PDA

View Full Version : Son Of Man....this term confuses me...



JesusReignsForever
Feb 19th 2009, 12:45 AM
What exactly does son of man mean....who is the son and who is the man?? I dont know why but that term just bothers me...probably because I dont know what it means. Or is it easier than I think?

Kahtar
Feb 19th 2009, 01:43 AM
Daniel 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, [one] like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

Jesus was both Son of God, and son of man. Fully God and fully human.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

The term 'son of man' simply refers to human beings, who are begotten by human beings.
Jesus was begotten by God, but born of a human female. Thus, both Son of God and son of man.

JesusReignsForever
Feb 19th 2009, 01:46 AM
Daniel 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, [one] like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

Jesus was both Son of God, and son of man. Fully God and fully human.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

The term 'son of man' simply refers to human beings, who are begotten by human beings.
Jesus was begotten by God, but born of a human female. Thus, both Son of God and son of man.



Ohh okay! That was easy to understand!! thanks!

BroRog
Feb 19th 2009, 01:54 AM
What exactly does son of man mean....who is the son and who is the man?? I dont know why but that term just bothers me...probably because I dont know what it means. Or is it easier than I think?

In the New Testament, the phrase "son of" can mean "with the characteristic of." For instance, the two apostles James and John were called "sons of thunder".

markedward
Feb 19th 2009, 02:04 AM
The term "son of man" is used in a poetic sense, and in such cases is usually paired up with "man".

Numbers 23:19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

Job 25:6 how much less man, who is a maggot, and the son of man, who is a worm!

Job 35:8 Your wickedness concerns a man like yourself, and your righteousness a son of man.

Psalm 8:4 what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?

Psalm 80:17 But let your hand be on the man of your right hand, the son of man whom you have made strong for yourself!

And in the same format in Psalm 144:3, Isaiah 51:12, Isaiah 56:2 and Jeremiah 50:40. It is then used about 93 times (to my count) in Ezekiel to specifically refer to that prophet (Ezekiel). Is it used once in Daniel in a Messianic context ("Behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man"), and once to refer to Daniel himself ("Understand, o son of man"). Christ uses the phrase extensively to refer to Himself (29 times in the gospel of Matthew), specifically in a few cases in order to directly link Himself to the Messianic "son of man" found in Daniel.

In essence, I would say that "son of man" is poetic/prophetic phrase that is synonymous with the individual "man". So... "a son of man[kind]" can mean the same thing as just "a man".

Psalms Fan
Feb 19th 2009, 02:28 AM
What exactly does son of man mean....who is the son and who is the man?? I dont know why but that term just bothers me...probably because I dont know what it means. Or is it easier than I think?


Daniel 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, [one] like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

Jesus was both Son of God, and son of man. Fully God and fully human.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

The term 'son of man' simply refers to human beings, who are begotten by human beings.
Jesus was begotten by God, but born of a human female. Thus, both Son of God and son of man.


Indeed, Jesus is referring to the passage in Daniel 7.

In that passage there are four "beasts", animals which would attack and kill a person. And each beast represents a kingdom.

Then there is another kingdom, represented by a human being, one of us, someone on our side - not a vicious, deadly animal.

To be the "son of" something means to be one just like that thing that its a son of.

Same goes with "son of God". Jesus is the one and only (by nature) "Son of God". In other words, to be the "Son of God" is to be God, just as to be a "son of man" is to be man (in the sense of being human, not necessarily just male). So Jesus is God and man.

BadDog
Feb 19th 2009, 03:53 AM
What exactly does son of man mean....who is the son and who is the man?? I dont know why but that term just bothers me...probably because I dont know what it means. Or is it easier than I think?Well, Kahtar made an important observation--quoting from Daniel 7. The term "Son of Man" is a reference to the Messiah.

In general "son of something" also essentially carries with it the meaning of type "something." IOW, to say that Jesus was the "Son of Man" means that He was fully human--type human. To say that He was the "Son of God" then means that He was also fully God.

It's interesting that "Son of Man" appears to have been Jesus' favorite way to refer to Himself.

BD

Sirus
Feb 19th 2009, 05:06 AM
Jesus is the Son of man by necessity. He referred to himself as Son of man out of necessity. God crowned man with glory and honor and placed all things in subjection to him and there is nothing that is not subject to him. First Adam failed, the last Adam did not. Man has dominion. There needed to be a man, that could reach one hand up to God from earth and bring the two together (reconciliation).

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

davidharding
Mar 24th 2009, 05:13 AM
What exactly does son of man mean....who is the son and who is the man?? I dont know why but that term just bothers me...probably because I dont know what it means. Or is it easier than I think?



son of man is used synonomously with the word or office of prophet. it was the man of God that had thus saith the Lord for the peoples and nations. the Son of Man was the office he was in at that time

you have three offices son of man, son of god, and son of david which Christ held and will hold in future ages

THOM
Mar 24th 2009, 04:36 PM
What exactly does son of man mean....who is the son and who is the man?? I dont know why but that term just bothers me...probably because I dont know what it means. Or is it easier than I think?

Great question! SON of Man show the Human side of JESUS CHRIST; I'm sure you've heard/read that JESUS CHRIST is THE ROOT and Off-spring of David; This means that JESUS CHRIST, before HE became JESUS CHRIST, when HE was ONLY THE WORD of GOD, was/is Responsible for the Creation of David (David's "Root"), one of Adam's descendants; but JESUS CHRIST, being born, biologically, of Mary, is also a descendant of David (David's "Off-Spring") as well. JESUS CHRIST is both, Biologically, "THE SON of GOD", as well as, biologically, "THE SON of Man(kind)".

Ergo, Biologically, as MAN (Human), JESUS CHRIST is THE SON of Man (Mary's father, Heli/Eli; back to David; back to Abraham, back to Adam); but, as GOD, HE IS THE LIVING WORD of GOD; THE WORD of GOD made Human/"Flesh" (John 1:1-4,14); THE SON of GOD, that proceeded from "The Bosom of THE FATHER", but also from "the Bowels" of Mankind.

