Why is He called "the son of man"

[ryanoneil]

I also think there is more to it. A biblical argument can be made for calling the King of Israel the “son of God” (without a divine connotation) but the Pharisees and priests purposely overlooked this in order to go with an interpretation of the title which would allow them to convict Jesus as a blasphemer.

I’m not saying you are wrong, but how do you know that is what they were thinking?

Wasn’t the prevailing understanding that the Son of God was Messiah king? Isn’t that what they accused him of to the Romans (instead of his claim to be equal to God)? I don’t know.

 

[abucs]

I also link ‘The Son of Man’ to Daniel’s prophecy as so much of Jesus’ life matches up with it - the timing of Jesus’ coming, God’s messenger being killed on Earth, being presented to God in Heaven and given everlasting dominion, the fall of Jerusalem etc,

It’s interesting that Daniel used the words one LIKE a son of man instead of simply a son of man.

It is also interesting to me that Jesus used the term THE son of man instead of A son of man…

 

[EricFilmer]

I’m not saying you are wrong, but how do you know that is what they were thinking?

Wasn’t the prevailing understanding that the Son of God was Messiah king? Isn’t that what they accused him of to the Romans (instead of his claim to be equal to God)? I don’t know.

You are correct in saying that this is what they accused him of to the Romans (in order to have him executed for treason). But nevertheless, the Jewish court (the sanhedrin) convicted him of blasphemy, and the way it plays out in the gospels suggests that the two charges were actually considered distinct from one another. It seems that the term of “Son of God” could have a divine connotation or a non-divine connotation, and the high priest chose to go with the divine interpretation. It guess he was also considering Jesus’ earlier claim of having the authority to forgive sins (which was considered the preogative of God alone). The sanhedrin, therefore, convicted Jesus of blasphemy because they understood him as claiming to be the equal of God. I am on a road trip at the moment and away from my personal library, but I seem to recall that this was the consensus of the commentaries I checked.

But executing someone in a Roman Province required someone to be sentenced to death in a Roman court. This is why the sanhedrin turned Jesus over to Pilate, stating that Jesus claimed to be the King of the Jews. Pilate would not execute someone for blaspheming the Jewish God, but he would execute someone who called himself king (as that would be an act of treason against the emperor). As Archbishop Fulton Sheen once pointed out, how often is anyone ever executed for a crime different from the one he was convicted of? And yet this happened to Jesus, highlighting the injustice with which he was treated by both the sanhedrin and Pilate.

 

[PJM]

=Keverlast;8141174]i know Jesus called himself that but why? Is it because Mary was related to King David ? my only guess…

KInda: He is the son of a human mother: Mary. That makes Him "son of “man.” Christ did this at the same time that he was introducing His Divinity as “Son of God.” The MESSAGE here speaks of Christ TWO, true, perfect and complete Natures as God and as “man.” The expected Messiah was expected to be human. Christ BEING thee MESSIAH, wanted the Jews to recogonize Him as the Messiah.

God Bless,
Pat