How does one explain "Son of Man"?

[Netty1]

Hello everyone.

I’ve got into a bit of a debate with someone who says that nowhere in the NT does our Lord ever directly and emphatically claim to be the Son of God. I know the right chapters and verses to quote, but that does not seem to be enough because she says the words are ambiguous and can be interpreted any-which-way.

She also says the Son of Man means exactly that - that Jesus was saying He was Joseph’s son, and that when He says “my Father” that is a claim we can all make because we are all God’s children. The person concerned is a lapsed Protestant. She believed at one point but then fell away because she says that if Christ believed Himself to be the Son of God, He would have said it more clearly and plainly.

I’m quite a new convert Catholic and while pretty good on my scripture, apologetics are a newer challenge for me, and I’d like to be able to give a better reply that just quote scriptures over and over, which she doesn’t interpret the same way.

Can anyone offer some advice on how to progress the conversation past this impasse? It’s a friendly impasse by the way, so it would be nice to give her some food for thought and possibly raise some questions in her own mind about her falling away.

Thanks in advance to anyone with time to reply.

 

[mysteryreligion]

i have always wondered about this myself

 

[Joe_5859]

Ah yes, our 21st century minds can only seem to wrap themselves around things that are 150% extra-super explicit in ways that we deem so.

I would recommend Catholic Answers’ tract on The Divinity of Christ with many quotes from the early Church Fathers. The words of Scripture can be interpreted “any-which-way” only if one completely ignores historical and literary context as well as the intent of the authors. I can interpret the words to the song “Hotel California” as a treatise in Catholic ecclesiology, but that doesn’t make my interpretation valid or probable. Not all interpretations are equal.

 

[DCNBILL]

Hello everyone.

I’ve got into a bit of a debate with someone who says that nowhere in the NT does our Lord ever directly and emphatically claim to be the Son of God. I know the right chapters and verses to quote, but that does not seem to be enough because she says the words are ambiguous and can be interpreted any-which-way.

She also says the Son of Man means exactly that - that Jesus was saying He was Joseph’s son, and that when He says “my Father” that is a claim we can all make because we are all God’s children. The person concerned is a lapsed Protestant. She believed at one point but then fell away because she says that if Christ believed Himself to be the Son of God, He would have said it more clearly and plainly.

I’m quite a new convert Catholic and while pretty good on my scripture, apologetics are a newer challenge for me, and I’d like to be able to give a better reply that just quote scriptures over and over, which she doesn’t interpret the same way.

Can anyone offer some advice on how to progress the conversation past this impasse? It’s a friendly impasse by the way, so it would be nice to give her some food for thought and possibly raise some questions in her own mind about her falling away.

Thanks in advance to anyone with time to reply.

It would seem that rising from the dead made that pretty clear.

One has to remember that Jesus was always concerned about “the right time” “my time has not come yet” “the time is coming soon”, If he would have been walking around proclaiming to all He met that he was their God he would have been killed a lot earlier than He was, most likely by a quick stoning.

 

[Rocks_91]

Jesus calling himself the “Son of man” was actually a claim to divinity. He was the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecy about the “Son of man” in Daniel. And when Jesus told the people, “Before Abraham was, I AM,” that was an undeniable claim to be God. I AM is the name God gave of himself to Moses.

 

[Usagi]

“Son of man” is an idiom in Hebrew meaning “human being.” It’s used quite a bit in the Old Testament and (according to Wikipedia) in other Semitic-language writings as well.

Most notably, the prophet Daniel sees the following in a vision:
Book of Daniel:

13 I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of the sky one like a son of man (כבר אנש [kibar 'anash]), and he came even to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. 14 There was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

In other words, he saw someone who looked human come before God (the ancient of days) and be given everlasting dominion. This is one of the prophecies that led to a Jewish belief in the coming Messiah. By the time of Jesus (again, according to Wikipedia) the use of “the Son of Man” had become a Messianic title, referring back to that passage in Daniel.

Thus, the general understanding is that when Jesus refers to Himself as “the Son of Man,” he is claiming to be the Messiah. It has nothing to do with whether or not He is the biological son of Joseph.

Usagi

 

[Garyjohn2]

Christ did not explicitly claim to be the Son of God himself very often…and he said why:

John 5:31 "If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid."

