TreasureHunter12

Active Member
Feb 16, 2016
165
17
California
✟16,209.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
I feel it is best to keep the focus on the process of spiritual development rather than on individual beliefs for the same reason you want to focus on the cause rather than the symptoms of a problem. With that said, I'm going to share a few beliefs since they are uncommon.

Without defining "salvation", I agree with the Christian idea that one has to be born again in order to be saved. However, I believe that to be born again means you become the "Son of Man".

Man -> born again -> Son of Man (SoM)

Pretty straightforward right? The Jewish idea of a Messiah I believe to be completely separate to what Jesus was and taught. All of the mentions of SoM in the Old Testament, or pre-Jesus, I believe to be a product of Christian interpolation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_interpolation

I believe Jesus to be the creator of the Son of Man phrase.
 

smaneck

Baha'i
Sep 29, 2010
21,182
2,948
Jackson, MS
✟55,644.00
Faith
Baha'i
Marital Status
Single
I am already aware that this is popular opinion. I stand by my claim.
It's not a popular opinion, it is a historical fact. The Book of Daniel was written 150 years before Jesus was born.
 
Upvote 0

TreasureHunter12

Active Member
Feb 16, 2016
165
17
California
✟16,209.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
It's not a popular opinion, it is a historical fact. The Book of Daniel was written 150 years before Jesus was born.
To clarify, I'm claiming that only parts of the Old Testament were altered post-Jesus. I'm not saying the Book of Daniel was entirely written post-Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

smaneck

Baha'i
Sep 29, 2010
21,182
2,948
Jackson, MS
✟55,644.00
Faith
Baha'i
Marital Status
Single
To clarify, I'm claiming that only parts of the Old Testament were altered post-Jesus.

And your evidence for this is?

You do realize that Daniel is the same in the Tanakh as it is in the Old Testament. There are portions which are considered apocryphal, but not the passages relating to the Son of Man.
 
Upvote 0

TreasureHunter12

Active Member
Feb 16, 2016
165
17
California
✟16,209.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
And your evidence for this is?

You do realize that Daniel is the same in the Tanakh as it is in the Old Testament. There are portions which are considered apocryphal, but not the passages relating to the Son of Man.
This is from the Christian interpolation wiki link that I posted:

"The term generally refers in textual criticism to the specific phenomena of textual insertion and textual damage to Jewish sources text during Christian scribal transmission"

How do you interpret that? Am I mistaken in thinking that is a possible explanation for why it's the same in the Tanakh?

I have no evidence. There are reasons why I believe what I do but I don't really want to elaborate on the spiritual development process in this thread. I appreciate the feedback, though, and I want to hear the strongest counter arguments.

I have struggled with the 'Son of Man' phrase for a long time. This idea of Christian interpolation makes the belief possible, which is enough for me since it would make so much sense with my overall understanding.

Doesn't it at least make sense that there would have been a lot of controversy around the meaning of the SoM phrase after the death of Jesus?
 
Upvote 0

Winken

Heimat
Supporter
Sep 24, 2010
5,709
3,505
✟168,847.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
This is from the Christian interpolation wiki link that I posted:

"The term generally refers in textual criticism to the specific phenomena of textual insertion and textual damage to Jewish sources text during Christian scribal transmission"

How do you interpret that? Am I mistaken in thinking that is a possible explanation for why it's the same in the Tanakh?

I have no evidence. There are reasons why I believe what I do but I don't really want to elaborate on the spiritual development process in this thread. I appreciate the feedback, though, and I want to hear the strongest counter arguments.

I have struggled with the 'Son of Man' phrase for a long time. This idea of Christian interpolation makes the belief possible, which is enough for me since it would make so much sense with my overall understanding.

Doesn't it at least make sense that there would have been a lot of controversy around the meaning of the SoM phrase after the death of Jesus?

Son of God = God's representative before man.
Son of Man = Man's representative before God.
 
Upvote 0

LoAmmi

Dispassionate
Mar 12, 2012
26,944
9,715
✟209,533.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
To clarify, I'm claiming that only parts of the Old Testament were altered post-Jesus. I'm not saying the Book of Daniel was entirely written post-Jesus.