Is this more understandable for you?

djh22
Mar 24th 2009, 05:40 PM
This means that JESUS CHRIST, before HE became JESUS CHRIST, when HE was ONLY THE WORD of GOD, was/is Responsible for the Creation of David

Hi Thom,
So do you think Jesus was an archangel with God when he created Adam and this is why Genesis 1:26 says "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" ?

djh22

THOM
Mar 24th 2009, 05:56 PM
Hi Thom,
So do you think Jesus was an archangel with God when he created Adam and this is why Genesis 1:26 says "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" ?

djh22

Hello there DJH22;

To answer your question, I have to state, No. . .EMPHATICALLY NO. . .JESUS CHRIST is NOT, nor has ever been just "an archangel". All angels are Created beings; Scripture list only three archangels, Lucifer (now Satan), Michael, and Gabriel. And JESUS CHRIST [THE WORD of GOD] was with GOD in the Creation of angels.

HE [JESUS CHRIST] IS THE WORD of GOD; THE HOLY SPIRIT/GHOST IS THE POWER of GOD.
When GOD THE FATHER, stated, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness", HE was speaking to HIS ENTIRE SELF:


GOD THE FATHER;

GOD THE WORD [THE WORD of GOD WHO became JESUS CHRIST (John 1:1-4,14)];

GOD THE POWER [THE HOLY SPIRIT/GHOST (Luke 1:35)].

djh22
Mar 24th 2009, 06:16 PM
Hello there DJH22;

To answer your question, I have to state, No. . .EMPHATICALLY NO. . .JESUS CHRIST is NOT, nor has ever been just "an archangel". All angels are Created beings; Scripture list only three archangels, Lucifer (now Satan), Michael, and Gabriel. And JESUS CHRIST [THE WORD of GOD] was with GOD in the Creation of angels.

HE [JESUS CHRIST] IS THE WORD of GOD; THE HOLY SPIRIT/GHOST IS THE POWER of GOD.
When GOD THE FATHER, stated, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness", HE was speaking to HIS ENTIRE SELF:


GOD THE FATHER;

GOD THE WORD [THE WORD of GOD WHO became JESUS CHRIST (John 1:1-4,14)];

GOD THE POWER [THE HOLY SPIRIT/GHOST (Luke 1:35)].





Ok,Ok, no need to shout, I'll take that as a no then.

Seriously though, yea I see what you mean.

Best.
djh22.

markedward
Mar 24th 2009, 06:27 PM
Scripture list only three archangels, Lucifer (now Satan), Michael, and Gabriel.This is misleading... first, Satan is not once identified with "lucifer". Second, "lucifer" is an adjective, not a noun (let alone a name). Third, Satan is never called an archangel. Fourth, Gabriel is never called an archangel. Fifth, Scripture doesn't "list" any archangels; the Greek word that means "archangel" is only used twice in the entirety of Scripture (remember, I'm talking about the Hebrew and Greek here, not English translations), and only once is the term applied to a specific individual (Michael). If we're going to say "Scripture says..." we need to make sure we're attributing the proper statements to Scripture.

THOM
Mar 24th 2009, 07:48 PM
This is misleading... first, Satan is not once identified with "lucifer". Second, "lucifer" is an adjective, not a noun (let alone a name). Third, Satan is never called an archangel. Fourth, Gabriel is never called an archangel. Fifth, Scripture doesn't "list" any archangels; the Greek word that means "archangel" is only used twice in the entirety of Scripture (remember, I'm talking about the Hebrew and Greek here, not English translations), and only once is the term applied to a specific individual (Michael). If we're going to say "Scripture says..." we need to make sure we're attributing the proper statements to Scripture.

Please forgive me, I'm still trying to master English, my native language.
I understand Scripture in English; I explain Scripture in English; I Teach and Preach Scripture in English; I study the Greek and Hebrew when I want to translate a word into, yeah you guessed it, English.

If Scripture call him "Satan", "Lucifer", "the anointed cherub", or even, "the devil", that's good enough for me.

It is written (JESUS CHRIST speaking), "And HE said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. (Luke 10:18)"

It is written elsewhere, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! (Isaiah 14:12)"

And again, it is written, "Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou [wast] perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. (Ezekiel 28:14-17)"

Scripture teaches us about 3 main [Arch]angels: Lucifer (chief cherub of Praise and Worship); Gabriel (chief Messenger/Communication); and Michael (angel of Defense, if you will). Now are these angels, or not?

BroRog
Mar 24th 2009, 08:23 PM
The term "son of" indicates "has the characteristics of", and so "son of man" indicates a man, a human being.

markedward
Mar 24th 2009, 09:34 PM
Please forgive me, I'm still trying to master English, my native language.Your sarcasm is highly unneeded.


If Scripture call him "Satan", "Lucifer", "the anointed cherub", or even, "the devil", that's good enough for me.I completely disagree with the misapplication of Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 to Satan, but I don't want to deviate the topic of the thread too much. So I'll simply say these three things in regards to those passages:

1. Isaiah never mentions "Satan" or "the devil". We are directly told that he is mocking the "king of Babylon", which we are also directly told is a human king. "Lucifer", then, is nowhere applied to "Satan" or "the devil".

2. Ezekiel never mentions "Satan" or "the devil". We are directly told that he is lamenting the "king of Tyre", which we are also directly told is a human king. The "cherub", then, is nowhere applied to "Satan" or "the devil".

3. Neither of those two passages identifies Satan as an "archangel". (Also, nowhere in Scripture is a cherub equated to an archangel, or even an angel for that matter. So which is it... is Satan an [arch]angel or a cherub? They're not the same thing, so he can't be both.)


