Men's expectations over Jesus

[peter2]

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]

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]

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

 

[peter2]

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.

"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

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

 

[tdidymas]

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.

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.

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]

"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

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.

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 ?)

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]

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]

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.