Why did Jesus call Himself the "Son of man" -?

[fbl9]

I should have just posted this scripture earlier:

“Wherefore teach it unto your children, that all men, everywhere, must repent, or they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God, for no unclean thing can dwell there, or dwell in his presence; for, in the language of Adam, Man of Holiness is his name, and the name of his Only Begotten is the Son of Man, even Jesus Christ, a righteous Judge, who shall come in the meridian of time.” ~ Moses 6:57

.

Out my three different bibles there is not one book called Moses.Where did you come up with this particular quote?

 

[Scriptorian]

Out my three different bibles there is not one book called Moses.Where did you come up with this particular quote?

Moses is actually a translation of the first few chapters of the book of Genesis. If you want to know more about it I can send you a link to an online version.

 

[John_cunningham]

Jesus did not, the person who wrote the bible did. There was no one 2000 years ago named jesus or any of the bible names. there was no alphabet with the symbols to produce any of those names. They admit they translated them which is never done with names. John 4 -24 says God is a spirit as we once were. Spirits do not get women pregant. But at that time a virgin pregancey was not explaned. lack of education as in all religion developed. ceaserion is a virgin birth.

 

[ryanoneil]

“Son of Man” is from a Danielic prophecy about the Messiah, Daniel 7:13-14.

I agree this is why Jesus calls himself the Son of Man. I would add that Daniel’s vision takes historical shape (initially) with Jesus’ resurrection and ascension to the Father.

So then the Lord Jesus, after he spoke to them, was taken up into heaven and took his seat at the right hand of God. (Mk 16:19)

Jesus refers to this passage and links this Son of Man to Himself, in Matthew 24:30 and other passages.

thus Jesus is effectively saying that He is the One who is like a Son of Man prophesied in Daniel, the King who will come in glory to reign over all the earth, when He comes again.

Mt 24:30 took historical shape (initially) with Jerusalem’s judgment and the termination of the Old Covenant in 70 A.D. Christ riding on a cloud was visibly manifest by the Roman army just as God riding on a cloud to Egypt (Isa 19:1) was visibly manifest by the Assyrian army (Isa 20:1). In this way Mt 24:34 has been fulfilled.

Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.

This prefigures and points to Christ’s coming at the end of time.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Because Jesus was fully human and fully divine.
Son of Man - Son of God.

 

[Steve40]

I disagree doctrinally and logically. Again I must ask this question. Why would Christ proclaim his mortality to those who thought he was nothing more than a man?

“Son of Man” = “Son of God”

God = Man of Holiness

I’ve never met a Christian who didn’t believe Jesus came from Mary’s womb, but you may have your reasons.

I don’t think Son of Man proclaims mortality. By original design humans are designed to live forever. Scientifically it is aging we don’t understand when it comes to the human body. Genetically we should just keep making cells and keep going but we don’t. Jesus never would have aged if He didn’t lay down His Life for us. Besides, His chosen mortality was short lived.

Why do you say man (man kind) is nothing? I must admit, I haven’t made too much of it and sometimes I down right stink at being human, but my inability to be human doesn’t affect Who Christ Is.

Your questions remind me of Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. Why flesh? Why do I have flesh? Why did Christ empy Himself and take on Flesh? I can’t say I’m an expert on Theology of the Body and I may end up being more confusing than making sense, but I’ll give it a try anyway.

The base purpose of the meaning of life is to be gift of self. This is true in all ocupations and human ways of life. We really only find fulfillment when we are a gift to another. Miserable people don’t know how to be a gift. Being in the flesh allows you to carry this out. Likewise it gives Christ the ability to Be Gift to us. Do you believe that the Eucharist is the Body/Flesh of God? He continues to give Himself to us just as He did on the Cross a little over 2000 years ago.

 

[PJM]

=MrZetterlund;6017676]I know it’s a messianic title he gave himself, but what does it mean? Doesn’t it contradict with being called the Son of God? This is the most repeated title for Himself throughout the the Bible.

***Jesus is not “the son of man” in the sense that His Father is a human person. Rather this term is applied by Jesus to Himself, in identification and acknowledgement of His being fully Human like us except in sin. Jesus as “man” had our senses, our emotions, and even a human mind, intellect and freewill.

Love and prayers,

Pat***

 

[fbl9]

Moses is actually a translation of the first few chapters of the book of Genesis. If you want to know more about it I can send you a link to an online version.

IOW this quote isn’t really scripture then, just JS’s version of it.

 

[fultonfish]

Also significant: Jesus described Himself as sitting. Only the judge sits.

 

[fbl9]

IOW this quote isn’t really scripture then, just JS’s version of it.

Scriptorian: i must apologize to you for the dismissive way i treated what you hold as scripture…
The fact that i do not hold Joseph Smith as an authenic writer of scripture is the reason i said what i said.