Scripture teaches us about 3 main [Arch]angels: Lucifer (chief cherub of Praise and Worship); Gabriel (chief Messenger/Communication); and Michael (angel of Defense, if you will). Now are these angels, or not?I didn't say they weren't angels. Please don't distort my words. What I said was that neither Satan nor Gabriel are ever called "archangel". Only Michael in the entirety of Scripture is called "archangel".

drew
Mar 24th 2009, 09:41 PM
In general "son of something" also essentially carries with it the meaning of type "something." IOW, to say that Jesus was the "Son of Man" means that He was fully human--type human.
I fully agree. And I suspect that the term "son of man" has a connection to the fact that the resurrected Jesus can legitimately be described as the "new Adam".

Sirus
Mar 24th 2009, 11:58 PM
son of man is used synonomously with the word or office of prophet. it was the man of God that had thus saith the Lord for the peoples and nations. the Son of Man was the office he was in at that time

you have three offices son of man, son of god, and son of david which Christ held and will hold in future agesThis simply is not true.
Num 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Job 25:6 How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm?

Job 35:8 Thy wickedness may hurt a man as thou art; and thy righteousness may profit the son of man.

Psa 8:4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

Heb 2:6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?

Psa 144:3 LORD, what is man, that thou takest knowledge of him! or the son of man, that thou makest account of him!

Psa 146:3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.


I could post another 100.......

It's man


Jesus is the Son of man by necessity. He referred to himself as Son of man out of necessity. God crowned man with glory and honor and placed all things in subjection to him and there is nothing that is not subject to him. First Adam failed, the last Adam did not. Man has dominion. There needed to be a man, that could reach one hand up to God from earth and bring the two together (reconciliation).

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image,........
......
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Heb 2:6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
Heb 2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honor, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
Heb 2:8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Heb 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

THOM
Mar 25th 2009, 01:22 AM
Your sarcasm is highly unneeded.

And your comments about "Hebrew" and "Greek" in an English forum, were needed?


1. Isaiah never mentions "Satan" or "the devil". We are directly told that he is mocking the "king of Babylon", which we are also directly told is a human king. "Lucifer", then, is nowhere applied to "Satan" or "the devil".

Who is/was "Lucifer"? Who is/was "Satan"? Who is/was "the devil"? Are not they one in the same?
Where are we "directly told that he is mocking the "king of Babylon", which we are also directly told is a human king"??? What verse, is this information found? This is a "Proverb (verse 4)", and proverbs are NOT "mocking", but rather comparisons. When was this king of Babylon in "Heaven"?


2. Ezekiel never mentions "Satan" or "the devil". We are directly told that he is lamenting the "king of Tyre", which we are also directly told is a human king. The "cherub", then, is nowhere applied to "Satan" or "the devil".

So when, was "the king of Tyre" ever a "cherub"?
When was this "king of Tyre" ever "in Eden the garden of God"?
And when was this "king of Tyre" bestowed with "the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created".

Yes, this is a "Lamentation"; and yes, it is taken up against the king of Tyre. But it is also showing/telling what has already happen to "Lucifer", is similar to what's about to happen to him, both of which were/will be uncomfortably and never ending inconsolable.



3. Neither of those two passages identifies Satan as an "archangel". (Also, nowhere in Scripture is a cherub equated to an archangel, or even an angel for that matter. So which is it... is Satan an [arch]angel or a cherub? They're not the same thing, so he can't be both.)

You've read the Scripture, it says what it says, and Lucifer/Satan/the devil is the one, in both Isaiah 14 (in the "proverb") and Ezekiel 28 (in the "lamentation", referred to. Unless of course, you can prove that "the king of Babylon" was named "Lucifer", and "the king of Tyre" was a "Cherub"??? But you can't do that, can you?

And Satan, while he was still Lucifer, was a Cherub (Ezekiel 28:14); He was the archangel in his position over other angels (especially those he got to join him in his attempted coup d'etat), just as Michael is called an archangel (chief angel by definition) in Jude 1:9.


I didn't say they weren't angels. Please don't distort my words. What I said was that neither Satan nor Gabriel are ever called "archangel". Only Michael in the entirety of Scripture is called "archangel".

Thank you for your answer; That was merely a question, and not any attempt on my part to "distort" your words. And we do agree on "Only Michael in the entirety of Scripture is called 'archangel'."

davidharding
Mar 25th 2009, 03:21 AM
Hi Thom,
So do you think Jesus was an archangel with God when he created Adam and this is why Genesis 1:26 says "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" ?

djh22


christ dwelled in the Father so God was speaking to His Son that was in Him. that is why it says in our image(not images and our likeness(not likenesses). we are going to reflect the same image as God Himself where Christ dwelled in Him. that is why paul said our hope is for christ to be formed in us, the christian. christ is in the christian just like he was in God, thus reflecting the same image.

markedward
Mar 25th 2009, 04:32 AM
And your comments about "Hebrew" and "Greek" in an English forum, were needed?We're studying the Bible. The Bible was originally written in Hebrew and Greek. I don't see how appealing to the original language of the Scripture is a negative thing, since it serves to help us in studying Scripture. Sarcasm, however, is antagonistic in nature.


Who is/was "Lucifer"? Who is/was "Satan"? Who is/was "the devil"? Are not they one in the same?Satan is directly called "the devil" (Revelation 20:2), as well as "the serpent of old", and "the dragon". You will find no Scripture in which Satan/the serpent/the dragon/the devil is identified with "lucifer".

"Lucifer" was the king of Babylon. But, again, nowhere in the passage is the king of Babylon identified with Satan. The connection of "lucifer" with Satan is non-existent in Scripture; it is something that can only be read into the text by the reader, not from the text. Further, "lucifer" is not a name. The word "lucifer" means "light-bringer" or "light-bearer".

The Hebrew word used in Isaiah 14:12 (heylel) is derived from the root verb is halal. The word halal is translated in the KJV as "praise" 117 times, "glory" 14 times, "boast" 10 times, "mad" 8 times, "foolish" 3 times, "fools" 2 times, "commended" 2 times, "rage" 2 times, "celebrate" 1 time, and "renowned" 1 time. It is translated as "shine" only 3 times, and in the sense of reputation, not actual light.

