Son of Man

[Eudaimonist]

Last i checked Jesus was the son of a woman, but not a man.

Good point. So what does the phrase "Son of Man" really mean in the context of Jesus?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[TreasureHunter12]

Geza Vermes has stated that the use of "the Son of man" in the Christian gospels is unrelated to Hebrew Bible usages.

I just read the above from this link:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_man_(Christianity)

So, maybe I shouldn't have said that Jesus created the SoM phrase, but I feel strongly that the way he used it was completely his own and new. As I've shown, I'm no biblical expert so I lack an understanding for why SoM is used to represent different meanings.

I will say I'm perplexed by why there is so little focus on what SoM means within the context of Jesus' teaching. For instance, Jesus never said that he will return; he said the SoM will return..

 

[gord44]

he said the SoM will return..

Clearly he means His Divine Majesty, the Emperor of Man.

 

[smaneck]

Good point. So what does the phrase "Son of Man" really mean in the context of Jesus?

eudaimonia,

Mark

I think of it in terms of the Persian idea of the Perfect Man who is seen as a microcosm of the universe. But I think the title's primary function was to tie Jesus to the prophecies of Daniel.

 

[TreasureHunter12]

Clearly he means His Divine Majesty, the Emperor of Man.

In my view, the modern Christian understanding is the understanding of the earliest Christians whose perspective the New Testament is based on. However, it's also clear to me that Jesus' teachings were not easily understood. Even the twelve disciples who were around him constantly were shown to have trouble grasping his message. Further, Jesus implies this when he explains why he uses metaphor.

 

[gord44]

 

[TreasureHunter12]

You're a Buddhist. This thread isn't interesting to you. I get it.

 

[gord44]

Sorry. Usually around these parts we don't mind a little fun and humour here and there and you never know when a fellow 40k fan might pop up!

It's an interesting question. I was a Christian for over 10 years so it's a relevant thread.

 

[TreasureHunter12]

Last i checked Jesus was the son of a woman, but not a man.

Jesus wasn't teaching about Jesus the human though. What he taught involved, in his words, overcoming the world, bearing the cross, sacrifice, and enduring faith. This process involves accessing the masculine so he used Father (God), son, and man. If it were a feminine driven teaching, he would have used Mother, daughter, etc.

From Gospel of Thomas:

114. Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life."

Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

 

[LoAmmi]

Geza Vermes has stated that the use of "the Son of man" in the Christian gospels is unrelated to Hebrew Bible usages.

It's tied to Daniel in the New Testament, but as someone pointed out earlier, we take it to just mean a human and not anything more significant.

 

[Robban]

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.

Does that make sense, Man-born again-son of man,
Are we not all born?
Son or daughter of man/human,

 

[TreasureHunter12]

It's tied to Daniel in the New Testament, but as someone pointed out earlier, we take it to just mean a human and not anything more significant.

It's easier to separate the way Jesus used it to those. The hard one is Daniel 7:13 since it is so similar to Mark 13:26. Now that this idea of Christian interpolation is unrealistic, here is where I'm currently at:

Jesus used the framework of current Jewish understanding to incorporate his teaching. He was fine with being misunderstood since the disciples and others wouldn't be able to comprehend who he actually was until they followed his teaching. So he said what he said in Mark 13:26 knowing his audience was already aware of Daniel 7:13, and that it would be misunderstood.

 

[LoAmmi]

It's easier to separate the way Jesus used it to those. The hard one is Daniel 7:13 since it is so similar to Mark 13:26. Now that this idea of Christian interpolation is unrealistic, here is where I'm currently at:

Jesus used the framework of current Jewish understanding to incorporate his teaching. He was fine with being misunderstood since the disciples and others wouldn't be able to comprehend who he actually was until they followed his teaching. So he said what he said in Mark 13:26 knowing his audience was already aware of Daniel 7:13, and that it would be misunderstood.

He's certainly alluding to being the Messiah. Of course, I don't believe he was the Messiah or, indeed, anybody special in the grand scheme of things.

 

[TreasureHunter12]

He's certainly alluding to being the Messiah. Of course, I don't believe he was the Messiah or, indeed, anybody special in the grand scheme of things.

Right, it seems clear that he was fine with being thought of as the Messiah in the short-term. I'm well aware Occam's razor says he was simply confirming himself as the Messiah, but I do not believe he thought of himself as this Jewish Messiah figure.

 

[smaneck]

Jesus wasn't teaching about Jesus the human though. What he taught involved, in his words, overcoming the world, bearing the cross, sacrifice, and enduring faith. This process involves accessing the masculine so he used Father (God), son, and man. If it were a feminine driven teaching, he would have used Mother, daughter, etc.

From Gospel of Thomas:

114. Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life."

Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

In other words the old woman is to nature what man is to culture (what transcends nature) paradigm. Certainly no Jew would have thought of the divine in other than male terms, but the Gospel of Luke presents Jesus as having rather extraordinary attitudes towards women, at least for the time.

 

[juvenissun]

Last i checked Jesus was the son of a woman, but not a man.

A woman is a "man".

 

[Chesterton]

I have one of those new politically correct gender-neutral Bibles. In each instance it refers to the "Son and/or Daughter of Man and/or Woman".

 

[TreasureHunter12]

In other words the old woman is to nature what man is to culture (what transcends nature) paradigm. Certainly no Jew would have thought of the divine in other than male terms, but the Gospel of Luke presents Jesus as having rather extraordinary attitudes towards women, at least for the time.

In spirituality, masculine and feminine don't have anything to do with gender. The masculine drives growth, but the feminine is equally divine (love, compassion, connection).

 

[juvenissun]

I have one of those new politically correct gender-neutral Bibles. In each instance it refers to the "Son and/or Daughter of Man and/or Woman".

I believe this kind of versions will become more and more, as the search/replace function becomes so convenient today.
What's said in the Bible is so true. It is really amazing.

 

[smaneck]

I have one of those new politically correct gender-neutral Bibles. In each instance it refers to the "Son and/or Daughter of Man and/or Woman".

As a historian I have a problem with that. If the original text is gender neutral then the translation should be gender neutral, but it is more important to be faithful to the text than "politically correct." You can be as politically correct when it comes to interpreting scripture but don't interpolate the text itself.