It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jesus-"The son of man"?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Jesus often stated he was the "Son of Man". While most claim he was the one and "only" son of GOD what was it that Jesus meant? Why did he use the term?

Perhaps Jesus, himself, was a co-conspirator with GOD using this expression in hopes that mankind would eventually understand what he meant when he used this term.

I know those who "know" the Bible could point to a verse where Jesus "explained" what he meant. However, does or did the meaning of this term have a more underlying theme? Something that Jesus wanted mankind to figure out and understand for a better understanding of man's relationship with GOD?

Yes, I do have a thought and opinion on this. However, I am going to hold this opinion until I hear from a few others and see if they are in any way on the same track as I.

[edit on 28-10-2005 by asala]




posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   
i think He meant that He was the son of man (joseph)...

joseph was Jesus' father...

but, He was also, the son of "God"...





posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   
I remember this being a branch off of another discussion. I can't wait to hear what others have to say. I'm going to wait some time though before I throw in my thoughts.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Adam was man,

So we are all sons of Adam (well something like that)



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Jesus was a man, and the son of God. By Jesus saying that he is the son of man, he's inferring that we are all God's children. But I guess it would make more sense if he called himself the "brother of man".

Or maybe it's meant that God is in the souls of all mankind, so Jesus would be the son of God and man. I don't know, just a guess.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 08:48 PM
link   
At the time, Jesus was dealing with the Hebrew community. Some of his biggest detractors were the Pharasees. The Pharasees were like religious lawyers; they knew the law inside and out, and many knew the Torah by heart. At the time, there was an oral tradition very unlike our written tradition of today. It was not uncommon for a rabbi to be able to recite the entire Torah from memory because most could not read. It was an illiterate community, generally.

A result of this was that people knew the scriptures inside and out, particularly the Pharisees. That's why you see that most of Jesus's run ins with people questioning his actions are with Pharisees. They were the people with the authority and knowledge to question this Rabbi's actions.

So Jesus called Himself the Son of Man, and for some reason, this infuriated many Jews. Why? What was He talking about that they were able to pick up on, but we today don't see?

There is a book in the Old Testament, or Torah, named after one of the major Hebrew prophets by the name of Daniel. This is the guy y'all have heard about who goes into the lion's den. We even have a cliche based off of this: like Daniel in the lion's den. Daniel made reference to the "Son of Man" in his prophesies. Namely, Daniel 7:13:

" "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence."

Every time Jesus called himself the Son of Man, he was telling the Pharisees and those who knew the scriptures that He was the messiah. This was a slap in the face of those Hebrew legal scholars, because it either was true, or Jesus was committing the ultimate blaspheme, the price of which was death. Some believed, some did not. Those who did not had Him executed. They didn't count on Him being the real deal, though.



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Hey Groupies:

The phrase "Bar Enasha" (Son of Man = cf: Greek "ho huios tou anthropou" which is a virtually meaningless phrase to Greeks outside of its Apocalyptic trappings of Jews and early Christians) is an Aramaism from the Scroll of the Book of the Prophet Daniel chapter 7:13ff and has to do with a "future kingly power" arising in the Last Days to overthrow the Kittim (i.e. the Occupiers of Palestine) and usher in the Age of the Messiah:

Remember that Chapter 7 of Daniel is just one of the several Aramaic sections of the book of Daniel written around 165BC and early Christians saw this and other like verses as having to do with R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean's ("Jesus") claims

(or the people who followed him in the Galilee's claims after his execution for sedition during the reign of the Divine Tiberius in AD 36, during the 100th year anniversary "Insurrection" (Mark chapter 15:7) marking the 100 year old Invasion of Palestine by the Roman Army under General Pompey in BC 63---after exactly 100 years of "limited Jewish self rule" under the Maccabees in 163BC when the Syrian Greeks were kicked out of the Temple precincts in Jerusalem during "Channukkah" ):

These "Son of Man" sayings found scattered around the gospels refer quite blatantly to the appearance of the expected apocalyptic Messianic Deliverer from the Roman Occupation in the person of the Messiah of Israel in the "Last Days" (about which was written so much in the Dead Sea Scrolls corpus):

See Aramaic Daniel 7:13ff:

QUOTE " I looked in dreams of the night, and, behold, I saw one like the Son of Man (Bar-Enasha) appearing on the Clouds of Heaven, and he approached the Old One (lit. "Ancient of Days"), and they brought him near before hi[s throne].