The actual Hebrew word used in Isaiah 14 is heylel, a masculine noun. The whole passage of Isaiah 14:4-23 describes the boastfulness and pride of the king of Babylon, and how God will humiliate him. Based on the context of the passage (boastfulness and pride) and the actual meaning of the root word for heylel (halal: praise, glory, boast), the most proper English equivalent should be "boasting one". Now, while you may disagree with the choice of the phrase "boasting one", it is irrefutable that the original Hebrew word heylel, from halal, has absolutely nothing to do with "bearing light" (that is, the Latin lucifer, "light-bearer"). The Latin word lucifer is simply not an accurate translation of the Hebrew word heylel.

To summarize shortly: The original Hebrew word means "boasting one", based on the context of the king of Babylon's boastfulness and pride, and is a descriptive noun, and it is in no way a name of the individual. (To provide an English example: "cheerleader". This word is in no way a name, it is a descriptive noun; it refers to an individual who leads in cheering. Likewise, heylel, a noun, refers to an individual who is boasting.)


Where are we "directly told that he is mocking the "king of Babylon", which we are also directly told is a human king"??? What verse, is this information found?Isaiah 14:4 directly identifies the individual as the "king of Babylon". Isaiah 14:6 directly calls him a "man". A "man" is not an angel, it is a human being. There is no change in subject from verse 14:4 through 14:16. Hence, the "king of Babylon" is a "man". Not an angel.


This is a "Proverb (verse 4)", and proverbs are NOT "mocking", but rather comparisons.The Hebrew word (mâshâl) is often translated "similie" or "parable" or "proverb", yes, but the root word (mâshal) is a verb meaning, "to rule, to have dominion, to reign". The word used in 14:4 is "dominating" in nature. It is a "pressing proverb". A "mock", or "taunt", or, perhaps more properly, a "gloat".


When was this king of Babylon in "Heaven"?He wasn't. Isaiah 14:13 shows that he said in his heart "I will ascend to heaven". He wasn't literally in heaven, but he set his mind and heart and will upon heaven in an unrighteous, prideful manner. It was a man deifying himself. His "fall" from heaven is prophetic imagery of his imminent fall from power, and of his death.


So when, was "the king of Tyre" ever a "cherub"?
When was this "king of Tyre" ever "in Eden the garden of God"?He was never a cherub, nor in the garden. Ezekiel 26-27 describes extensively the beauty and wealth that the city of Tyre accumulated through its trade. Ezekiel 28 continues this: the king of Tyre is accused of being wicked on account of his pride in his material wealth and his pride in his beautiful city. He is then described in metaphor with appropriate symbols: his personal wealth is compared to a cherub adorned in jewels, and his beautiful city of riches is compared to the garden of God. And just as the cherub in the metaphor is corrupted into violence through its "widespread trade" (28:16; where in the entirety of Scripture is Satan ever described as being involved in the trade of material wealth, and that his sinfulness was directly caused by that trade? no where). The cherub is cast out of the garden, losing its wealth and wonderful home: the metaphor continues, and reveals that the king of Tyre is destined to lose his material wealth and his city on the account of his wickedness and pride.


Yes, this is a "Lamentation"; and yes, it is taken up against the king of Tyre. But it is also showing/telling what has already happen to "Lucifer", is similar to what's about to happen to him, both of which were/will be uncomfortably and never ending inconsolable."Lucifer" is nowhere mentioned in Ezekiel 28. Likewise, a cherub is nowhere mentioned in Isaiah 14.


And Satan, while he was still Lucifer, was a Cherub (Ezekiel 28:14);Ezekiel 28:14 nowhere mentions Satan, nor does it mention "lucifer".


He was the archangel in his position over other angelsWhere is the Scripture to support this claim? Please, provide the Scripture that directly says Satan was an "archangel" and that he had power over other angels.


And we do agree on "Only Michael in the entirety of Scripture is called 'archangel'."Then how can you possibly claim that Satan or Gabriel were "archangels" when you admit that Scripture only applies this title to Michael?

Biastai
Mar 25th 2009, 06:34 AM
Thanks to markedward for the information on Lucifer.

I've always wondered where Lucifer came from. You've mentioned "king of Babylon." Was he an earthly king whose memory was kept by attaching his name to the Morning Star? The meaning, "light bearer," would certainly fit. Babylon's astrology would also surely lead them to assign a star to him. I've noticed some Bible versions translate the same word as Morning Star and Lucifer. I was surprised to see a reference in Plato's Timaeus as well in that it mentions a Lucifer as the Morning Star!

As for the Son of Man...

He seems to be a divine figure, not a human one.

"'Yes, it is as you say,' Jesus replied. 'But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.'
Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, 'He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?'"
Matthew 26:64, 65, Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin

Here, the high priest is extremely shaken. Has Jesus made reference to himself as a divine figure thus charging himself with blasphemy?

The Daniel reference has already been put forward.

"The LORD says to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet."
The LORD will extend your mighty scepter from Zion;
you will rule in the midst of your enemies."
Psalm 110:1, 2

This is a Psalm of David. David calls this figure who sits on God's right hand (as in Matt 26:64) "Lord." Surely enough, Jesus uses this scripture to infer this is a divine figure...

"While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?"
"The son of David," they replied.
He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says,
" 'The Lord said to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet." 'If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?" No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions."
Matthew 22:41-46

In 2 Esdras 13, though non-canonical, the reference found here is striking...

"The seven days passed; and the following night I had a dream. In my dream, a wind rose from the sea and set all its waves in turmoil. As I watched, the wind brought a figure like that of a man out of the depths, and he flew with the clouds of heaven. Wherever he turned his face, everything he looked at trembled, and wherever the sound of his voice reached, everyone who heard it melted as wax at the touch of fire."
2 Esdras 13:1-4, a vision attributed to Ezra

He doesn't seem to be a very human figure of simply human ability. The angel accompanying Ezra during his vision would go on to inform Ezra that this figure is "he whom the Most High has held in readiness during many ages; through him he will deliver the world he has made, and he will determine the destiny of those who survive."

