Men's expectations over Jesus

peter2 · Dec 24, 2025

Please, do you think the Savior's motive to call himself "the Son of Man" could have been to unload a bit of his burdensome mission, or may be rather, to mobilize men's good will for this purpose ?
I mean : Every parents try and protect their son, but, may be from their expectations.
Now, as for Jesus, before his birth, there were already few filters between him, his mission and men's expectations.
To speak bluntly, could Jesus have chosen this terminology to underline, through his crucifixion, where led him other parents' too heavy ambition or expectations for their children

Indeed :
Since a strong Messiah was expected, and as, may be, many people expected their child to become this strong Messiah,

(It would be plausible that there was no room in the inn through a customary competition among David' s descendants),

i propose the following hypothesis :

Mightn't a customary competitiveness have existed, that brought about invisible rivalry, jealousy, in short, some competitive crispations for the purpose of becoming a Messiah's relative ?
This would indeed have multiplied the educating load administered by parents over their children, who woud have felt jealous of Jesus that didn't suffer from that, but instead, from their jealousy, even if not mentionned in Scriptures

My initial questionning should rather be :
Does or does not the terminology "Son of Man" describe Jesus' status of suffering heir of men's crispations, (That is, their perpetual and original try to equal God), this men's violence Mt 11, 12 speaks of :

12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

tdidymas · Dec 24, 2025

peter2 said:
Please, do you think the Savior's motive to call himself "the Son of Man" could have been to unload a bit of his burdensome mission, or may be rather, to mobilize men's good will for this purpose ?
I mean : Every parents try and protect their son, but, may be from their expectations.
Now, as for Jesus, before his birth, there were already few filters between him, his mission and men's expectations.
To speak bluntly, could Jesus have chosen this terminology to underline, through his crucifixion, where led him other parents' too heavy ambition or expectations for their children

Indeed :
Since a strong Messiah was expected, and as, may be, many people expected their child to become this strong Messiah,

(It would be plausible that there was no room in the inn through a customary competition among David' s descendants),

i propose the following hypothesis :

Mightn't a customary competitiveness have existed, that brought about invisible rivalry, jealousy, in short, some competitive crispations for the purpose of becoming a Messiah's relative ?
This would indeed have multiplied the educating load administered by parents over their children, who woud have felt jealous of Jesus that didn't suffer from that, but instead, from their jealousy, even if not mentionned in Scriptures

My initial questionning should rather be :
Does or does not the terminology "Son of Man" describe Jesus' status of suffering heir of men's crispations, (That is, their perpetual and original try to equal God), this men's violence Mt 11, 12 speaks of :

There are OT scriptures in Daniel and other prophets that refer to a "son of man", see Dan. 7 and elsewhere, which are Messianic verses. Just look up "son of man" in a Bible search app. So Jesus, Son of God, (Phil. 2) humbled Himself to become man, so it is also an identification with man (as in Heb. 2:14) He shared in flesh and blood, contrasted with "Son of God" which is a title that would separate Him out as deity, and is the reason why He told the unclean spirits who called Him "Son of God" to shut up. Heb. 2:7 quotes Ps. 8:6 and applies it to Jesus being made lower than the angels, which puts Him on the same level as men, which is further identification.

In addition to that, people are generally arrogant by nature, and if you give them the truth on a silver platter, they will judge it and reject it; this happens every day. So God often presents Himself in a mystery, in order to induce curiosity and seeking for those who wish to know God. Jesus calling Himself "Son of Man" hides the fact that He is God manifest in the flesh, which would require His followers to exercise faith and trust in Him without knowing for certain He is God, even though He performed many miracles.

peter2 · Dec 25, 2025

Interesting, thank you. I ' ll answer you after Mass

peter2 · Dec 25, 2025

tdidymas said:
if you give them the truth on a silver platter, they will judge it and reject it; this happens every day. So God often presents Himself in a mystery