He did not come to toot his own horn, so to speak. His actions and others testified on his behalf. However, plenty of other verses support his being the Son of God.

Luke 1:35
The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.
Don’t know how that one can be interpreted any other way…God conceived Him, hence, son of God.

Matthew 4:3 The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread."
satan knew who he was.

AND THE CLINCHER Luke 22: 70-71
**And they all said, “Are You the Son of God, then?” And He said to them, “Yes, I am.” Then they said, “What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth.” **
Don’t know how this can be interpreted any other way…

If your friend won’t listen to that last verse, there is no hope!
There is no further need for testimony, for we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth!

 

[GEddie]

It would seem that rising from the dead made that pretty clear.

One has to remember that Jesus was always concerned about “the right time” “my time has not come yet” “the time is coming soon”, If he would have been walking around proclaiming to all He met that he was their God he would have been killed a lot earlier than He was, most likely by a quick stoning.

That was not an issue; He had full command of His situations, even the entropy of His natural body. Did HE not say that no one would take His life from Him; that He had power to lay it down and take it up again?

Still, had He shot off His mouth telling everybody in plain Hebrew that HE was God, methinks people would have been driven off from Him rather than follow Him.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[starsmurf]

Jesus did claim to be Son of God, that is the “blasphemy” He was crucified for. The phrase “son of man” simply means “man”, it was an idiom. Jesus could not have started His ministry by stating that He was the Son of God as one of two things would have happened, either they would have executed Him for blasphemy or, if they had believed it, they would have thrown themselves at His feet and been too frightened and overwhelmed to move, and wouldn’t have heard a word He said.

In the Gospels, Jesus asks His Apostles who they think He is, and Peter answers,"‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God’. Jesus replied, ‘It is well for you Simon Barjona, for it is not flesh and blood that has revealed this to you but My Father in Heaven’" (Matthew 16:15-17). There are other passages that have Him saying that He is one with God. I hope other posters will be able to give the references for them. I will try and find some of them and put them up for you.

 

[Mintaka]

Now, slow down, folks. Like “Son of Man”, aka “Son of Adam”, the expression “Son of God” first appeared in the Bible in a more messianic or normal way.

King Solomon was the “son of God”, for example. It meant that, as king, he was specially favored by God like a son. Someone claiming to be “Son of God” was going to be understood first as claiming to be the King of Israel.

It’s the “I AM” that’s the clincher. (And in Hebrew, that’s said in a special weird eternalish tense, used only for the Name of God. You literally couldn’t miss what Jesus was getting at.)

 

[TimothyH]

As Usagi pointed out, “Son of Man” was a clear reference to Daniels prophecy, specifically his description of the vision he saw in a dream in chapter 7. Jews in Jesus time knew scripture cold. Scripture was used to teach Jewish children how to read a write. The reference would have been crystal clear to any Jew who heard Jesus call himself “Son of Man”.

As the visions during the night continued, I saw coming with the clouds of heaven. One like a son of man. When he reached the Ancient of Days and was presented before him, He received dominion, splendor, and kingship; all nations, peoples and tongues will serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, his kingship, one that shall not be destroyed. (Danile 7:13-14)

There was nearly 100% literacy in Israel at the time of Jesus. Jewish children were taught to read and write using the book of Leviticus. This served the dual purpose of teaching them their ABC’s as well as teaching them the “Holiness code” of the mosaic law. Jewish children were inculcated in the scriptures from an early age and as adults, they spent hours in the synagogue on each sabbath learning about “The law and the prophets” from the Hebrew Bible.

Jews understood Jerimiahs’ prophecy about the Babylonian exile, which he said would last 70 years physically, during which time the Jews would not occupy the land of Canaan. Jews also understood Jerimiahs’ prophecy about the spiritual exile during which Israel’s hearts would be far from God, which Jerimiah said would last seven times seventy, or 490 years. They also knew that Jerimah prophecied that the Messiah would come at the conclusion of the 490 year spiritual exile.

Jesus’ public ministry was starting just as the 490 year spiritual exile was concluding. Everyone in Israel was expecting the messiah soon. That’s why everyone was going ot out be baptized by John the baptist from all of Judea and the surrounding areas. They were preparing themselves because they expected the Messiah soon.

