Son of Man?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Genesis315
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You know, I’ve wondered that myself, as he’s Son of Woman.

I’ll be interested to see what people say.

CARose
 
Jesus may have used the title Son of man because it was a messianic title from the book of Daniel and so by using it Jesus was proclaiming himself the Messiah.

13I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. 14And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed. (Daniel 7:13-14)

Jesus may have used the title Son of man because he was fully human, in the same way he used the title Son of God because he was also fully divine.
 
“Son of Man” is a reference to Daniel 7:13-14:
As the visions during the night continued, I saw One like a son of man coming, on the clouds of heaven; When he reached the Ancient One and was presented before him, He received dominion, glory, and kingship; nations and peoples of every language serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not be taken away, his kingship shall not be destroyed.
Click to expand...
Jesus was identifying himself with this figure that had Messianic significance for the Jews.
 
CaRose, in the time and culture of Jesus’ life here on earth, to use a term refering to a person as being a son of a women could be a real insult. In a way this was brought out in the Gospels when some of Jesus’ biggest critics would mention call Jesus son of Mary but Joseph’s name isn’t mentioned (the son of the carpetner was the best they could say) which in their style of speach they were hinting that Jesus was illegitmate. I guess the best way to acheive what you are saying to to use Luke’s phrase that we use in the Hail Mary.
 
god created man

Jesus is the son of man

is Mary the mother of mankind?

or would it be Eve, being that she was created from Adam

but, Jesus is the son of god, being that God made Mary pregnant

So then, is mankind the wife of god?

That is not possible, being that god has created and destroyed much of gods past creations, dinosaurs being one, and these giant humanoids in the bible being another, and how many others, only god knows.

This would mean that the creations of god are like that of a wife.

God will love us as long as we love god and respect our creator.
sorry guys, this just came to me, just now. hehehe
 
Jesus is called a “Son of Man” because other Heavenly beings, angels and demons, are called “sons of God” because God is their immediate “parent,” with no intervening forebears, Job 1:6, Genesis 6:2, whereas Jesus is a Heavenly being with a human forebear. It’s a reference to Himself as the Incarnation.
 
40.png
CARose:
You know, I’ve wondered that myself, as he’s Son of Woman.
Click to expand...
A misunderstanding resulting from modern use of ‘inclusive’ language. “Son of Man” is a phrase like “No man is an island,” or “Man does not live on bread alone.” The phrase indicates humanity, not gender.

I agree with Fidelis that the phrase is a Messianic title, with specific reference to Daniel 7:13-14.
 
Jesus is both called Son of Man and Son of God.

I wonder if this is a result of the Incarnation. he is fully God and fully human?

Any thoughts on that?
 
40.png
Dan-Man916:
Jesus is both called Son of Man and Son of God.

I wonder if this is a result of the Incarnation. he is fully God and fully human?

Any thoughts on that?
Click to expand...
Yes that’s really the meaning of the Incarnation. He is fully God from all Eternity, and fully human, having taken on a human nature and being born of Mary.
 
40.png
Genesis315:
Why does Jesus call Himself the Son of Man?:hmmm:
Click to expand...

Apparently the epithet has Messianic overtones - partly because of Daniel 7.10 ff. (The form of address to Ezekiel, which is on the face of it so similar, is apparently not connected in meaning - it means “human being”, but, so it seems, nothing more.)​

By applying to himself the title in Daniel 7, Jesus is claiming to be the apocalyptic figure through the agency of whom JHWH would bring in His rule as King. The figure is not immediately Messianic in Daniel, but could easily be given a Messianic content.

IOW, Jesus is preaching the Kingdom of God by using this epithet - and claiming to be the means of its coming into the world. He is also implying that He is JHWH’s means of judging the nations - a Messianic function. (See also Acts 17 on Jesus as judge.)

That is why preaching (better: heralding) the Kingdom of God, is called “good news” - just about everything in Jesus’ ministry and teaching can be regarded as a way to bring in the Kingdom/Kingship/Reign/Rule of God: Luke 4’s quotation of Isaiah 61 is a programme of what He will do to bring it in. The Kingdom is intimately connected to the repeated questions about just Who Jesus is.

As the Gentiles did not think in these terms, and had different hopes, the mission to them took a different form - which is why “Son of Man” is not used as a title of Jesus in the preaching of the Apostles: it would not mean anything. ##
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top