Hello TD.
You remind me of someone that feared i was too joyfully speaking, without filter. But as i quoted him Mk 4, 21 :

21 And he said unto them, Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel, or under a bed? and not to be set on a candlestick?

he just told me : "Let's admit", meaning, i suppose, he was not convinced, may be resisting, and he made himself evasive.
I agree, sometimes thruth and light disturb some people that become agressive, may be from feeling agressed by them.
But is it a good reason, a christian one, to stop the light of our candle ? Don't christians have to try and go on with what he told Pilate was his end ? from Jn 18, 37 :

37. (...) To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

tdidymas said:
"Son of God" which is a title that would separate Him out as deity, and is the reason why He told the unclean spirits who called Him "Son of God" to shut up.

Looks to me, since the Gospel Itself have spread this piece of Scripture, it's no longer a scoop Jesus is the Son of Man. I think Jesus must have had other reasons to require silence from the unclean spirit. I' d rather agree he

tdidymas said:
humbled Himself to become man, so it is also an identification with man

tdidymas · Dec 26, 2025

peter2 said:
Hello TD.
You remind me of someone that feared i was too joyfully speaking, without filter. But as i quoted him Mk 4, 21 :

"Joyfully speaking"? You mean "foolishly speaking"? Not sure what you mean. I was merely trying to answer your question from a Biblical standpoint. But in Mk. 4:21, Jesus is speaking to an unbeliever, and the statement is both a basic gospel statement and a test to Pilate to see how he will take it.

peter2 said:
he just told me : "Let's admit", meaning, i suppose, he was not convinced, may be resisting, and he made himself evasive.
I agree, sometimes thruth and light disturb some people that become agressive, may be from feeling agressed by them.
But is it a good reason, a christian one, to stop the light of our candle ? Don't christians have to try and go on with what he told Pilate was his end ? from Jn 18, 37 :

You gave no indication you were conversing with someone on this subject. But my point is that if you delve deeply into Christian doctrine without first being clear on the basic and surface gospel (like John 3:16), the unbelieving hearers will not understand you.

peter2 said:
Looks to me, since the Gospel Itself have spread this piece of Scripture, it's no longer a scoop Jesus is the Son of Man. I think Jesus must have had other reasons to require silence from the unclean spirit. I' d rather agree he

The Bible was written for us, not to us. It means you must read the New Testament as if you lived in the first century. Jesus told people He was the "Son of Man" to those people. Certainly the whole NT is available to us now, but it doesn't mean that just anyone who reads it can understand it. My point in all this is that just as Jesus withheld information, we should also refrain from "spilling the beans" to everyone we meet. Did not Jesus say to His own disciples "I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now"? There are far too many people who wrongly judge the scripture because they don't understand the nature of relationship with God.

peter2 · Dec 26, 2025

tdidymas said:
"Joyfully speaking"? You mean "foolishly speaking"? Not sure what you mean

I'd say in french the word "joyeux" (joyful) has turned slowly to mean "décomplexé" (uncomplicated, without complex), in some contexts

tdidymas said:
I was merely trying to answer your question from a Biblical standpoint.

Sorry, it's true it was kind of you, and i feel grateful. Thank you for your answers.
I refrained myself to click on the "like" icone just because of what i quoted (Mk 4, 21), that reminded me of this old conversation i had with someone else, that ended without concluding. It was an old conversation, that's why i didn't mention it first.

tdidymas said:
But my point is that if you delve deeply into Christian doctrine without first being clear on the basic and surface gospel (...), the unbelieving hearers will not understand you.

You're not wrong, but i fail to know where is the starting point you estimate would be clear enough to allow myself to share my reflexions or ask for information ? (i do not know what you call the basics and surface Gospel, is it scriptural ?)

tdidymas said:
My point in all this is that just as Jesus withheld information, we should also refrain from "spilling the beans" to everyone we meet. Did not Jesus say to His own disciples "I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now"?

