M
MrZetterlund
Guest
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.
- Status
G
grace_singh
Guest
“Son of Man” is from a Danielic prophecy about the Messiah, Daniel 7:13-14.
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.
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.
C
COPLAND_3
Guest
Jesus is called Son of God because of His divinity, and Son of man because of His humanity. He is fully God and fully man.
po18guy
Well-known member
Since Israel was searching for and waiting for their messiah, Jesus assured them that it was He, by referencing prophecy. He did so also by calling himself the “cornerstone” to fulfill what was prophesied in Isaiah 28:16 and in Zechariah 10:4. He also revealed His Davidic heritage by quoting Psalm 22 as He was dying on the cross. It was a sign that prophecy was fulfilled in their sight, as in He spoke in Luke 4:16-21.
D
derekohachey
Guest
Doesn’t Son of Man = Son of Adam because Man and Adam is the same word in Hebrew?
I believe that some of the prophets were also called “son of man”
Derek
I believe that some of the prophets were also called “son of man”
Derek
F
fultonfish
Guest
Need to check the Hebrew/Aramaic.
bin Adam
The translation “son of man” is in my opinion not a great translation to English; misleading or not terribly helpful.
the idea is to give the listener some idea of the clan or family or the father of the person involved; so son of adam would suggest the son of the human race, which is much more universal and global than what we in the 21st century United States would think about.
The United States doesn’t have clans; we’re a melting pot. People from all over. So our ethnic backgrounds are all mushed together after a couple of generations; becomes sort of blurred.
But the statement of someone’s clan back then was important.
And as with a lot of things that Jesus said, the notion of “Son of Man” ties back to the prophets.
Ideas like “Lamb of God”. Doesn’t mean a whole lot of us, but important in an Old Testament sense.
I was joking with my pastor and said that instead of a Latin Mass, we should have a Hebrew Mass. And he joked back that it should be in Aramaic (and that there are Christian communities that do indeed have Aramaic Masses).
My pastor has spent a huge amount of time studying the Bible, visited the Holy Land, and walked the path of Jesus at the same time of year and the same time of day that Jesus walked those places. Even little things like the steepness of the road going in one direction and the places where Jesus stayed overnight, all of those things are significant in terms of what Jesus said. By the time 2000 years have passed and we are half a planet away in terms of the cultural differences and His statements have been translated and retranslated, a lot of the significance and nuance gets lost.
He was talking about it and it gets (to us) very complicated but we miss how very significant it all is, in a biblical sense. So when the apostles wrote what became the New Testament, they were from all in that area and they understood intimately little important nuances that go right past us today.
For example, there was a LOT going on in the week between Palm Sunday and Easter, but unless we tie it all together, we miss out on a lot of the relationships to early Old Testament prophecy. I need to read the prophet Daniel and try to relate all that as well.
Amazing and fascinating, to tie it all together.
There must be a book out there that relates the Jesus we know to the Jesus the Apostles knew to the Jesus who is prefigured in the Old Testament. I would be a worthy quest to find “that book”.
bin Adam
The translation “son of man” is in my opinion not a great translation to English; misleading or not terribly helpful.
the idea is to give the listener some idea of the clan or family or the father of the person involved; so son of adam would suggest the son of the human race, which is much more universal and global than what we in the 21st century United States would think about.
The United States doesn’t have clans; we’re a melting pot. People from all over. So our ethnic backgrounds are all mushed together after a couple of generations; becomes sort of blurred.
But the statement of someone’s clan back then was important.
And as with a lot of things that Jesus said, the notion of “Son of Man” ties back to the prophets.
Ideas like “Lamb of God”. Doesn’t mean a whole lot of us, but important in an Old Testament sense.
I was joking with my pastor and said that instead of a Latin Mass, we should have a Hebrew Mass. And he joked back that it should be in Aramaic (and that there are Christian communities that do indeed have Aramaic Masses).