Just some scriptures and background info to munch on. Curious to see what you guys think.

markedward
Mar 25th 2009, 06:41 AM
Likewise, I think, the non-canonical book of 1 Enoch uses the phrase "son of man" in a Messianic sense (if I remember correctly), as opposed to the poetic fashion found throughout the Old Testament Scriptures (see my first post on page one for examples). It's been a while since I read it.

BadDog
Mar 25th 2009, 03:49 PM
Hi Thom,
So do you think Jesus was an archangel with God when he created Adam and this is why Genesis 1:26 says "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" ?

djh22No - definitely!

"Our image" is referring to the trinity.

BD

THOM
Mar 25th 2009, 08:47 PM
This is misleading... first, Satan is not once identified with "lucifer".

Your statement here is untrue, per the following, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! (Isaiah 14:12a)" and, according to JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF, "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.(Luke 10:18)"; So who else, in Scripture, has fallen from Heaven? Or, was "Lucifer" and "Satan" the only two? Or are "Lucifer" and "Satan" one in the same?


Second, "lucifer" is an adjective, not a noun (let alone a name).And according to Isaiah 14:12a, "an adjective" fell "from heaven", huh?


Third, Satan is never called an archangel.That's because he is no longer "Lucifer" ("the anointed cherub who covers"). But he certainly was once an "archangel"; I'll get to that later.


Fourth, Gabriel is never called an archangel.No he's not called an archangel. . .but he's definitely an "archangel", because we do know that he "stand in the presence of God (Luke 1:19)". Now tell me something, what angels are allowed to "stand in the presence of God", except "archangels"?


Fifth, Scripture doesn't "list" any archangels;Who/What is Michael? It seems as though you and Scripture disagree here, because Scripture, states, "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. (Jude 1:9)"


the Greek word that means "archangel" is only used twice in the entirety of Scripture (remember, I'm talking about the Hebrew and Greek here, not English translations), and only once is the term applied to a specific individual (Michael). If we're going to say "Scripture says..." we need to make sure we're attributing the proper statements to Scripture.Seems to me that you might want to spend a little more time with some of the better "English translations"; because all that "Hebrew and Greek" that you're "talking about" seems to cause far too many contradictions in your interpretations of certain Scriptures. In agreement, slightly, with you here, "we need to make sure we're attributing the proper" interpretation "to Scripture".


We're studying the Bible. The Bible was originally written in Hebrew and Greek. I don't see how appealing to the original language of the Scripture is a negative thing, since it serves to help us in studying Scripture.

There may not be "a negative thing", for you, in "appealing to the original language of the Scripture"; But just as it is written, "All things are lawful. . .but not all things are expedient.(1Cor. 6:12;10:23)"


Sarcasm, however, is antagonistic in nature.And so are statements like, ". . .remember, I'm talking about the Hebrew and Greek here, not English translations...", very "antagonistic in nature".
There are people ["babes" in CHRIST, even] in this forum trying hard to understand Scripture in English, now you come along, and imply that unless they know "Hebrew and Greek", they may be in grave error in their understandings and/or beliefs.


Satan is directly called "the devil" (Revelation 20:2), as well as "the serpent of old", and "the dragon". You will find no Scripture in which Satan/the serpent/the dragon/the devil is identified with "lucifer".Again, you do err: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! (Isaiah 14:12a)" and, according to JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF, "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.(Luke 10:18)";
So who else, in Scripture, has fallen from Heaven?

Or, was "Lucifer" and "Satan" the only two?


Or are "Lucifer" and "Satan" one in the same?



"Lucifer" was the king of Babylon.Again, not so. "Lucifer" was the motivation behind "the (unnamed) king of Babylon".
As one author wrote in his commentary about Isaiah 14, "The context of this passage is a referral to the king of Babylon as presented in his pride, splendor and fall. However, it is to the power behind the evil Babylonian king that this is actually addressed. No mortal king would claim that his throne was above that of God or that he was like the Most High. The power behind the evil Babylonian king is Lucifer, Son of the Morning."


The Hebrew word used in Isaiah 14:12 (heylel) is derived from the root verb is halal. The word halal is translated in the KJV as "praise" 117 times, "glory" 14 times, "boast" 10 times, "mad" 8 times, "foolish" 3 times, "fools" 2 times, "commended" 2 times, "rage" 2 times, "celebrate" 1 time, and "renowned" 1 time. It is translated as "shine" only 3 times, and in the sense of reputation, not actual light.
The actual Hebrew word used in Isaiah 14 is heylel, a masculine noun. The whole passage of Isaiah 14:4-23 describes the boastfulness and pride of the king of Babylon, and how God will humiliate him. Based on the context of the passage (boastfulness and pride) and the actual meaning of the root word for heylel (halal: praise, glory, boast), the most proper English equivalent should be "boasting one". Now, while you may disagree with the choice of the phrase "boasting one", it is irrefutable that the original Hebrew word heylel, from halal, has absolutely nothing to do with "bearing light" (that is, the Latin lucifer, "light-bearer"). The Latin word lucifer is simply not an accurate translation of the Hebrew word heylel. To summarize shortly: The original Hebrew word means "boasting one", based on the context of the king of Babylon's boastfulness and pride, and is a descriptive noun, and it is in no way a name of the individual. (To provide an English example: "cheerleader". This word is in no way a name, it is a descriptive noun; it refers to an individual who leads in cheering. Likewise, heylel, a noun, refers to an individual who is boasting.)You have taken "Lucifer" from being "an adjective, not a noun (let alone a name) [2nd Quote down from the top]", to being "the king of Babylon [2nd Quote up.]", to being "a masculine noun[most recent Quote]", to "a descriptive noun", with a little "Latin" and a "cheerleader", thrown in for good measure, I suppose. Now just which is it?