Jews were taugh the works of these prophets from a early age, studied them, and heard about them in the synagogue weekly. They clearly knew what “Son of Man” meant and when Jesus called himslf “Son of Man”, they would have seen it as a clear reference to one who would recieve “dominion, splendor, and kingship” and that “all nations, peoples and tongues will serve him.” They knew that in calling himself “Son of Man”, Jesus was claiming to be the king with “an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, his kingship, one that shall not be destroyed” just as it says in the 7th chapter of the Book of Jerimiah.

The reference would have been crystal clear, not as a reference to an ordinary man, but as a reference to one who was to be presented to the “Ancient of Days” as king, just like it says in Jerimiah.

-Tim-

 

[Garyjohn2]

As Usagi pointed out, “Son of Man” was a clear reference to Daniels prophecy, specifically his description of the vision he saw in a dream in chapter 7. Jews in Jesus time knew scripture cold. Scripture was used to teach Jewish children how to read a write. The reference would have been crystal clear to any Jew who heard Jesus call himself “Son of Man”.

…

-Tim-

I see what you are saying, but I also think there are other ways to interpret “Son of Man”.
For example, in last Sunday’s reading, God calls Ezekiel son of man.
Thus says the LORD:
You, son of man, I have appointed watchman for the house of Israel;
when you hear me say anything, you shall warn them for me.

So I think this might not have been crystal clear, if people thought Jesus was just claiming to be a prophet like Ezekiel, right? Not necessarily the one who is “like a son of man” in Daniel’s prophecies. Could be either one in this case I’m thinking. What do you think?

On the other hand, is it true that Solomon was considered a Son of God? This kind of throws off our notion of who Jesus was…THE son of God. Does that mean he is only A son of God? This seems strange to me. How to we tell them apart?

 

[Benadam]

I see what you are saying, but I also think there are other ways to interpret “Son of Man”.
?

I think it likely they would think of the first son of man as Seth. The ancient of days his father Adam.

 

[Usagi]

I see what you are saying, but I also think there are other ways to interpret “Son of Man”.
For example, in last Sunday’s reading, God calls Ezekiel son of man.

God calls Ezekiel that repeatedly in the book named after him. It’s used in the general sense of “human being.”

So I think this might not have been crystal clear, if people thought Jesus was just claiming to be a prophet like Ezekiel, right? Not necessarily the one who is “like a son of man” in Daniel’s prophecies. Could be either one in this case I’m thinking. What do you think?

I think the Daniel interpretation is most likely, because Jesus repeatedly used “the Son of Man,” as though it were some kind of title for a specific person. It doesn’t work to just substitute “human being” in the cases where He uses the phrase.

On the other hand, is it true that Solomon was considered a Son of God? This kind of throws off our notion of who Jesus was…THE son of God. Does that mean he is only A son of God? This seems strange to me. How to we tell them apart?

It’s true that the term “son of God” doesn’t completely seal the case for Jesus’ divinity, as other people/beings are called “sons of God” in Scripture, all the way back to the fathers of the Nephilim in Genesis (whom some interpret as angels, others as the descendants of Seth in contrast to the descendants of Cain). However, there is plenty of additional Scriptural evidence that Jesus had a unique Sonship. Exactly how He and the Father were related took some time to work out, and is clearer in the canons of the early Councils than in Scripture alone (though the “raw data” from which the final version was taken can be found in Scripture).

Usagi

 

[Mintaka]

I’m sorry; I didn’t mean to confuse you…

The pattern in OT Scripture with Jesus references is:

1. God introduces X sort of person or Y sort of title.
2. God introduces these things into the idea of the king, the idea of a prophet, or into Messianic prophecy. Often, all three.
3. Gradually, these things become regarded as more and more holy and amazing.
4. Jesus arrives, and fulfills the Messianic titles and prophecies – but in a way that is much more amazing or shocking than anybody had ever expected.
5. God warns us through NT prophecy that these things are going to be fulfilled through Jesus even more, at the Second Coming and Last Judgement.

Jesus as Son of God and Son of Man, and as true God and true Man, and the Bridegroom, and the King, and the High Priest, and the VIctim – all those things are going to really hit home with us then, as we experience their implications for ourselves as itsy bitsy members of His Body.

This is why people talking about “opening up” the Scriptures. Things get deeper as you go along.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

Man also refers to the beings that we all are.