My pastor has spent a huge amount of time studying the Bible, visited the Holy Land, and walked the path of Jesus at the same time of year and the same time of day that Jesus walked those places. Even little things like the steepness of the road going in one direction and the places where Jesus stayed overnight, all of those things are significant in terms of what Jesus said. By the time 2000 years have passed and we are half a planet away in terms of the cultural differences and His statements have been translated and retranslated, a lot of the significance and nuance gets lost.
He was talking about it and it gets (to us) very complicated but we miss how very significant it all is, in a biblical sense. So when the apostles wrote what became the New Testament, they were from all in that area and they understood intimately little important nuances that go right past us today.
For example, there was a LOT going on in the week between Palm Sunday and Easter, but unless we tie it all together, we miss out on a lot of the relationships to early Old Testament prophecy. I need to read the prophet Daniel and try to relate all that as well.
Amazing and fascinating, to tie it all together.
There must be a book out there that relates the Jesus we know to the Jesus the Apostles knew to the Jesus who is prefigured in the Old Testament. I would be a worthy quest to find “that book”.
P
patrick457
Guest
On the surface, Jesus uses the title “son of man” (Hebrew ben 'adam or ben 'enosh, Old Testament Aramaic bar 'enash) to link Himself with the human-like figure - the expression in Hebrew was sometimes used to refer to a man (cf. Ezekiel being applied ben 'adam ninety-three times throughout his book and Ps. 144:3, as ben 'enosh) - that Daniel sees in his night visions, the one who receives from the Ancient of Days eternal dominion and glory and kingship (Daniel 7:13-14):
“I was watching in the visions of the night, and behold!
With the clouds of the heavens like a son of man was one arriving;
And to the Ancient of Days He came, and before Him they brought Him near.
And to Him was given sovereignty, and honor, and kingdom;
And all peoples, tribes, and tongues were serving Him.
His sovereignty is an eternal sovereignty which will not pass away,
And His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed.”
Allusions to Daniel 7 was common in the period to describe the Messiah, as we can see from some writings of the period. Jesus, in using the expression, links Himself to the figure in Daniel’s vision:
Again the high priest was questioning Him and says to Him, “Are you the ‘Anointed’, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see ‘the son of man sitting on the right hand’ of the Power and ‘coming with the clouds of heaven’!”
-Mark 14:61b-62
As an aside, some have noted that the parallels of ben 'enosh/bar 'enash in Old Babylonian carry the meaning of an heir or successor to royalty, or of a free man of the highest class. Hence the reason why the “one like a son of man” receives kingship from the Ancient of Days in Daniel’s vision; he is the rightful heir to the throne.
“I was watching in the visions of the night, and behold!
With the clouds of the heavens like a son of man was one arriving;
And to the Ancient of Days He came, and before Him they brought Him near.
And to Him was given sovereignty, and honor, and kingdom;
And all peoples, tribes, and tongues were serving Him.
His sovereignty is an eternal sovereignty which will not pass away,
And His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed.”
Allusions to Daniel 7 was common in the period to describe the Messiah, as we can see from some writings of the period. Jesus, in using the expression, links Himself to the figure in Daniel’s vision:
Again the high priest was questioning Him and says to Him, “Are you the ‘Anointed’, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see ‘the son of man sitting on the right hand’ of the Power and ‘coming with the clouds of heaven’!”
-Mark 14:61b-62
As an aside, some have noted that the parallels of ben 'enosh/bar 'enash in Old Babylonian carry the meaning of an heir or successor to royalty, or of a free man of the highest class. Hence the reason why the “one like a son of man” receives kingship from the Ancient of Days in Daniel’s vision; he is the rightful heir to the throne.
M
MrZetterlund
Guest
thanks Guys! 