Jews and Christians would have had their own copies of these books. How would Christians have been able to alter our copies of these texts? Son of man is in there, but Jews are going to say it means a very different thing.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

smaneck

Baha'i
Sep 29, 2010
21,182
2,948
Jackson, MS
✟55,644.00
Faith
Baha'i
Marital Status
Single
This is from the Christian interpolation wiki link that I posted:

"The term generally refers in textual criticism to the specific phenomena of textual insertion and textual damage to Jewish sources text during Christian scribal transmission"

How do you interpret that? Am I mistaken in thinking that is a possible explanation for why it's the same in the Tanakh?

The wiki article only suggests there was Christian interpolation in some the pseudepigrapha works of the Apocrypha which mention Son of Man. None of these works end up in the Tanakh. In fact I don't think any of them end up in the Catholic canon either. No scholar, to my knowledge, has ever suggested that the references to the Son of Man in Daniel were Christian interpolations.
 
Upvote 0

TreasureHunter12

Active Member
Feb 16, 2016
165
17
California
✟16,209.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
But the way it is used in Daniel seems rather unique. It seems to be very much a supernatural figure.
That is the one that I believe to be fraudulently added from what Jesus said (Mark 13:26). The rest could be mistranslations in which they used the same SoM phrase to represent two different, but similar descriptions (human & SoM).

I guess what I'm most curious about is how much were Christians involved in the transmission of the Tanakh after the time of Jesus.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

TreasureHunter12

Active Member
Feb 16, 2016
165
17
California
✟16,209.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Jews and Christians would have had their own copies of these books. How would Christians have been able to alter our copies of these texts?
That is why I previously dismissed the possibility. I'm now wondering if it is possible Christians could have been heavily involved at some point in transmitting the Jewish Bible.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

smaneck

Baha'i
Sep 29, 2010
21,182
2,948
Jackson, MS
✟55,644.00
Faith
Baha'i
Marital Status
Single
That is the one that I believe to be fraudulently added from what Jesus said (Mark 13:26). The rest could be mistranslations in which they used the same SoM phrase to represent two different, but similar descriptions (human & SoM).

All I can tell you is that is precisely the opposite of what the scholars you were referring to were saying.

I guess what I'm most curious about is how much were Christians involved in the transmission of the Tanakh after the time of Jesus.

They weren't involved in that at all. What they were involved in interpolating were parts of the Apocrypha literature that don't end up either in the Tanakh or in the canonical Old Testament.
 
Upvote 0

TreasureHunter12

Active Member
Feb 16, 2016
165
17
California
✟16,209.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
All I can tell you is that is precisely the opposite of what the scholars you were referring to were saying.



They weren't involved in that at all. What they were involved in interpolating were parts of the Apocrypha literature that don't end up either in the Tanakh or in the canonical Old Testament.
Ok thanks. I'm just going to go back to being unsure and leave it alone.
 
Upvote 0

LoAmmi

Dispassionate
Mar 12, 2012
26,944
9,715
✟209,533.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
That is why I previously dismissed the possibility. I'm now wondering if it is possible Christians could have been heavily involved at some point in transmitting the Jewish Bible.

No, they weren't. We have always kept our own text and we wouldn't have trusted outsiders to preserve our writings.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I feel it is best to keep the focus on the process of spiritual development rather than on individual beliefs for the same reason you want to focus on the cause rather than the symptoms of a problem. With that said, I'm going to share a few beliefs since they are uncommon.

Without defining "salvation", I agree with the Christian idea that one has to be born again in order to be saved. However, I believe that to be born again means you become the "Son of Man".

Man -> born again -> Son of Man (SoM)

Pretty straightforward right? The Jewish idea of a Messiah I believe to be completely separate to what Jesus was and taught. All of the mentions of SoM in the Old Testament, or pre-Jesus, I believe to be a product of Christian interpolation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_interpolation

I believe Jesus to be the creator of the Son of Man phrase.

If we have son of man, then we SHOULD have son-of-not-man. Otherwise, there is no need for the term.
Who is the son-of-not-man?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums