The Son of Man

1) A Confusion in Meaning
"...There are only a handful of passages in the synoptic gospels in which Jesus refers to himself as the Christ, or as the Son or Son of God. In sharp contrast, there are a large number of Son of Man sayings. There are thirteen in Mark, twelve in Q, eight in Matthew's special material (M), six in Luke's special material (L), and eleven in John's Gospel."

Rest of link...

www.mystae.com...

An interesting link which presents how this terms is applied in the NT and OT...

Would like to read the thoughts of all concerned (this includes the skeptics)

Yes, it is an interesting read. If one takes the Bible as 'literal', then the term or denotation of "Son" verses "son" does have significant bearing and meaning. Jesus, also known as Joshua, was expressed to be the "Son" of God, not a "son" of god. If one compares and analizes when and how these 'words types' are used in the passages they are in, the significance is quite apparent.

"Son" and "son" are not the only words that have significance...you "Angel" of the Lord and "angel" of the Lord...as another example of this....
There are many other such occurrences.


regards
seekerof

Its apparent that the emphasis is upon Jesus being a son of man goes well beyond any indication he was the Son of God. Suggesting not only, the idea that the bible was edited after the fact. But also that Jesus really had no intention of being defined as God, but rather a prophet.

The term Buddha means "hand of God" and with respect to the OT the "hand of God" in exodus was responsible for killing the fist born of Pharaoh (defined in that context as death).

Is it possible that the application of the term Son of God
was political?

Any thoughts?

No, Toltec, that is not the case. You are making doctrine from one pondering of the book. Remember, His only begotten Son...all those who believe in Him shall be saved, and all that? There is much more evidence that He is the Son of God, the One and only salvation for a lost and dying world.

Go screw with someone else's religion and give mine a break for a few months, huh!?!

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
No, Toltec, that is not the case. You are making doctrine from one pondering of the book. Remember, His only begotten Son...all those who believe in Him shall be saved, and all that? There is much more evidence that He is the Son of God, the One and only salvation for a lost and dying world.

Go screw with someone else's religion and give mine a break for a few months, huh!?!

Amen to that, my brother. I go to church EVERY Sunday. I agree 100%.

We are all sons and daughters read the creaton story.

Begotten son refers to the unique position of service that Christ has been put into re: the future plans for humankind.

May well have been Toltec. The Bible is really a historical writing of and on the founding of Israel and it's belief in one God. (Monotheism verses other surrounding civilizations and cultures that practiced Polytheism, etc.)

So, it is very plausiable that word usage and emphazing of various words could have been politically motivated, etc. Jesus was a rabbi/teacher/prophet. He was named the "Messiah"..... it's interesting to note, that there were many before Jesus and during the time of Jesus who claimed to be the Messiah. Jesus lacked a few things when compared to the term and meaning of the Jewish Messiah though.....having an army and setting Israel free from oppression...namely the Roman Empire. He did neither. I think that is why today, the Jewish people do not think of Jesus as the Messiah...in fact, they are still awaiting one.

I read an interesting article today that commented that those who wrote the New Testament really didn't know Jesus and would not have known who he was if he had walked up to them.....


regards
seekerof

Daniel 7:13 - 7:14
7:13. "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,
coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into
his presence.
7:14. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of
every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass
away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

There were several Messianic passages in the Old Testament which refered to Messiah as the "son of man". Jesus when he used the term "son of man" was referencing these prophecies in the Old Testamen and therefore saying "I am the Messiah".

Originally posted by Toltec
Its apparent that the emphasis is upon Jesus being a son of man goes well beyond any indication he was the Son of God. Suggesting not only, the idea that the bible was edited after the fact. But also that Jesus really had no intention of being defined as God, but rather a prophet.

The term Buddha means "hand of God" and with respect to the OT the "hand of God" in exodus was responsible for killing the fist born of Pharaoh (defined in that context as death).

Is it possible that the application of the term Son of God
was political?

Any thoughts?

This post has many propositions in it. Some of them have been connected in a way which there is no foundation for. I would like to know which of your theories you would like to address first.

My interpretation has more often than not been that Jesus said he was a son of God, not "the" Son of God.

By the way, the term Buddha does not mean "hand of God" but means "enlightened one". Unless my sources from Buddhist web sites are totally wrong, Buddha means "enlightened one".

To further clarify the point that the blonde hair, blue eyed representation of Jesus is an abomination you need to look no further than the ansectral lineage of Jesus. Jesus was a Hebrew. He was a descendant of Moses from the House of David. Moses was a Hebrew who passed as an Egyptian. Regardless of what many will assert, Egypt is in Africa. David was an African Hebrew. This is the family tree of Jesus.



Revalation 1:14 "his hair was white like WOOL."

Revalation 1:15 "his feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace"



[Edited on 8-10-2003 by Colonel]

[Edited on 8-10-2003 by Colonel]

Just a couple of "set-you-straights", ok?

1. I don't worship Jesus. And any Christian who has his head on straight doesn't either.

2. I don't particularly care what Jesus looked like...period. That includes his skin-color, or whether he was nappy-headed. Doesn't matter to me at all. If you think being a Christian means you're so devoid of intelligence that you can't understand that classic art was painted in the fashion of the contemporaneous Anglo Saxon models...you've got another thing coming.

3. Jesus was actually a Jew...which a much smaller sub-class of the first-lineage Hebrews which would have been those that crossed the Eber River with Abraham (and separated by at least a couple of millennia of intermarriages) so to insinuate that the Jews of BC/AD period looked like Moses (a not to distant descendant of the original Hebrews) is a bit of a stretch.

Your points are well taken and not disputed, actually. It's just your attitude that you are in some way correcting us of some great fallacious ideal that gripes me.

Hate to burst you ballon colonel, but Jesus was a Semite, and would look not much different than the people who live in the Middle East today. Here is what ancient egpytians look like:

No, I'm not insinuating anything. I'll let Illmatic67 do that for me. I just want everyone to know who has the pic of Jesus in their homes what the real deal is.

I screwed up and cut up the wrong post:

Moses was a Hebrew who "passed" as an Egyptian. Regardless of what many will assert, Egypt is in Africa. David was an African Hebrew. This is the family tree of Jesus.

And being that the "Eygptians" looked like that. I wonder what the Hebrews looked like. I mean, how were you supposed to tell the difference between a Hebrew and an Eyptian?

Could it be that the Hebrews were...............BLACK! AAAHHHH!

Originally posted by Colonel
And being that the "Eygptians" looked like that. I wonder what the Hebrews looked like. I mean, how were you supposed to tell the difference between a Hebrew and an Eyptian?

It was probably pretty easy...the Egyptians were the ones snapping the whip, the Hebrews were the ones at the other end.

That's a bit too simple. You know that.