14 And there was given him Dominion, and Glory, and a Kingdom,

In order that all people, nations, and languages, should serve before his faces

And his Dominion will be an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed forever...."

see also the "Son of Man" sayings in Matt 24:30, Matt 26:64, Mark 13:26, Luke 21:27 Matt 12:8

and also the Solominic "Matthean" ending to the "Lord's Prayer" found in some early copies of Matthew's gospel )e.g. the Freer Codex Washingtoniensis (W) and the socalled Western Codex Bezae Biglot (D) ...from the 5th century AD: where we read:

"[Blessed art Thou O YHWH the clan-god of Israel], For THINE is the KINGDOM and THE POWER and THE GLORY for ever amen..."

The string of words occurring before the ungramattical word "for" in the Greek at the end of the "Lord's Prayer" were removed by the later Greek- speaking "Pauline" Christians since it mentioned "the god of Israel" which by AD 75 had been virtually wiped out by the Romans during the Failed Jewish War of AD 66-72--and clearly the Greek churches wanted to make the prayer of "Iesous" more universal anyway...

But the key words here "POWER-KINGDOM-GLORY" linkages are clearly related not only to the prayer of Solomon in 1 Chronicles 29:11

Blessed [be] thou, O YHWH the clan-god of Israel our father, for ever and ever. For Thine, O YHWH [is] the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty"

but also to the Apocalyptic ("end of Days") Book of Daniel in the Son of Man sections e.g. in Daniel in 7:14

The Links between SON OF MAN and the KINGDOM of the Jews in the Last Days which was to "rule over the Goyim" (the gentiles, i.e. non Jews) was one of the reasons why R. Yeshoshua bar Yosef the Galilean was strung up in the first place (see the titilus "crime sheet" slung over the cross for a reference to kingship and the lex maiestatis of Rome, whose breach carried the death penalty in AD 36.

Just a little background is all for those of you out there who might not otherwise be very conversant with the material.

One cannot even hope understand the "seditionist" message of the earliest Christian "gospel" without a firm understanding of such political titles as "ha-Nazir", "Son of David" "Son of Man" (Bar Enasha) and e.g. "Messiahs of Aaron and Israel in the Last Days" etc. which caused so much consternation in Rome that they finally decided to wipe Israel from the map in the failed Jewish War of AD 66-70.



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Every time Jesus called himself the Son of Man, he was telling the Pharisees and those who knew the scriptures that He was the messiah.


I totally agree with this statement from jake. There are probably many things we could say about Jesus being the Son of man. I would add that it identifies Jesus with the human race. Jesus is the Son of God and the Son of man. He is 100% God and 100% man at the same time. Meaning He is 100% qualified to be the Savior of mankind.



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 12:55 PM
link   
When Jesus says he is the Son of God, he is referring to being the Monad. We all have a Monad, it is usually called our Being, or our God. The Monad itself has its own progenitor, its own being or God, which is the Supramonad, or the trinity.



Above is the Ray of Creation. At the top is the Superior Trinity, and below it is the Monad, a reflection. The Son of God is the Monad, because he is the Son of the Father.

We can see the Monad below, along with our astral, vital, and physical bodies.



When Jesus said he was the Son of Man, he is referring to the process of incarnating the Christ within.


[edit on 29/10/2005 by AkashicWanderer]



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
Jesus often stated he was the "Son of Man". While most claim he was the one and "only" son of GOD what was it that Jesus meant? Why did he use the term?
He definitely was the only 'Begotten' Son of God--but to say He was the only son is to deny one's own promised future, IMO.


