 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
kejonn
Show Poodle
Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Posts: 251
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:57 pm Post subject: Son of Man, an admission |
 |
|
One of the ploys of trinitarians is that Yeshua supposedly never denied being God. Yet I truly believe he did deny he was God, and he did so 29 times alone in the book of Matthew. How?
Can anyone argue that Yeshua was well versed in the Torah? Would he have overlooked this verse?
Num 23:19 "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?
I never really took much stock in this verse as a proof text until I realized how often Yeshua called himself "Son of Man". Since Yeshua knew that God specifically said he was not a "son of man", why then would Yeshua refer to himself as "Son of Man" 29 times in the Gospel of Matthew? Even in the high christological Gospel of John he referred to himself as "Son of Man" 12 times!
Joh 5:39 "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;
Finally, we have a bold admission by the Son of God that he is NOT God.
No more "position from silence". |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Colter
Rabid Pit Bull
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 409
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | One of the ploys of trinitarians is that Yeshua supposedly never denied being God. Yet I truly believe he did deny he was God, and he did so 29 times alone in the book of Matthew. How?
Can anyone argue that Yeshua was well versed in the Torah? Would he have overlooked this verse?
Num 23:19 "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? |
Kejonn,
Son of Man was used repeatedly by Jesus in his public teaching.
A term that was NOT USED publicaly but revealed to the apostles was Son of God.
Jesus instructed the apostles to not to tell the multitude about his divine identity until after he left this world. He further instructed that his spirit would return as the spirit of truth and lead all men who seek God to God.
The divinity and identity of Jesus Christ is a realization which comes about as the result of the spirit birth and validated by the indwelling spirit of God the Father.
Unbelievers who insist on the logic of self righteous accomplishment will remain blind to Christ.
The Torah (written by the people who rejected Christ) failed to establish the divine nature of the coming savior in the minds of Jews.
Peter's Confession of Christ
13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, [b]the Son of the living God."
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.
* The identity of Jesus Christ IS NOT, WAS NOT, revealed by the OT scripture, it is revealed by the spirit of God.
Son of God incarnate was a new revelation not previously understood.
God is spirit
Colter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kejonn
Show Poodle
Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Posts: 251
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Colter,
You're right. None of it was revealed because the Jews weren't so quick to assimilate pagan mythology into their way of life. Sure, they chased after pagan gods, but they didn't bring them back to the Hebrew Bible. But the Christians, who had very little care for anything Hebrew in origin, weren't so hesitant. Thus three headed gods, incarnate beings, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Colter
Rabid Pit Bull
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 409
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Colter,
You're right. None of it was revealed because the Jews weren't so quick to assimilate pagan mythology into their way of life. Sure, they chased after pagan gods, but they didn't bring them back to the Hebrew Bible. But the Christians, who had very little care for anything Hebrew in origin, weren't so hesitant. Thus three headed gods, incarnate beings, etc. |
A wise man once told me, "don't ask a question if your unwilling or unable to except the answer". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kejonn
Show Poodle
Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Posts: 251
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Colter wrote: | | Quote: | Colter,
You're right. None of it was revealed because the Jews weren't so quick to assimilate pagan mythology into their way of life. Sure, they chased after pagan gods, but they didn't bring them back to the Hebrew Bible. But the Christians, who had very little care for anything Hebrew in origin, weren't so hesitant. Thus three headed gods, incarnate beings, etc. |
A wise man once told me, "don't ask a question if your unwilling or unable to except the answer". |
Did you mean "accept"? Cause "except" gives a whole new meaning  . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Colter
Rabid Pit Bull
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 409
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kejonn wrote: | | Colter wrote: | | Quote: | Colter,
You're right. None of it was revealed because the Jews weren't so quick to assimilate pagan mythology into their way of life. Sure, they chased after pagan gods, but they didn't bring them back to the Hebrew Bible. But the Christians, who had very little care for anything Hebrew in origin, weren't so hesitant. Thus three headed gods, incarnate beings, etc. |
A wise man once told me, "don't ask a question if your unwilling or unable to except the answer". |
Did you mean "accept"? Cause "except" gives a whole new meaning . |
 "WARNING"
Colter = hyperactive attention deficit disorder dyslexic recovering alcoholic-addict attempting to type without spell check.
Colllter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deege
Not So Newbie
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 8
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
First of all, "Son of Man" was a general aramaic term to refer to oneself indirectly or to refer to humanity in general.
