Steven Carr

Why did Paul say that Jesus was born of a woman?

Was Jesus being born of a woman something in dispute in the earliest church?

WVIncagold

Because born of a man wasn't believable?

karlmarx

Paul clearly writes of a divine being. However, purely divine beings, e.g. angels, are by their very nature immortal and cannot be crucified. It takes someone who is at least part human to be crucified. There are precedents for half-human, half-divine beings, e.g. Hercules, who was also born of a woman.

Paul's letters are the earliest extant Christian documents, with other documents appearing much later. There is nothing contemporary to contradict him, so it's not known if Paul was arguing against a rival position. It's possible that Paul simply reported on an existing tradition, it's also possible that Paul added this dimension to the story himself. However, if there was, in fact, a dispute over the matter, you would think that Paul would have at least indirectly referred to it.

Chili

That was said to be juxtaposed with born of a human female to say that woman is not human and not female. Jesus was born of Mary who was/is woman and not human and therefore without sin. Human is opposite to woman and is created by the negative stand to make the positive (sin or God) known while the negative is as in remain [perpetual] and virgin to booth. But notice, never conceived to be.

Amaleq13

Sounds like a good way to counter docetic views.

Toto

Marcion in particular did not think that Jesus was born of a woman.

Steven Carr

How? Everybody knew Jesus was a real human being.

If that is axiomatic for historians writing 2,000 years afterwards, surely it must have been as obvious to followers of Jesus as the fact that the sun was in the sky.

No Robots

So, let me get this straight. Paul was arguing against mythicism? Paul is a believer in the historical Jesus? Quick, get Doherty and his posse!

gstafleu

It is a good question. "Born of a woman" is just about the most minimal of minimal requirements for being human, why bother stating it? It doesn't even mean that you are really human, Dionysus was also "born of a woman" (be it with a drastic C-section at the end). But Paul doesn't mention any details of the birth, so we can't even say that he wanted to place Jesus in the long tradition of miraculous births.

What in Paul's teachings is critically dependent on Jesus being born of a woman?

Gerard Stafleu

Chili

Hi Gerard, would that be like "from his mother's womb untimely ripped" already2000 years ago? and again here 500 years ago in MacBeth?

Let me tell you that there is nothing miraculous about 'forged rebirths' that only yield Senecan Tragedies but Jesus certainly was not one of those. His life was a Divine Comedy and that required a miraculous rebirth. In fact, any and all miraculous births will end up to be such a comedy and that is why Paul was like Jesus without placing any value on it. Better yet, each and every Christian in the manner of Jesus will have been reborn from on high and have MARY as his mother.