Son of Man

[salvereginadude]

In religion we have been learning about God and why and what we believe about Him. In doing this we learned about the divinity of Christ. Our religion teacher told us that the title Son of Mancan prove this. I had always wondered what the title really meant other than what it obviously says. He said it not only declared Christ’s humanity but declared His divinity. He cited the book of Daniel where Daniel has a vision of the “Son of Man” and our teacher went on to say that the way Daniel describes this person can only be attriubuted to God. Therefore, the Son of Man must be divine. Do Catholics believe this? It certainly is a clear explanation.

 

[alexaustralia]

“Son of Man” is a title used for the messiah…but is also attributed to other characters in the old testament for example Ezekiel
1Then He said to me, “Son of man, stand on your feet that I may speak with you!”

I believe, and any one can correct me, that the term in general will merely mean that you are human. When applied to Jesus it refers to his messianic role … not necessarily his divinity. This is primarily because the prophets talk about a “son of man” that will deliver his people and restore peace. I have nothing to back this up though appart from my own understanding so feel free to question.

 

[Fidelis]

From the Navarre Bible Commentary on Matthew 8:20:

1. “The Son of Man”: this is one of the expressions used in the Old Testament to refer to the Messiah. It appeared first in Daniel 7:14 and was used in Jewish writings in the time of Jesus. Until our Lord began to preach it had not been understood in all its depth. The title “the Son of man” did not fit in very well with Jewish hopes of an earthly Messiah; this was why it was Jesus’ favorite way of indicating that He was the Messiah–thereby avoiding any tendency to encourage Jewish nationalism. In the prophecy of Daniel just mentioned this messianic title has a transcendental meaning; by using it Jesus was able discreetly to proclaim that He was the Messiah and yet avoid people interpreting His role in a political sense. After the Resurrection the Apostles at last realized that “Son of Man” meant nothing less than “Son of God”.

In other words, I was only upon later reflection led by the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus had promised would lead them into all truth, that the Church recognized this as a title of divinity.

 

[Mystophilus]

In religion we have been learning about God and why and what we believe about Him. In doing this we learned about the divinity of Christ. Our religion teacher told us that the title Son of Mancan prove this. I had always wondered what the title really meant other than what it obviously says. He said it not only declared Christ’s humanity but declared His divinity. He cited the book of Daniel where Daniel has a vision of the “Son of Man” and our teacher went on to say that the way Daniel describes this person can only be attriubuted to God. Therefore, the Son of Man must be divine. Do Catholics believe this? It certainly is a clear explanation.

The title “son of man” actually occurs in the Torah; in Numbers 23:19, it is used in opposition to divinity, i.e., “son of man” means a mortal, rather than a god. In Daniel 7:13, it is used in much the same way: the figure looked like a mortal.

However, its greatest significance with reference to Jesus is in the extra-canonical, Ethiopian Enoch (“1 Enoch”). Particularly from chapter 46, it refers to a “son of man” who will come and save the good. Again, the term is used there to differentiate between the son of man who is born of human flesh, and the angels who are spirit from spirit. Most of this text was most likely written in the C2nd BC, although some scholars believe that parts must be later Christian insertions, because otherwise they would be prophetic. When Jesus referred to himself as “the son of man”, his hearers would have been thinking of this text, and its promised saviour.