However, there is a clear reference in Daniel 7 that uses the title "Son of Man" to describe a coming messiah figure:
| Quote: | "I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.
"And to Him was given dominion,
Glory and a kingdom,
That all the peoples, nations and men of every language
Might serve Him
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed. |
Daniel 7:13-14, NASB
I think this is the most likely two uses of the phrase that Jesus or Yeshua would have employed, as his audience would have understood his use of it as an indirect Aramaic phrase and would most likely have recognised it from Daniel since they were in a time of heightened expectations of a messiah. It is unlikely that Jesus or Yeshua used it to refer to a fairly obscure verse in Numbers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Colter
Rabid Pit Bull
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 409
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Deege wrote: | First of all, "Son of Man" was a general aramaic term to refer to oneself indirectly or to refer to humanity in general.
However, there is a clear reference in Daniel 7 that uses the title "Son of Man" to describe a coming messiah figure:
| Quote: | "I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.
"And to Him was given dominion,
Glory and a kingdom,
That all the peoples, nations and men of every language
Might serve Him
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed. |
Daniel 7:13-14, NASB
I think this is the most likely two uses of the phrase that Jesus or Yeshua would have employed, as his audience would have understood his use of it as an indirect Aramaic phrase and would most likely have recognised it from Daniel since they were in a time of heightened expectations of a messiah. It is unlikely that Jesus or Yeshua used it to refer to a fairly obscure verse in Numbers. |
Also the Book of Enoch talks of the "Son of man", but church authority has lead people away from that book.
Colter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kejonn
Show Poodle
Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Posts: 251
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, then, here's you're simple scenario IF you think God inspired scripture.
(1) Numbers 23:19 was inspired by God, who specifically said He is not "son of man" (but not in English, ha!)
(2) Any other use in scripture of "son of man" would be inspired of God
(3) Anyone who was either called or called themselves "son of man" should have been inspired of God.
(4) Anyone called "son of man" cannot be God because of Numbers 23:19, regardless of any other usage. Messiah, yes, prophet yes (Ezekiel), but not God.
Please, no silly distractions from this basic truth...
And lest you say "but that while he was on earth in his 'limited' human state".
Act 7:56 And he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deege
Not So Newbie
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 8
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I do believe that the bible is the divinely inspired word of God. However, I do not believe that means that all exegetical methods are therefore thrown out the window. If you look at the quote from Numbers in context it makes a whole lot more sense.
| Quote: | Then he took up his discourse and said,
"Arise, O Balak, and hear;
Give ear to me, O son of Zippor!
"God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent;
Has He said, and will He not do it?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? |
Numbers 23:18-19, NASB
It's a classic example of synonomous parallelism in Hebrew poetry. That is, the later line repeats the idea of the first line. Here, "son of man" is used for a synonym for man. However it is clear that the same term in Daniel 7 is used in a messianic aspect. Therefore, one must determine the manner in which Jesus or Yeshua used it during his ministry and I think it's pretty clear that he used it with Daniel 7 in mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kejonn
Show Poodle
Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Posts: 251
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Deege wrote: | I do believe that the bible is the divinely inspired word of God. However, I do not believe that means that all exegetical methods are therefore thrown out the window. If you look at the quote from Numbers in context it makes a whole lot more sense.
| Quote: | Then he took up his discourse and said,
"Arise, O Balak, and hear;
Give ear to me, O son of Zippor!
"God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent;
Has He said, and will He not do it?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? |
Numbers 23:18-19, NASB
It's a classic example of synonomous parallelism in Hebrew poetry. That is, the later line repeats the idea of the first line. Here, "son of man" is used for a synonym for man. However it is clear that the same term in Daniel 7 is used in a messianic aspect. Therefore, one must determine the manner in which Jesus or Yeshua used it during his ministry and I think it's pretty clear that he used it with Daniel 7 in mind. |
Quite convenient, but it doesn't "cut the mustard". Why choose "Son of Man" if it specifically says "son of man" in Numbers? Why not avoid this appellation to avoid confusion? Is God the author of confusion? Nope.
He should have stuck with "Son of God" if he intended to say he was God. Yet "Son of Man" was used 80+ times while "Son of God" was used only half of that. 100% man, 100% God? Not even close. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deege
Not So Newbie
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 8
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is convenient, but only because it's good, biblical, scholarly study, and when the tools associated with that are used, suddenly a whole lot of things become "convenient".