M
Mad_Amos
Guest
I’ve always been taken by Daniel’s characterization of the Messiah as being “*like a son of man”, *implying that the prophet noted a certain peculiarity concerning this Marvelous Figure; that, while in this vision His Divinity was clearly discernible, the oddity for Daniel was that He appeared to be human as well.
Sound like Someone we know
?
Sound like Someone we know
?
A
Arthur001
Guest
I like John Dominic Crosson’s answer to this question:
The early church borrowed all of the Roman titles (son of G_d, son of man, redeemer, …), to say that their guy was at least as important as the other team’s guy.
For a modern equivalent, consider ‘the market regulation of G_d’, because that’s really the only slightly equivalent concentration of power.
The early church borrowed all of the Roman titles (son of G_d, son of man, redeemer, …), to say that their guy was at least as important as the other team’s guy.
For a modern equivalent, consider ‘the market regulation of G_d’, because that’s really the only slightly equivalent concentration of power.
J
jsander
Guest
Son of God and Son of Man are two complimentary phrases and as most things concerning Christ are best understood through His Holy Cross. On the Cross we can see Christ as being the Son of God as He is perfect in Love. So too can we see Him as, in a sense, perfect in sin, as He becomes entirely formed by the sins of man. In this way He can be seen as both the Son of God and the Son of Man as Love is the principle of God just as sin is the principle of man.
S
Scriptorian
Guest
Thank you for the question. Often questions are much more inspired than the answers given for them.
Here is your answer.
The title “Son of Man” predates the New Testament and even the prophet Daniel, but was clearly understood during those times. It was an important title because it had reference to the ancient name of God as known by the ancient patriarchs and prophets. “Son of Man” is synonymous with Christ’s other title, “Son of God.”
The ancient name of God was “Ahman” or “Man of Holiness.” This was his name and remnants of the name appear in nearly every language and culture. The term “amen” can be traced originally to this sacred and holy name of God first used in the times of Adam. “Son of Man” then is simply the translation preserved through the years of “Son Ahman” or “Son of Man of Holiness.”
The name of God was most recognizably preserved in the name of Egyptian god Amun (or “Ammon”) who was both creator and king. The name Amun later was corrupted and combined with the sun god to form Amun-Ra. These counterfeit gods were of course only fabrications of the identity of the one true God, called by Adam and Enoch “Ahman.”
Also, from the beginning Adam and the ancient prophets knew of the coming of the Son of God in the flesh and would have identified him by the title “Son of Man.” Thus, the title may be the oldest name used by mankind for Jesus Christ. It likely even predates the Hebrew names for God and Christ.
It is both fitting and appropriate that Daniel, then, would use the title “Son of Man” when referring to the Savior who would be given the kingdom by Adam, the “Ancient of Days,” as this was likely the title used by Adam himself.
Here is your answer.
The title “Son of Man” predates the New Testament and even the prophet Daniel, but was clearly understood during those times. It was an important title because it had reference to the ancient name of God as known by the ancient patriarchs and prophets. “Son of Man” is synonymous with Christ’s other title, “Son of God.”
The ancient name of God was “Ahman” or “Man of Holiness.” This was his name and remnants of the name appear in nearly every language and culture. The term “amen” can be traced originally to this sacred and holy name of God first used in the times of Adam. “Son of Man” then is simply the translation preserved through the years of “Son Ahman” or “Son of Man of Holiness.”
The name of God was most recognizably preserved in the name of Egyptian god Amun (or “Ammon”) who was both creator and king. The name Amun later was corrupted and combined with the sun god to form Amun-Ra. These counterfeit gods were of course only fabrications of the identity of the one true God, called by Adam and Enoch “Ahman.”
Also, from the beginning Adam and the ancient prophets knew of the coming of the Son of God in the flesh and would have identified him by the title “Son of Man.” Thus, the title may be the oldest name used by mankind for Jesus Christ. It likely even predates the Hebrew names for God and Christ.