Isaiah 14:4 directly identifies the individual as the "king of Babylon". Isaiah 14:6 directly calls him a "man". A "man" is not an angel, it is a human being. There is no change in subject from verse 14:4 through 14:16. Hence, the "king of Babylon" is a "man". Not an angel.Here's what "Isaiah 14:6" states, "Which used to strike the peoples in fury with unceasing strokes, Which subdued the nations in anger with unrestrained persecution." I don't see the word "man" anywhere. So should I really believe you when you state that "A 'man' is not an angel..."?

Questions regarding Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:12-17:

Neither of your explanation regarding both these passage, fit the context nor the entirety of THE WORD of GOD [All of Scripture]. Why don't you reread just what I've posted below...

"How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations! For you have said in your heart: 'I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation On the farthest sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.' Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, To the lowest depths of the Pit."

"You were the seal of perfection, Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering: The sardius, topaz, and diamond, Beryl, onyx, and jasper, Sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold. The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes Was prepared for you on the day you were created. You were the anointed cherub who covers; I established you; You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones.You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, Till iniquity was found in you. By the abundance of your trading You became filled with violence within, And you sinned; Therefore I cast you as a profane thing Out of the mountain of God; And I destroyed you, O covering cherub, From the midst of the fiery stones. Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; You corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor;"
and get back with me???

markedward
Mar 25th 2009, 10:26 PM
Your statement here is untrue, per (Isaiah 14:12a)" and(Luke 10:18)You're basing this idea entirely off of two unrelated verses. Christ was using plain speech, and he directly referenced Satan. Isaiah was using prophetic symbolism, and he not once mentions Satan, nor an angel in the passage, and he directly mentions the king of Babylon. The king of Babylon, the "boasting one" (heylel), falling from heaven is no more literal than the locusts devouring the landscape (in Joel) are.


And according to Isaiah 14:12a, "an adjective" fell "from heaven", huh?I apologize on this remark. However, I already corrected my statement, in that the original Hebrew word heylel is a "descriptive noun", and I continue to state that it was not a name.


what angels are allowed to "stand in the presence of God", except "archangels"?And yet, where is the Scripture that says only archangels (as opposed to "regular" angels) "stand in the presence of God"? You're making up a rule that is not found in Scripture. In fact, I can find at least a few instances in which many angels stand in God's presence, yet are never identified as "archangels". (Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Revelation 5:11, Revelation 8:2).


Who/What is Michael? It seems as though you and Scripture disagree here, because ScriptureNo... what I said was that Scripture doesn't list any archangels. A list, by definition, is a series of multiple items being counted or named. There is no list of archangels in Scripture. Besides, you're claim that I'm disagreeing with Scripture is completely bogus, because I have already said that Michael is called an archangel in Scripture.


Seems to me that you might want to spend a little more time with some of the better "English translations"; because all that "Hebrew and Greek" that you're "talking about" seems to cause far too many contradictions in your interpretations of certain Scriptures. In agreement, slightly, with you here, "we need to make sure we're attributing the proper" interpretation "to Scripture".I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Where did I contradict myself?


There may not be "a negative thing", for you, in "appealing to the original language of the Scripture"; But just as it is written, "All things are lawful. . .but not all things are expedient.(1Cor. 6:12;10:23)"What are you saying here? That it's wrong of me to study the original languages that Scripture was written in?


And so are statements like, ". . .remember, I'm talking about the Hebrew and Greek here, not English translations...", very "antagonistic in nature".I wasn't being antagonistic. I was just providing a simple reminder that I was appealing to the original Hebrew and Greek of Scripture, not English. You, on the other hand, were directly mocking me.


There are people ["babes" in CHRIST, even] in this forum trying hard to understand Scripture in English, now you come along, and imply that unless they know "Hebrew and Greek", they may be in grave error in their understandings and/or beliefs.Where in any of my posts did I say or imply that people are required to know Hebrew and Greek, and that if they don't they are "in grave error"? Please stop making false statements about what I have said. I do believe studying Hebrew and Greek is helpful in understanding Scripture, but I never said that a person is "in grave error" just because they may not study the languages.


Again, you do err: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! (Isaiah 14:12a)" and, according to JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF, "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.(Luke 10:18)";
So who else, in Scripture, has fallen from Heaven?

Or, was "Lucifer" and "Satan" the only two?


Or are "Lucifer" and "Satan" one in the same?

With this same reasoning, a person could just as easily infer that Christ is the same person as Nebuchadnezzar, based on two unrelated verses from the book of Daniel and the Revelation. In Daniel 2, Daniel calls Nebuchadnezzar "the king of kings". In the Revelation, Christ is called "the king of kings". Should we, then, base the idea that Christ is the same person as Nebuchadnezzar solely upon these two unrelated verses? No, we shouldn't. Nebuchadnezzar is not the same person as Christ. We understand this through context of the statements that were made. The context of Christ's statement is, simply, Satan. The context of Isaiah's statement is prophetic, and in regards to a man, the king of Babylon.


Again, not so. "Lucifer" was the motivation behind "the (unnamed) king of Babylon".Where does Scripture say that lucifer/heylel was the "motivation behind" the king of Babylon? Nothing in the passage indicates a "power behind" or "motivation behind" the king of Babylon.


You have taken "Lucifer" from being "an adjective, not a noun (let alone a name) [2nd Quote down from the top]", to being "the king of Babylon [2nd Quote up.]", to being "a masculine noun[most recent Quote]", to "a descriptive noun", with a little "Latin" and a "cheerleader", thrown in for good measure, I suppose. Now just which is it?I did already correct myself on this, before this post. "Lucifer", in Hebrew heylel, is a descriptive/adjective (they're the same thing) noun ("masculine" in the Hebrew, just as "he" is a masculine word in English) applied directly to the king of Babylon. The Latin I referred to was the word lucifer, and the "cheerleader" was an English example of how the word heylel is used.


Here's what "Isaiah 14:6" states, "Which used to strike the peoples in fury with unceasing strokes, Which subdued the nations in anger with unrestrained persecution." I don't see the word "man" anywhere. So should I really believe you when you state that "A 'man' is not an angel..."?My sincere apologies: I made a typo. I missed hitting the "1" key, so what I said should read out as "Isaiah 14:16" (you should have noticed that I did type the verse number correctly in the sentence immediately after I made the typo). Isaiah 14:16 reads: "'Those who see you will stare at you and ponder over you: "Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms?"'" Isaiah 14:16 describes the "fall" of the heylel, yet the heylel is directly called a "man".