 

[rollerroller]

Jesus did not, the person who wrote the bible did. There was no one 2000 years ago named jesus or any of the bible names. there was no alphabet with the symbols to produce any of those names. They admit they translated them which is never done with names. John 4 -24 says God is a spirit as we once were. Spirits do not get women pregant. But at that time a virgin pregancey was not explaned. lack of education as in all religion developed. ceaserion is a virgin birth.

John, my understanding of the “rules” of this site is that everyone, of any religious persuasion, or none, is welcome. So, you are welcome; it appears that because you are participating you are indeed looking for answers. However, please think a little more carefully about being correct and logical with or without a faith component. But of course there is an historical Jesus; this is indisputable fact, regardless of faith in Him. But of course there was an alphabet and written history. Two very literate civilizations, the Greek and the Roman, were the contemporary context for Jesus’s life, and there certainly was literacy in the Hebrew and Aramaic languages. This literacy did not belong to everyone, but to a small educated class… . consider the word “scribe.” Do not get confused about cesarean section being a virgin birth. That is not correct. The virgin birth refers to Jesus having been conceived although his mother did not have a sexual relationship with a man. The method of conception is relevant here, not the method of delivery. You say that God is a spirit as we once were. Be assured, we have in no way lost our spiritual nature. Your spirit is searching right now. John, I am guessing you are a fairly young man. I hope that is your real name because I will pray for you specifically by name. If you want real answers, I know it will be difficult, but you must stop listening to metal. I know it will be hard, but you have to stop hearing lies before you can get to the truth. God Bless You.

 

[abarkett]

The term Son of Man is used in 3 primary ways:

1. In the Old Testament to refer simply to mortal people
2. In the Old Testament to refer to a Messianic figure
3. In the New Testament by Jesus.

As Scriptorian points out, Jesus usually refers to himself as divine, and it seems unlikely that he’s simultaneously referring to himself as the Son of Man, except perhaps indirectly*

“As my vision continued that night, I saw someone like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, honor, and sovereignty over all the nations of the world, so that people of every race and nation and language worshiped him. His rule is eternal—it will never end. His kingdom will never be destroyed.” Daniel 7:13-14

Jesus “believes” in this vision of the future. What his belief here means,exactly, depends on how far away you think Jesus believed the end times to be. It is possible that Jesus considered himself the Son of Man. It’s also possible that he, knowing he was about to die, assumed that the Son of Man would come after him (Jesus) at the end time. It’s also possible that Jesus never exactly believed in Daniel’s vision, but instead tried to essentially equate himself with the concept of Daniel’s vision but without giving it the full force of his belief.

It seems pretty reasonable to me to assume that Jesus viewed himself as the Son of God, believed in the vision of the coming apocalypse, and was trying to save people by getting them to atone for their sins before the coming of the kingdom of the end times and the Son of Man.

Whether you believe that Jesus would, himself, return as this Son of Man, doesn’t seem terribly important. Same particular fleshy incarnation of God or different particular fleshy incarnation of God, the story has the same meaning.

 

[Mystophilus]

I know it’s a messianic title he gave himself, but what does it mean? Doesn’t it contradict with being called the Son of God? This is the most repeated title for Himself throughout the the Bible.

1 Enoch, which most of us regard as extra-canonical, was written around the same time as the Gospels, and also uses the expression Son of Man in a way which can shed some light on this. There, the Messiah is identified as the Son of Man to say that He is physically born of a human, and is thus not only spirit, as the angels are: it is a way of saying that, whilst being the Son of God, he is also one of us, and so “we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb 4:15).

BTW, the expression is also used repeatedly by both Jeremiah and Ezekiel, to mean “human”.

 

[patrick457]

1 Enoch, which most of us regard as extra-canonical, was written around the same time as the Gospels, and also uses the expression Son of Man in a way which can shed some light on this. There, the Messiah is identified as the Son of Man to say that He is physically born of a human, and is thus not only spirit, as the angels are: it is a way of saying that, whilst being the Son of God, he is also one of us, and so “we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb 4:15).

‘Son of Man’ is a crucial title in 1 Enoch, but there it is AFAIK applied to Enoch himself.

BTW, the expression is also used repeatedly by both Jeremiah and Ezekiel, to mean “human”.

Yes, but there’s a slight difference. In Ezekiel the expression is (Hebrew) ben 'adam and hence could also be understood as ‘son of Adam’. In Daniel the phrase is (Aramaic) bar 'enash.

 

[Mystophilus]

‘Son of Man’ is a crucial title in 1 Enoch, but there it is AFAIK applied to Enoch himself.

It is used for Enoch, but only once, in ch.60, whereas it is used repeatedly for the Messiah: see especially chapters 46, 62-63, and 69.

Yes, but there’s a slight difference. In Ezekiel the expression is (Hebrew) ben 'adam and hence could also be understood as ‘son of Adam’. In Daniel the phrase is (Aramaic) bar 'enash.

Serves me right for not reading Hebrew: in the LXX it is 'υιος ανθρωπου in all three books.