I understand, believe me, but :
- How do we know the time when they can "bear" them ?
- Couldn't the "many things" Jesus was speaking of consist in the reason why, (in Jn 6, 60), the Jews got defensive, about their eating his flesh ? that is, something he himself's not refrained to tell, however unbearable it's been for some of these disciples that left him

tdidymas · Dec 26, 2025

peter2 said:
I'd say in french the word "joyeux" (joyful) has turned slowly to mean "décomplexé" (uncomplicated, without complex), in some contexts

Sorry, it's true it was kind of you, and i feel grateful. Thank you for your answers.
I refrained myself to click on the "like" icone just because of what i quoted (Mk 4, 21), that reminded me of this old conversation i had with someone else, that ended without concluding. It was an old conversation, that's why i didn't mention it first.

You're not wrong, but i fail to know where is the starting point you estimate would be clear enough to allow myself to share my reflexions or ask for information ? (i do not know what you call the basics and surface Gospel, is it scriptural ?)

I understand, believe me, but :
- How do we know the time when they can "bear" them ?
- Couldn't the "many things" Jesus was speaking of consist in the reason why, (in Jn 6, 60), the Jews got defensive, about their eating his flesh ? that is, something he himself's not refrained to tell, however unbearable it's been for some of these disciples that left him

I don't get your point. If you are starting a conversation about Christ with someone, do you start with the doctrine of "Son of Man," or do you start with "Jesus died for our sins"? Otherwise, what's the point of your OP?

peter2 · Dec 27, 2025

tdidymas said:
what's the point of your OP?

I thank you for reminding me of the commentary rules i learnt from my teachers long ago. It's true there was no real introduction in my OP.
Your question might then help my writting. Thank you.
(and please forgive me for i turned to scientific studying, more than to literary one)

The point of my OP was to question about the potential sinful character of the expectations men could have loaded over the Messiah's shoulders (see the title also)

I started with my developping part that was about analyse of this character of expectations i assumed to be sinful

And in my conclusion, i proposed the hypothesis that Jesus has renamed himself "Son of Man" in order
1. to underline where his being heir of their supposed sinful expectations had led him (that is, to death on the cross)
2. to point his sufferings stemmed from men's crispations, (That is, their perpetual and original try to equal God), this men's violence Mt 11, 12 speaks of.

Bob Crowley · 2026-01-21T06:56:29-0600

Here is a brief Catholic take on the issue.

Why does the Lord Jesus call himself ‘Son of Man’? | Our Lady of Mount Carmel & St George | Roman Catholic Parish of Enfield

www.catholicenfield.org

Jesus refers to himself as ‘Son of Man’ 88 times in the New Testament.

1. ‘Son of Man’ was a prophetic title for the Messiah in the prophecy of Daniel: ‘there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven’ (Dan 7:13-14). Jesus identifies himself with that prophecy. Likewise he called himself the ‘cornerstone’, identifying himself with Isaiah 28:16 and Zechariah 10:4, and on the Cross he identified himself as the eternal heir to King David by quoting Psalm 22: ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’

2. By calling himself ‘Son of Man’ Jesus states clearly that he is truly a human being as well as truly God. God calls the prophet Ezekiel ‘Son of Man’ 93 times, and elsewhere it is used poetically to mean simply ‘man’ (Numbers 23:19, Isaiah 56:2, Psalm 79:18). So when Caiaphas asks Jesus if he is Son of God, Jesus replies that he is the Son of Man who will be seen sitting at the right hand of God (Matthew 26:63-64). He is God and man.

Read more: Catechism 456-470.

Christ used the term "Son of Man" to identify Himself with the prophesy in Daniel. By doing so He would have left no doubt in the minds of His Jewish audience that He was claiming to be the one who was to come.

When He said He would return on the "clouds of heaven" He was making His claim even clearer. It was precisely at this point that the high priest called for his death for blasphemy.