But with that, I'm done here. I'm merely repeating myself. And likewise, you have repeatedly distorted my words and made false accusations against me. I will not take part in a discussion with someone who is speaking so spitefully to me.

THOM
Mar 26th 2009, 04:19 AM
You're basing this idea entirely off of two unrelated verses. Christ was using plain speech, and he directly referenced Satan. Isaiah was using prophetic symbolism, and he not once mentions Satan, nor an angel in the passage, and he directly mentions the king of Babylon. The king of Babylon, the "boasting one" (heylel), falling from heaven is no more literal than the locusts devouring the landscape (in Joel) are.

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
Ahh, now it becomes evident; you, and you alone, get to decide what Scriptures are to be taken as a “literal” or not. Never mind what Scripture states, you tell us what is and what is not, “literal”, huh?

Tell me, was the "budded" Aaron’s Rod ([I]Numbers 17:1-10) “literal”?

Did "Belshazzar" see a “literal” floating of "fingers of a man's hand", across a room, and write in the plaster on the wall of where he was holding “a great feast” (Daniel 5:1-9)?

Was the leper (Mark 1:40-41) that was "touched" by JESUS CHRIST, as HE was healing him, a “literal” touch?

Sorry sir, but you and I don’t get to determine which Scriptures are “literal”, and which are “prophetic symbolism”.

What Isaiah does when, “he directly mentions the king of Babylon” is to also tell us of the power and motivation behind “the king of Babylon”. Your “prophetic symbolism”, which is nothing more than just another of the many secular man-made words and phrases (like the word, “Christians”), which have been adopted by unknowing/unsuspecting believers merely because “it sounds nice”. Never mind that “prophetic symbolism”, along with certain other words and phrases, are not the least bit Scriptural; but when they are used, it just seems to make the user sound more Spiritual and possibly more knowlegable, but. . .usually, its only another one of many “. . .whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.”

This so-called, by you alone, “boasting one”, stated rather as a matter of fact, emphatically, plainly, and specifically, “I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.”; and you would have us to believe that this is merely a human speaking? And rather than admit your error, you’d want us to believe that “. . .falling from heaven is no more literal than the locusts devouring the landscape (in Joel) are.”

Well, there are just several things wrong with your assumption:

1) GOD’s WORD, THE HOLY SPIRIT/GHOST, and Isaiah says you’re wrong.

2) You make JESUS CHRIST out to be a Liar, when HE stated, “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.” Because if this wasn’t a “literal” falling “from heaven”, then JESUS would have to be a Liar, in order for your assumption to be the Truth.

3) It is written, of this so-called “boasting one”, that the thing that got him in trouble with GOD begins with the following, “For thou hast said in thine heart...”; which means, according to your rationale, you so-called "boasting one" got in trouble with GOD, not because of what he verbally stated, but rather, for what was stated in his “heart”.


I apologize on this remark. However, I already corrected my statement, in that the original Hebrew word heylel is a "descriptive noun", and I continue to state that it was not a name.Apology accepted; although it is totally unnecessary. It is very gracious of you.



And yet, where is the Scripture that says only archangels (as opposed to "regular" angels) "stand in the presence of God"? You're making up a rule that is not found in Scripture. In fact, I can find at least a few instances in which many angels stand in God's presence, yet are never identified as "archangels". (Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Revelation 5:11, Revelation 8:2).Now, its becoming clearer. Like many others, you assume [only] that “the sons of GOD” are [fallen] angels, when in actuality nowhere in all of Scripture is this stated nor implied.

Job 1:6; 2:1, is not about angels, of any kind, with the exception of Satan, a former angel.

Rev. 5:11; 8:2, doesn’t indicated whether these angels are standing, kneeling or what; and I do believe that my statement was, “stand in the presence of God”. . .twice.



I wasn't being antagonistic. I was just providing a simple reminder that I was appealing to the original Hebrew and Greek of Scripture, not English. You, on the other hand, were directly mocking me.Once again you do to someone, that which you don't like having done to you. According to you I was being "antagonistic"; but, again according to you, you were not being "antagonistic". Hmm, Interesting.

And your claim that I was "directly mocking" you, is contradicted by what I actually stated:

"Please forgive me, I'm still trying to master English, my native language. I understand Scripture in English; I explain Scripture in English; I Teach and Preach Scripture in English; I study the Greek and Hebrew when I want to translate a word into, yeah you guessed it, English."

Now then can you point out this alleged "directly mocking"?


Where in any of my posts did I say or imply that people are required to know Hebrew and Greek, and that if they don't they are "in grave error"? Please stop making false statements about what I have said. I do believe studying Hebrew and Greek is helpful in understanding Scripture, but I never said that a person is "in grave error" just because they may not study the languages.I haven't made any "false statements" about anything that you've said. Do you know the difference between “you. . .imply”, which is what I stated, and “making false statements about what” you said, which is what you’re accusing me of doing.



With this same reasoning, a person could just as easily infer that Christ is the same person as Nebuchadnezzar, based on two unrelated verses from the book of Daniel and the Revelation. In Daniel 2, Daniel calls Nebuchadnezzar "the king of kings". In the Revelation, Christ is called "the king of kings". Should we, then, base the idea that Christ is the same person as Nebuchadnezzar solely upon these two unrelated verses?Not so, Daniel call Nebie, "a king of kings"; in Revelations JESUS CHRIST IS KING of Kings, right after the writer tells us that HE is also LORD of Lords. . .which is right after he tells us that JESUS CHRIST IS "THE LAMB"

No, we shouldn't. Nebuchadnezzar is not the same person as Christ. We understand this through context of the statements that were made. The context of Christ's statement is, simply, Satan.
The context of Isaiah's statement is prophetic, and in regards to a man, the king of Babylon.
Where does Scripture say that lucifer/heylel was the "motivation behind" the king of Babylon?Where in Scripture does it "say" that "The context of Isaiah's statement is prophetic"? Where in Scripture does it "say" that "Nebuchadnezzar is not the same person as Christ"? Where in Scripture does it "say" that "falling from heaven is no more literal than the locusts devouring the landscape (in Joel) are"?


