Replies

Thanks for posting that, PI. Robot, the use of the term “Son of Man” was so loaded and so deliberate by Jesus (he was saying “I am the Messiah”) that my gut tells me this use is the most important aspect of His use of the term.

OTOH, Jesus’ life, death and resurrection were all part of God’s long term plan of redemption. And, Jesus was the word who was God and was with God before all things were created (John 1). So who is to say God did not use the term “Son of Man” in the Old Testament to allow Jesus to suggest exactly the point you are making—that Jesus came for man and man’s redemption—when he referred to himself as the Messiah.

To modern ears, it is curious that “Son of Man” was a clearer reference to divinity by Jesus than “Son of God.”

Along with Daniel 7, I suggest you read Matthew 16, where Jesus asks his disciples who “people” say the Son of Man [the Messiah] is. The disciples make several suggestions, John the Baptist, Elijah among others. Then he asks “Who do you say that I am.” And Peter responds that Jesus is the Christ (the Messiah) and Son of the Living God. Jesus replies that this had been revealed to Peter by the Father in Heaven. So in effect, this passage makes all three terms, Son of Man, Messiah, and Son of God pretty much equivalent and vested in Jesus.

We have an indirect witness to those three being equivalent: the High Priest and Sanhedrin sought to bring Jesus to trial for blasphemy, and when Caiaphas heard Jesus use the phrase during the trial before His crucifixion, the High Priest rent his garment and proclaimed he need hear no more because Jesus had confirmed their suspicion that He was claiming to be Messiah, The Son of Man, and thus ‘Son of God’ and God Himself. It must not have been a unanimous verdict however, since at least two of the Sanhedrin members were involved in bringing Jesus’ body down from the cross and the entombment (Joseph who gave his tomb and Nicodemus).

When I was born again so many decades ago, it was almost an immediate thing that I associated the exercising of faith in being reborn, with the interesting phenomenon in Physics which asserts the observer is so intimately involved in any phenomenon under study that the mere observation and choices made by the scientists effect which outcome will be found. If indeed this is a fundamental characteristic of the universe then we may associate that phenomenon to the function of being born again from above ... it is as if God is still creating aspects of His universe and the special behavior of choosing consciously to exercise faith in His Promises woven in His Grace through Christ Jesus toward us that a next level of creation involving the intelligences in the universe is manifesting. This phenomenon will become accutely understood if and when Humans make 'conversational' contact with extra-terrestrials ... IMHO.

Many choose to not be a part of the next phase shift which God has instructed will occur at a time of His choosing. Faith is a most powerful force when viewed in that regard. We all know how to exercise faith, but it takes a choice to exercise faith in The Promises of God, thus intimating the profound significance and power of same.

Just getting back to reading this thread and the importance of the "Son of Man" title. Just going back a little to what was said earlier about Jesus not using the term "Son of God" for himself. I know there are many verses from the Gospel of John where he certainly DOES use the title for himself. They are:

John 3:18; 5:25; 9:35; 10:36 and 11:4. So although Jesus meant the same thing, or nearly the same, by those terms, I do not think it is correct to say he never used the term for himself. Thank you for the link about the "Son of Man", though.

One more thought, Jesus never corrected anyone who used the term Son of God for him so I am sure that, as you said, the terms were synonymous.