 

[patrick457]

It is used for Enoch, but only once, in ch.60, whereas it is used repeatedly for the Messiah: see especially chapters 46, 62-63, and 69.

Yes, in the Book of the Parables (the section in 1 Enoch where this appears) there is this enigmatic, pre-existent heavenly figure called “Son of Man,” who sits on the throne of judgment to destroy the wicked and deliver the righteous - a sort of heavenly viceregent, if you will - and is accompanied by angels. The thing is, in chapter 71 there is a passage where Enoch seems to be addressed with the title, which could imply that he was ‘transformed’ (or perhaps ‘assimilated’?) into this figure. In other words, Enoch the human did not realize it at first, but in the context of the work the “Son of Man” of the earlier chapters was his heavenly ‘alter-ego’ of sorts all along.

And the spirit moved Enoch into the heaven of heavens. And I saw there in the midst of the light how there was something which was built of crystal stone, and between these stones tongues of living fire. And my spirit saw how a fire surrounded this house, on the four sides rivers full of living fire, and how they surrounded this house. And around about were Seraphim and Cherubim and Ophanim; these are they who do not sleep, but guard the throne of his glory. And I saw angels who could not be numbered, a thousand times thousand, and ten thousand times ten thousand, surrounded that house, and Michael and Rufael, Gabriel and Fanuel, and the holy angels who are in the high heavens enter and leave that house. And Michael and Gabriel, Rufael and Fanuel, and many holy angels without number came out of that house; and with them the Head of days, his head white and clean as wool, and his garments beyond description.

And I fell on my face, and all my flesh melted, and my spirit was changed; and I cried with a loud voice, with the spirit of power, and I blessed and honored and exalted. And these blessings, which proceeded from my mouth, were pleasing before that Head of days. And that Head of days came with Michael and Gabriel, Rufael and Fanuel, and with thousands and with ten thousand times thousand angels without number.

And that angel came to me and greeted me with his voice and said to me: “Thou art a son of man who was born to justice, and justice dwells over thee, and the justice of the Head of days will not depart from thee.” And he said to me: “He calls ‘Peace’ unto thee in the name of the world which is to come, for thence peace proceeds since the creation of the world, and thus it will be to thee to eternity and from eternity to eternity. And all who will continue to walk in thy path (thou, whom justice does not leave in eternity), their dwelling-places will be with thee, and they will not be separated from thee in eternity and from eternity to eternity. And so long life will be with that Son of Man, and peace will be to the just, and his right path to the just, in the name of the Lord of the spirits to all eternity.”

 

[Mystophilus]

Yes, in the Book of the Parables (the section in 1 Enoch where this appears) there is this enigmatic, pre-existent heavenly figure called “Son of Man,” who sits on the throne of judgment to destroy the wicked and deliver the righteous - a sort of heavenly viceregent, if you will - and is accompanied by angels. The thing is, in chapter 71 there is a passage where Enoch seems to be addressed with the title, which could imply that he was ‘transformed’ (or perhaps ‘assimilated’?) into this figure. In other words, Enoch the human did not realize it at first, but in the context of the work the “Son of Man” of the earlier chapters was his heavenly ‘alter-ego’ of sorts all along.

And that angel came to me and greeted me with his voice and said to me: “Thou art a son of man who was born to justice, and justice dwells over thee, and the justice of the Head of days will not depart from thee.” And he said to me: “He calls ‘Peace’ unto thee in the name of the world which is to come, for thence peace proceeds since the creation of the world, and thus it will be to thee to eternity and from eternity to eternity. And all who will continue to walk in thy path (thou, whom justice does not leave in eternity), their dwelling-places will be with thee, and they will not be separated from thee in eternity and from eternity to eternity. And so long life will be with that Son of Man, and peace will be to the just, and his right path to the just, in the name of the Lord of the spirits to all eternity.”

I had most recently been reading R H Charles’ translation, which ends the same chapter thus:

And he (i.e. the angel) came to me and greeted me with His voice, and said unto me ’ This is the Son of Man who is born unto righteousness, And righteousness abides over him, And the righteousness of the Head of Days forsakes him not.’ 15 And he said unto me: ’ He proclaims unto thee peace in the name of the world to come; For from hence has proceeded peace since the creation of the world, And so shall it be unto thee for ever and for ever and ever.

16 And all shall walk in his ways since righteousness never forsaketh him: With him will be their dwelling-places, and with him their heritage, And they shall not be separated from him for ever and ever and ever.

And so there shall be length of days with that Son of Man, And the righteous shall have peace and an upright way In the name of the Lord of Spirits for ever and ever.’

In that rendering, Enoch and the Son of Man are distinct entities. Now, however, I see that J H Charlesworth is about to publish on this, including pointing out that Charles emended the text, so this was not an MS issue. Interestingly, this deification of Enoch and Charlesworth’s just-pre-Christian date for the Parables of Enoch make the Gospel usage of the term “Son of Man” even more significant, in that it becomes then much more likely to have been a counter-claim against the Enochian usage.