This is why I made this post. I would like more information about the reason Paul includes this detail, just saying "why not?" is too dismissive for what could be an important piece of information.Why does Paul say that Jesus was "born of a woman"?
Why not? Children, in this case a male child, are born from women (not from men)
Was Paul talking literally - i.e. flesh and blood - or was he writing metaphorically / spiritually. ?
Why choose between the two elements of human nature? Body and spirit / intellect. ?
A 'flesh and blood' interpretation does not imply historicity. Stories that deal with literary figures based on tera-firm are using literary licence - portraying their created literary figure as a human flesh and blood figure.
A metaphorical /spiritual interpretation allows for insights, understanding. Mothers, children - can have relevance to flesh and blood and metaphorical insights or stories.
Why make a mountain out of a molehill when it really is that simple. A few sentences on a postcard is sufficient to state the obvious.
That's why I asked:
1. Why does Paul mention that Jesus was "born of a woman" in Gal 4:4?
2. What does he intend to convey to his readers with the introduction of this information?
3. How does it relate to the argument his is making?
Statistics: Posted by jasonrollins — Wed Jul 03, 2024 6:23 pm