Jesus stated that he was a “Son of Man”, meaning he was a human being, and not some other form of entity.

He also said that he was the Son of the Father in heaven.

By his statement, he was clearly saying that he was both a full human being, born of a human mother, and God, the Son of God.

Had he been saying he was the son of Joseph, he would have clearly stated that simple fact. AND, legally, he WAS the son of Joesph, with the full right of inheritance (if he was the eldest son). He was Joseph’s son because under Jewish law, and child born of a marriage was automatically the legal child of both the husband and the wife. That stopped anyone else from claiming paternity, and causing legal problems.

Stop looking for “weasel words” Our Lord didn’t use any, he spoke very, very clearly.

 

[Netty1]

Thank you everyone for posting. :grouphug:

The whole conversation is very helpful and I’ve made some notes to help me give a more rounded reply in the debate with this woman. I think I’ll be able to hold my end up now and give a good account.

Sto[p looking for “weasel words” Our Lord didn’t use any, he spoke very, very clearly.

I wasn’t looking for “weasel words”. I was looking for help. Thankfully I received some very helpful responses.
[/quote]

 

[PennyinCanada]

When Jesus gave himself that title, it’s an invite to me to look into what He was referring to when He said that. Too bad she didn’t ask questions and grow in her knowledge of the faith. Do you know why she left ‘the Living Waters’, the Good Shepherd? How sad. May she come back to the Lord on fire for Him!

I appreciated the replies, everyone. Thanks!

 

[JonathonofOhio]

“Son of man” is an idiom in Hebrew meaning “human being.” It’s used quite a bit in the Old Testament and (according to Wikipedia) in other Semitic-language writings as well.

Most notably, the prophet Daniel sees the following in a vision:

In other words, he saw someone who looked human come before God (the ancient of days) and be given everlasting dominion. This is one of the prophecies that led to a Jewish belief in the coming Messiah. By the time of Jesus (again, according to Wikipedia) the use of “the Son of Man” had become a Messianic title, referring back to that passage in Daniel.

Thus, the general understanding is that when Jesus refers to Himself as “the Son of Man,” he is claiming to be the Messiah. It has nothing to do with whether or not He is the biological son of Joseph.

Usagi

Christ did not explicitly claim to be the Son of God himself very often…and he said why:

John 5:31 "If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid."

He did not come to toot his own horn, so to speak. His actions and others testified on his behalf. However, plenty of other verses support his being the Son of God.

Luke 1:35
The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.
Don’t know how that one can be interpreted any other way…God conceived Him, hence, son of God.

Matthew 4:3 The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread."
satan knew who he was.

AND THE CLINCHER Luke 22: 70-71
**And they all said, “Are You the Son of God, then?” And He said to them, “Yes, I am.” Then they said, “What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth.” **
Don’t know how this can be interpreted any other way…

If your friend won’t listen to that last verse, there is no hope!
There is no further need for testimony, for we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth!

This and this is your complete answer. If the person doesn’t listen after giving this to them then pray for them. No amount of debate will get that person to budge.

 

[PJM]

=Netty1;8341412]Hello everyone.

I’ve got into a bit of a debate with someone who says that nowhere in the NT does our Lord ever directly and emphatically claim to be the Son of God. I know the right chapters and verses to quote, but that does not seem to be enough because she says the words are ambiguous and can be interpreted any-which-way.

She also says the Son of Man means exactly that - that Jesus was saying He was Joseph’s son, and that when He says “my Father” that is a claim we can all make because we are all God’s children. The person concerned is a lapsed Protestant. She believed at one point but then fell away because she says that if Christ believed Himself to be the Son of God, He would have said it more clearly and plainly.

I’m quite a new convert Catholic and while pretty good on my scripture, apologetics are a newer challenge for me, and I’d like to be able to give a better reply that just quote scriptures over and over, which she doesn’t interpret the same way.

Can anyone offer some advice on how to progress the conversation past this impasse? It’s a friendly impasse by the way, so it would be nice to give her some food for thought and possibly raise some questions in her own mind about her falling away.

Thanks in advance to anyone with time to reply.

Why of couse He does: Start with Lk. 1:34-35," And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?” And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.

**Then at Christ Baptism: **Mt. 3:16-17 "And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."

Matt.7: 21 “Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven”.

And there are more than 50 more references we can show.

God Bless,
Pat