Mathew 26:63-65 NIV "Then the high priest said to Him, “I charge You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64“You have said it yourself,” Jesus answered. “But I say to all of you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 65At this, the high priest tore his clothes and declared, “He has blasphemed! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.…"

peter2 · 2026-01-21T08:17:53-0600

Hello Bob,
i agree,
And so, since my thread's topic was

peter2 said:
Does or does not the terminology "Son of Man" describe Jesus' status of suffering heir of men's crispations, (That is, their perpetual and original try to equal God), this men's violence Mt 11, 12 speaks of

may be you're suggesting i ought to fetch for answer in the scriptures you gave.
i will have a look, however i'm more knowing of NT than of OT.
So, thank you for the sugestion. Indeed, i never thought to look for an answer in OT

However what i'll be looking for in the OT is a confirmation or not of my preceeding hypothesis (see quotation above), but i'm not sure i gonna find, since i didn't find in the NT.
So, if you or someone else's got some idea, independent or not of Scriptures, please do share

Bob Crowley · 2026-01-21T19:34:27-0600

The Old Testament was often quoted in the New Testament. We don't easily recognise just how often this happens, but for the Jews Christ was talking to, they would have been very well aware when He or the disciples quoted the OT, as they would have internalised the message, especially in a society that depended on oral transmission.

I liftedt this quote from a Quora entry. Apparentley it was submitted by someone called "Dewcoons', but I think it's accurate as far as it goes.

Direct quotes of the Old Testament is usually listed around 280. There are some very brief 3 or 4 words “phrases” that may or may not be counted as actually quotes. There are also over 400 references to direct passages in the scriptures (though not word for word quotes) and lots more times when it draws a references to an event or concept in the OT.

In his teachings alone, Jesus has over 300 quotes or references to the OT. Almost everything Jesus taught was build directly on something in the OT. It was the base for all his teachings.

In his gospel alone Matthew as over 90 quotes or direct references to the OT (outside of the references in the teachings of Jesus that he records.)

Almost all of the direct quotes are taken from the Septuagint Greek translation of the OT, since the NT was written Greek.

An AI summary gave the number of quotes as follows -

...the New Testament (NT) quotes the Old Testament (OT) constantly, using it as the foundation for its message, with scholars estimating around 10% of the OT is quoted in the NT, and Jesus himself referencing it hundreds of times in his teachings to explain prophecy, history, and law, making the OT indispensable for understanding the NT. Catholics, like other major Christian traditions, fully accept the OT, incorporating its readings into Mass and viewing it as the historical bedrock of the Christian faith.

"Son of Man" is one of those Old Testament terms, and Christ used it constantly to underscore His identity to His Jewish audience.

peter2 · 2026-01-22T01:09:04-0600

Bob Crowley said:
"Son of Man" is one of those Old Testament terms, and Christ used it constantly to underscore His identity to His Jewish audience.

Thank you for your research, Bob. Yes, your quotation from quora is probably correct, but sorry, i was not specifically looking for numbers..
But i'm also looking for the reason why such a terminology has been used to point to Christ, and what significance does it have, before ever Jesus uses it, before ever OT uses it, and not just as regards how old it is..
Indeed, "son of man" is the more often used with the article "the".. son of man, whereas less with the article "a".. son of man, or with no article.
"Man", i think, might have the same scope in :"Son of Man" as in the sentence :"Outer space is man's future", for instance. The depth of the question in this thread is then what significance does the expression ""the" son of Man " bear, for, however a child being son of the whole mankind first looks weird, it's this about which i'm questionning the more

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Men's expectations over Jesus

Ordinary life contemplative

Newbie

Ordinary life contemplative

Ordinary life contemplative

Newbie

Ordinary life contemplative

Newbie

Ordinary life contemplative

Well-Known Member

Ordinary life contemplative

Well-Known Member

Ordinary life contemplative

Similar threads