, the remedy must not necessarily be in redefining the role of the priest and bishop to fit a female “carrier”, but in increasing the influence and status of nuns and laywomen (as well as laymen) on decision-makings that ultimately emanate from the Pope. I believe, this is happening, albeit very, very slowly, since the Church is a very, very old institution, and old organisms move very slowly. The problem is not with female vs male influence but rather with destructive vs constructive influence: the first two alternatives are complementary, the second two are contradictory.

However, let me repeat, here I am not on familiar grounds, my preferences (for priest-nun instead of priest-priestess) are more emotionally than rationally motivated.

Dear Waterboy...it's good to have a discussion with someone who has a knowledge of these matters.

You said:

1/ <<In historical studies this must be taken as strong evidence that he WAS being accused of lying by someone. It is fairly evident that these accusations were coming from the Jerusalem apostles.>>

COMMENT: now...that contains just enough truth to be almost believable. The true picture though, when the scripture is used as our evidence, is that there was ONE group among the Jerusalem Church, not James nor Peter, but a group called 'The Circumcision party' who insisted that Gentiles embrace a strongly Judaistic/Pharicaical/Law based faith, and were also circumcized.
So..it was not "The Jerusalem Church" who were at odds with Paul but a sect within their spiritual territory. Yes.. THEY were accusing Paul of lying.. this is very clear.

2/ You also said: <<Any historical assessment of the 'Damascus road' episode must be sceptical.>>

COMMENT:
Not at all! it must be as objective as possible. Objectivity does not include the 'exclusion' of the clear meaning of the text before the meaning is considered. Dare I say it..that's 'bias' :)

If you say "these things happen every day" or they are common... let me challenge you..

"Can you show me one example of a man like Osama bin Ladin or Kalid Mashal suddenly declaring their love for the Jews?" because until you can, I hardly think there are many near comparisons.

You claim my devotion to scripture blinds me? hardly.. I have the same evidence before me as you do, but until I can see convincing evidence to the contrary... IN the evidence itself.. I refuse to place a biased overlay on it's natural plain meaning.

Relda

Whoever the'Circumcision Party'were it is evident from the internal evidence that i)They were Christians ii)They were based in Jerusalem iii) They had authority within the Jerusalem and the wider Church & iv)They were converted Jews and believed Christianity must be in spiritual and cultural continuity with Judaism.
It is a proper historical question to ask whether we can identify the individuals who made up the 'Circumcision Party'.They obviously had authority in the wider church or they would have posed no threat to someone as important as Paul.It is a fairly safe assumption that they were leaders of the Jerusalem Church and qualified to pronounce on matters of doctrine.That pretty much identifies them with the group of Apostles.Unless you can prove that there existed some other group in Jerusalem that met these criteria then your proposition that the'Circumcision Party'does not include any of the Apostles is historically weak.

As you have described them,the'Circumcision Party'sounds very much like the Essenes which would prove to be very interesting historically if they turned out to be identified with the Jerusalem Church and led by any of the Apostles.

You also demanded'objectivity'in historical judgement.That surprises me since its'objectively'impossible to have an interview with a dead person and would preclude episodes like Pauls Damascus Road vision(let alone the resurrection itself).On this basis Paul is,at best,offering an interpretation of whatever 'really happened' on the Damascus Road but the 'historical' possibility remains that he was, in fact, lying in order to establish his Apostolic credentials. I think the former is more likely.

The story of the temptation of Jesus provides us with evidence that the early Church itself struggled with its lack of 'historical' foundation. Obviously this is in some tension with the miracle stories of the Gospels and Acts. From our modern scientific perspective we are forced to conclude that the miracle stories are just that (stories) or if they refer to actual historical events then there is also a 'natural' physical explanation for those events whether or not anyone knows the explanation.

All of this has obvious implications for the story of the virgin birth!