Perhaps Jesus, himself, was a co-conspirator with GOD using this expression in hopes that mankind would eventually understand what he meant when he used this term.
I think that's what it is...what a sweet way to state such a thing.
It reminds me of the verse from Isaiah (64:4); which was then later quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:9:

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.



However, does or did the meaning of this term have a more underlying theme? Something that Jesus wanted mankind to figure out and understand for a better understanding of man's relationship with GOD?


Begotten,
in the Greek, is
monogenes
only born - only begotten child.

from
monos: (remaining, sole or single, alone, only, by themselves)
and
ginomai: to cause to be (“gen” -erate), to become (come into being),

And, in Hebrew, it is
yalad
to bear young; specifically to show lineage, declare pedigrees, be the son of, woman in travail , woman that travaileth.

It is spelled 'yod-lamed-dalet'-->
yod meaning 'right hand/arm,'
lamed is the 'ox-goad' symbolizing 'teaching/learning,'
and dalet meaning 'door/way.'

Also--the designation of 'son' has always been representative of a 'builder of the family name.' We all know what many nuances this brings to our minds in relation to human fathers and sons (inherit the family business, walk in father's footsteps, carry on the family name). Stop and think about it for a moment--this is exactly what it means on the other side, as well. When we read that we were made in God's image, we often don't let that fully soak in....

Everything we are, God is, too--although He is perfect in His ways, yet the ideas are the same. Such as being family-oriented, wanting to share both knowledge and understanding, seeking the joy that comes from passing the time with loved-ones. God the Father doesn't have emotions, since He's pure spirit--emotions are physical things--but love, anger, joy, sadness--these are manifested as emotions in our lives, yet their root is not emotion. Emotion is connected with reactions, impulsive actions, and clouded judgment. God's love is perfect for it is not marred with the emotional trappings inherent to being human (yet He sought to experience these human traits, anyway--yet remained pure.)

Adam had two sons before Seth, but of neither do we read as being 'begotten' nor are they after Adam's 'image' or 'likeness.' Adam was made in God's image, after His likeness, and then Adam's first 'begotten' son came along third--and we read:


(Genesis 5:3)
And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:


The angels were also 'sons of God'--yet they were not 'begotten' because evidently they were not made after God's 'image', nor were they born to be heirs to God's 'Estate.'


(Hebrews 1:2-6)
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.


And the Son of God came to be as a man--in order to bring all things together, both above and below (IOW--He overcame the duality of spiritual and material opposition to demonstrate it as possible, inevitable, and necessary.)

First as the Son of God, then as the Son of Man--after whom would follow 'sons of man'--those elected before history began to be the 'builders of the family name' here on Earth. And those born as future 'sons of man' would afterward become sons of God. Thus He meets us in the middle, at the place of crossing over to life--which we call 'death'--but it is just a door.



(Rom 8:29) For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

(1Co 15:49) And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

(2Co 3:18) But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

(Col 1:15) Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

(Col 3:10) And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that


And so there was a plan and great significance behind the designation of 'Son of Man'--having to do with 'image', 'likeness', 'right hand of God,' 'teaching and learning', and finally the 'door/way.' (Remember what was written about the 'sheep door'--and of course, He is the 'way' through that door leading back to the fold.)



[edit on 10/30/2005 by queenannie38]



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   
We are doing great here guys and gals. Most are right around my train of thought on the subject. I will chime in very shortly on my thoughts.

It is a very interesting subject with what I believe are great connotations involving man's relationship with GOD. Jesus, of course, was the epitomy of such.

Keep going!!



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 12:35 AM
link   
You. I. We are God do not ever forget this for you have been separated from truth.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 01:43 AM
link   
I also agree with junglejake.

Jesus came to fulfill the law not to break it.




top topics



 
0

log in

join