Absolutely. It was perfectly consistent with Judaic expectation of an earthly, human Messiah, a favorite of God (God's adopted, not littera, Son—a title reserved for angles and kings, who were anointed, which is what meshiyah/messiah means).
In fact, the first three Gospels never say that Jesus is God (they call Him Lord, but that's not reserved only for God), and they never pray to the Resurrected Christ or to the Holy Spirit. The verses you posted on the rich man and a beggar show that Luke (post resurrection) still did not have a concept of heaven, but only of Shoel.
In Judaism such terminology as the Kingdom of God, World to Come, Son of God, Son of Man, Messiah, Spirit (of God), etc. have completely different menings from those created by Christians.
This is like reading Robert Frost who says "my horse must think it queer to stop without a farmhouse near..." and not realize that the meaning of the word "queer" had undergone a radical change between 1920's and 1970's.
The Kingdom of God to the Jews means Israel, on earth. The Son of God is a title of God's favorites (angels and kings); the word messiah means the anointed one, a kingly human mortal whose identity must meet seven qualifying characteristics, of which Jesus meets only one! So, no wonder they didn't want to accept Him as messiah. The word Son of Man (ben adam) means simply the son of Adam, a descendent of Adam, a human being, of Adam's seed, etc. In Christianity the Son of man has this mysterious aura surrounding only Jesus.
Christian theology, like the bible, did not just fall from the sky, neatly tallied and organized into chapters and lessons. It had to undergo its own evolution which took most of the remining first century and then a few centuries to come. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to relaize thet Paul didn't always teach what the Christians teach today. He calls Jesus an "image of God" and is someone who was "raised by God" but he never calls Him God, nor does he pray to the Resurrected Jesus.
kosta, I don’t have time right now to do justice to your post but I will try tomorrow after a couple of meetings if that is alright.
“The word Son of Man (ben adam) means simply the son of Adam, a descendent of Adam, a human being, of Adam’s seed”
That is the way it is used in Job, Psalms and Isaiah, but it is used as parallelism with “son” and “son of man”. In Ezekiel “son of man” is used as a descriptive name for Ezekiel and Daniel (Daniel 8) but in Daniel 7:13 it is used as a title for a divine person “The Son of man”. This is the title that Jesus uses for himself throughout the Gospels, only using the title “Son of God” a very few times, perhaps three or four. The Jews knew when he was referring to “The Son of Man” he was referencing Daniel 7 and the Jewish leaders knew he was referring to himself as God, that is the reason for the accusation of blasphemy and ultimately the crucifixion along with the threat to their “phoney-baloney” jobs.
When he used the phrase “finger of God” they knew he was claiming “Godlike” attributes just as Pharoah saw in the plagues in Egypt. When the Jewish leaders asked him if he was “The Son of God” he affirmed it by saying “you say that I am” and they understood that to mean he was affirming the title to himself, just as he did when Pilate asked him if he was “King of the Jews”, an eschatological title of looked for kingdom.
The Jews and the disciples all were looking for a restoration of the earthly Jewish kingdom until Pentecost,Peter’s sermon, but Jesus during his ministry was filling out the Old Testament prophecies and expectations with the reality of who he was in fulfillment of the prophecies and the “near and far” proximity of the kingdom.