Matthew 27:63 Other people referring to the three day period.
Mark 8:31 Jesus referring to himself as the "Son of Man".
Mark 9:31 Again he refers to himself as the "Son of Man".
John 2:19-21 Here he refers to his own body.
Who do you really believe he meant by the "Son of Man" designation?
Matthew 27:63 Other people referring to the three day period.
63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
Sure you want to quote these guys? :-/ At least your next quote (Mark 8:31) is direct, but then again, in that particular verse, he 1) does not have to be referring to himself (I am NOT saying that he isn't referring to himself, only that it's not demanded by the text), and 2) the "after three days" gets caught up in the the timeline battles, as three days and three nights may be a longer timeframe than something occurring "after three days".
As far as your next quote (Mark 9:31):
Mark 9:31 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.
Mark 9:32 But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him.
If this "son of man" (idiom for human being) is always the same person in the NT (Jesus), then there are problems reconciling "the third day", "after three days", "three days and three nights", "in three days" et al. All I am saying is, why make the assumption that "son of man" must always equate with Jesus? After all, Ezekiel for one is addressed as "son of man" ninety odd times. Yet not every "son of man" in the Hebrew Bible a reference to Ezekiel.
Who do you really believe he meant by the "Son of Man" designation?
It looks like you are of the [mistaken] impression that I believe Jesus did NOT refer to himself as the "son of man". Here's an example of when he did just that:
Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
If I insisted/assumed that every time he spoke of the son of man, he was speaking of himself, I would have problems with verses mentioning the death and resurrection timeline. I don't believe the Bible is contradictory, only that man's understanding can be lacking, leading to confusion. Slow and steady wins the race. Because "son of man" means a human, if a verse/context doesn't make absolutely clear the individual, I just won't assume something that's not there. Other passages will eventually shed light, but not if they also require certain assumptions.