It is both fitting and appropriate that Daniel, then, would use the title “Son of Man” when referring to the Savior who would be given the kingdom by Adam, the “Ancient of Days,” as this was likely the title used by Adam himself.
R
rollerroller
Guest
The answer provided by COPLAND3 is true, correct and reliable. Jesus is Son of Man in his humanity and Son of God in his Divinity. This is a precept of the Church Fathers and is the authentic Catholic belief. If you have trouble with the idea, think of this: you belong completely to your mother and completely to your father, do you not? You are not “half” your mom’s and “half” your dad’s. So with Jesus, by his Mother he is fully Man. Mary is of the creatures God has identified as “Man.” Mary is Man. Jesus, conceived in the womb of Man by the power of the Holy Spirit, God, is also God. He is fully Man, our brother, who lived as we do, who felt as we do, who suffered and died as we do. He is in solidarity with us. He is fully God, who knows as God knows and feels as God feels. He is in solidarity with God. He is our strong and reliable bridge to the Father. I love Him for being one of us, for knowing me and my life as it is in this world, and I love Him for being God, the Word who created me and the world in which I live out my choice to follow Him.
S
Scriptorian
Guest
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
I do not know the official Catholic doctrine or dogma, but the title “Son of Man” has nothing to do with Mary or Christ’s humanity.
Here is the doctrinal problem with that interpretation: Why would Christ try to explain to his detractors that he is human? They already knew his human origins. Did they not say, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?” (John 6:42)
His message was always that he was divine and that they must come and follow him to be saved.
Scriptural Evidence
In some of the most crucial moments he would use this title–not to explain his humanity, but to reference his divinity:
“But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.” ~ Matt. 9:6
“And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.” ~ Matt. 10:22-23
“For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.” ~ Matt. 12:8
“For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” ~ Matt. 12:40
“As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” ~ Matt. 13:40-42
And there are numerous other examples. These are just a few examples from the first chapters of Matthew.
“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
I do not know the official Catholic doctrine or dogma, but the title “Son of Man” has nothing to do with Mary or Christ’s humanity.
Here is the doctrinal problem with that interpretation: Why would Christ try to explain to his detractors that he is human? They already knew his human origins. Did they not say, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?” (John 6:42)
His message was always that he was divine and that they must come and follow him to be saved.
Scriptural Evidence
In some of the most crucial moments he would use this title–not to explain his humanity, but to reference his divinity:
“But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.” ~ Matt. 9:6
“And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.” ~ Matt. 10:22-23
“For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.” ~ Matt. 12:8
“For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” ~ Matt. 12:40
“As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” ~ Matt. 13:40-42
And there are numerous other examples. These are just a few examples from the first chapters of Matthew.
F
fbl9
Guest
Now why would Jesus say that He is man to defend His divinity…doesn’t work.
S
Scriptorian
Guest
Yes, that is precisely my point. Did you read my post?
S
Steve40
Guest
Jesus is Son of Mary and Mary is human. “Man” is in reference to mankind just like in the creed “…for us men and for our salvation…”. Women are a special type of man in man kind and Mary is a very special women.
S
Scriptorian
Guest
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
F
fbl9
Guest
How did He reference to His divinity by calling Himself Son of Man in the following quotes?
S
Scriptorian
Guest
Okay. Here are the quotes again:
In this one he is basically saying, “I am divine. That is why I can forgive sins and heal this man.”
Here he is saying, “Because I am divine, I shall return even after I have been crucified.”
Here he is saying, “I am the Lord of the sabbath day.”
Here he is saying, “I am divine. Therefore I will be in the heart of the earth only three days and three nights. Afterward I will rise again.”
Here he is saying, “I am divine. Therefore I have power to send forth angels to gather out those who offend and cast them into the fire.”
These are just quick examples of rephrasing the Lord’s words to illustrate the point that these are not human traits but those of someone who is divine. So, when Jesus uses the title Son of Man, he is expressing his divinity, not his humanity.
- Status