God is not the author of confusion, but that doesn't mean that he or the bible is simple. The bible is a complex book, and requires study to understand it. But when it is studied with proper exegetical tools, then confusion fades away. For me, it is fairly simple to see that Jesus or Yeshua used the title "Son of Man" to refer to Daniel 7, as I've said before.
Furthermore, the number of times something is stated does not correlate to it's importance or truth. If we take that to be truth then Jesus or Yeshua would be 67% human and 33% God. To state that seems quite ridiculous. Yes, the gospels do use the title "Son of Man" more than "Son of God" but that does not mean that he was any less divine than he was human.
"Son of Man" would need to be used for a number of reasons. Firstly, the "historical" Jesus or Yeshua would not have wanted the religious authorities to kill him for blasphemy before his earthly ministry even started. He needed time to explain the new covenant and establish the Kingdom. Therefore, the deliberately ambiguous title "Son of Man" would have alluded to his messianic identity while containing the element of doubt that he was indirectly referring to himself. This is often called the messianic secret and is shown most strongly in Mark's gospel, as I'm sure you've probably heard before.
Secondly, the docetic heresy was present at least during the time of John's gospel and perhaps beginning to build during the writing of the others. This heresy claimed that Jesus looked like or seemed like a human but in fact was a wholly spiritual being. Therefore John wrote his gospel in part to refute this heresy and clearly show that Jesus was as much human as he was divine, hence the prominence of the title "Son of Man". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steven3
Lion King
Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 1205
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:35 pm Post subject: Re: Son of Man, an admission |
|
|
| kejonn wrote: | | I never really took much stock in this verse as a proof text until I realized how often Yeshua called himself "Son of Man". Since Yeshua knew that God specifically said he was not a "son of man", why then would Yeshua refer to himself as "Son of Man" 29 times in the Gospel of Matthew? Even in the high christological Gospel of John he referred to himself as "Son of Man" 12 times! |
Hi Kejonn
I've always just taken "son of Man" as meaning "yes, I'm descended from Adam on my mother's side" so definitely not a Trinitarian title by any stretch.
Re above, I just looked at it in the Septuagint - "God is not as ANQRWPOS nor as UIOS ANQRWPOU" - the exact same terms as in the NT. You're right, I can't understand why Num 23:19 isn't better known. Good post!
Really good post.
Steven |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Colter
Rabid Pit Bull
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 409
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:10 am Post subject: Re: Son of Man, an admission |
|
|
| Quote: | Hi Kejonn
I've always just taken "son of Man" as meaning "yes, I'm descended from Adam on my mother's side" so definitely not a Trinitarian title by any stretch. |
Forum,
Son of Man and the book of Enoch
Canonicity
The book is referred to, and quoted, in Jude 14-15:
And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these [men], saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
Compare this with Enoch 1:9, translated from the Ethiopic:
And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones To execute judgement upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.
From the time of the Council of Jamnia (c. 90), the book has not been part of the Jewish Scriptures.
The early Christian father Tertullian wrote c. 200 that the Book of Enoch had been rejected by the Jews because it contained prophecies pertaining to Christ.[3]
The Greek language text was known to, and quoted by nearly all, Church Fathers. A number of the Church Fathers thought it to be an inspired work, particularly Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian[citation needed], based on its quotation in Jude.
However, some later Fathers denied the canonicity of the book and some even considered the letter of Jude uncanonical because it refers to an "apocryphal" work (Cf. Gerome, Catal. Script. Eccles. 4.). By the fourth century it was mostly excluded from Christian lists of the Biblical canon, and it was omitted from the canon by most of the Christian church (the Ethiopian Orthodox Church being an exception).
Some excerpts are given by the 8th century monk George Syncellus in his chronography, which are published in August Dillmann's translation, pp. 82-86. In the 9th century it is listed as an apocryphon of the New Testament by Patriarch Nicephorus Cf. Niceph. (ed. Dindorf), I. 787.
XLVIII. The Fount of Righteousness: the Son of Man -the Stay of the Righteous: Judgement of the Kings and the Mighty.
48
1
And in that place I saw the fountain of righteousness
Which was inexhaustible:
And around it were many fountains of wisdom:
And all the thirsty drank of them,
And were filled with wisdom,
And their dwellings were with the righteous and holy and elect.
2
And at that hour that Son of Man was named
In the presence of the Lord of Spirits,
And his name before the Head of Days.
3
Yea, before the sun and the signs were created,
Before the stars of the heaven were made,
His name was named before the Lord of Spirits.
4
He shall be a staff to the righteous whereon to stay themselves and not fall,
And he shall be the light of the Gentiles,
And the hope of those who are troubled of heart.
5
All who dwell on earth shall fall down and worship before him,
And will praise and bless and celebrate with song the Lord of Spirits.
6
And for this reason hath he been chosen and hidden before Him,
Before the creation of the world and for evermore.
7
And the wisdom of the Lord of Spirits hath revealed him to the holy and righteous;
For he hath preserved the lot of the righteous,
Because they have hated and despised this world of unrighteousness,
And have hated all its works and ways in the name of the Lord of Spirits:
For in his name they are saved,
And according to his good pleasure hath it been in regard to their life.
8
In these days downcast in countenance shall the kings of the earth have become,
And the strong who possess the land because of the works of their hands,
For on the day of their anguish and affliction they shall not (be able to) save themselves.
9
And I will give them over into the hands of Mine elect:
As straw in the fire so shall they burn before the face of the holy:
As lead in the water shall they sink before the face of the righteous,
And no trace of them shall any more be found.
10
And on the day of their affliction there shall be rest on the earth,
And before them they shall fall and not rise again:
And there shall be no one to take them with his hands and raise them:
For they have denied the Lord of Spirits and His Anointed.
The name of the Lord of Spirits be blessed.
The Book of Enoch and the Urantia Book
PAPER 126 - THE TWO CRUCIAL YEARS
Jesus at age 15
line 77: In the course of this year Jesus found a passage in the so-called Book of Enoch which influenced him in the later adoption of the term "Son of Man" as a designation for his bestowal mission on Urantia. He had thoroughly considered the idea of the Jewish Messiah and was firmly convinced that he was not to be that Messiah. He longed to help his father's people, but he never expected to lead Jewish armies in overthrowing the foreign domination of Palestine. He knew he would never sit on the throne of David at Jerusalem. Neither did he believe that his mission was that of a spiritual deliverer or moral teacher solely to the Jewish people. In no sense, therefore, could his life mission be the fulfillment of the intense longings and supposed Messianic prophecies of the Hebrew scriptures; at least, not as the Jews understood these predictions of the prophets. Likewise he was certain he was never to appear as the Son of Man depicted by the Prophet Daniel.
line 79: While turning all these problems over in his mind, he found in the synagogue library at Nazareth, among the apocalyptic books which he had been studying, this manuscript called "The Book of Enoch"; and though he was certain that it had not been written by Enoch of old, it proved very intriguing to him, and he read and reread it many times. There was one passage which particularly impressed him, a passage in which this term "Son of Man" appeared. The writer of this so-called Book of Enoch went on to tell about this Son of Man, describing the work he would do on earth and explaining that this Son of Man, before coming down on this earth to bring salvation to mankind, had walked through the courts of heavenly glory with his Father, the Father of all; and that he had turned his back upon all this grandeur and glory to come down on earth to proclaim salvation to needy mortals. As Jesus would read these passages (well understanding that much of the Eastern mysticism which had become admixed with these teachings was erroneous), he responded in his heart and recognized in his mind that of all the Messianic predictions of the Hebrew scriptures and of all the theories about the Jewish deliverer, none was so near the truth as this story tucked away in this only partially accredited Book of Enoch; and he then and there decided to adopt as his inaugural title "the Son of Man." And this he did when he subsequently began his public work. Jesus had an unerring ability for the recognition of truth, and truth he never hesitated to embrace, no matter from what source it appeared to emanate.
Colter
Last edited by Colter on Fri Oct 19, 2007 4:22 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Colter
Rabid Pit Bull
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 409
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 4:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Son of Man cont>
Jewish interpretation
As generally interpreted by Jews, denotes mankind generally, with special reference to their weakness and frailty (Job 25:6; Psalms 8:4; 144:3; 146:3; Book of Isaiah 51:12, etc.).
It is a title frequently given to the prophet Ezekiel, probably to remind him of his human weakness.
Additionally, the Biblical book of Daniel mentions the prophet's vision of the coming of one 'like a son of man'; possibly implying that this is not actually a man but a divine figure.
When interpreting the Bible, one cannot exclusively rely on English translations. Son of man in Job 25 is ben adam (Hebrew: בן־אדם), and "son of man" in Psalms 144 is ben enosh (Hebrew: בן־אנוש).
Wiki
Colter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