Nothing in the passage indicates a "power behind" or "motivation behind" the king of Babylon.And nothing in Genesis 3, indicates a "power behind" Adam and Eve disobeying GOD, and eating first from the wrong Tree. . .except a talking snake ("Serpent"), huh? Or was that not "literal" as well?

BTW, from what I've read of your Thread, "The Problem with 'Good Friday'", you've done some Excellent work. It kinda reminds me of something THE LORD gave to me a couple years ago. . .and wouldn't you know it, So many was so very slow to accept it???

Check it out and let me know what you think:

{http://nehemiah.blogs4me.com/32511/jesus_christ_of_nazareth_was_not_crucified_on_a_fr iday/}

Dani H
Mar 26th 2009, 05:51 AM
Gentlemen, let's kindly shoot the "lucifer" rabbit and bring the thread back on track so the OP can get her questions answered.

If you wish to discuss the "lucifer" subject then kindly begin your own thread for such a purpose.

Thank you. :)

BroRog
Mar 27th 2009, 05:18 AM
Okay, here is an example.


Numbers 23:19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=4&chapter=23&verse=19&version=49&context=verse)
" 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?

Here we see two parallel statements: 1) God is not a man, and 2) he is not a son of man. The two phrases mean the same thing using different wording. A son of man is a man.

The following employs parallelism to make the same point:

Psalm 8:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=8&verse=4&version=49&context=verse)
What is man that You take thought of him, And the son of man that You care for him?

"Man" and "son of man" are the same thing. A son of man is a man.

We could multiply examples.

Sirus
Mar 27th 2009, 05:30 AM
yes
http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=2023892&postcount=19

Biastai
Mar 27th 2009, 01:18 PM
Okay, here is an example.


Numbers 23:19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=4&chapter=23&verse=19&version=49&context=verse)
" 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?

Here we see two parallel statements: 1) God is not a man, and 2) he is not a son of man. The two phrases mean the same thing using different wording. A son of man is a man.

The following employs parallelism to make the same point:

Psalm 8:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=8&verse=4&version=49&context=verse)
What is man that You take thought of him, And the son of man that You care for him?

"Man" and "son of man" are the same thing. A son of man is a man.

We could multiply examples.

No one is ignoring these examples. There is "son of man" as referring to man in general, but at that time there was definitely a messianic figure named the Son of Man. What do you make of Matthew 24:64? The apocalyptic book of Enoch was also mentioned in an above post where the Son of Man is described in chapter 44 (with similarities with Daniel 7), not a generic son of any man.

We see Jesus use the term to refer to himself in verses where it can apply to him only, for example John 13:31.

Stephen in Acts 7:56 refers to Jesus as the Son of Man in a way it communicates divinity, not humanity.

Revelation continues the Son of Man references clearly describing a divine figure in 1:9, 1:13, & 14:14.

In the OT, the messiah is expected to deliver Israel as an earthly king. However, during the intertestamental and NT period when ruling power after ruling power took turns possessing Judea and things looked bleak, there arose a Jewish messianic idea of a dramatic inbreaking of a divine agent from God to bring forth this deliverance.

Your proof quoted effectively shows "son of man" as man and not God, but why the references to Christ as the "Son of Man" after "God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name?" Why continue to highlight Christ's humanity exclusively?

BroRog
Mar 27th 2009, 02:26 PM
No one is ignoring these examples. There is "son of man" as referring to man in general, but at that time there was definitely a messianic figure named the Son of Man. What do you make of Matthew 24:64? The apocalyptic book of Enoch was also mentioned in an above post where the Son of Man is described in chapter 44 (with similarities with Daniel 7), not a generic son of any man.

We see Jesus use the term to refer to himself in verses where it can apply to him only, for example John 13:31.

Stephen in Acts 7:56 refers to Jesus as the Son of Man in a way it communicates divinity, not humanity.

Revelation continues the Son of Man references clearly describing a divine figure in 1:9, 1:13, & 14:14.

In the OT, the messiah is expected to deliver Israel as an earthly king. However, during the intertestamental and NT period when ruling power after ruling power took turns possessing Judea and things looked bleak, there arose a Jewish messianic idea of a dramatic inbreaking of a divine agent from God to bring forth this deliverance.

Your proof quoted effectively shows "son of man" as man and not God, but why the references to Christ as the "Son of Man" after "God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name?" Why continue to highlight Christ's humanity exclusively?

The phrase "son of man" always refers to a man. Jesus acknowledges himself to be a man. That's all it means.

Biastai
Mar 27th 2009, 05:13 PM
The phrase "son of man" always refers to a man. Jesus acknowledges himself to be a man. That's all it means.

So do references to Christ as the Son of Man after his resurrection tell us he is still a man? Or is it done in remembrance of his human nature?

BroRog
Mar 27th 2009, 07:24 PM
So do references to Christ as the Son of Man after his resurrection tell us he is still a man? Or is it done in remembrance of his human nature?

He's still a man. :)

BadDog
Mar 27th 2009, 07:58 PM
So do references to Christ as the Son of Man after his resurrection tell us he is still a man? Or is it done in remembrance of his human nature?He's still fully man and fully God.

Biastai
Mar 28th 2009, 06:02 AM
In your efforts to be concise, you lose a lot of clarity. If I read you both correctly, a fleshly man sits on the right hand of God as we speak. We must then ignore Paul's description of the spiritual nature of the resurrected body in 1 Corinthians 15. If not, I guess we are defining man differently. Maybe you are going by figure or image while I'm including the fleshly nature also.

The "fully man" description refers to Jesus during his time on earth according to Philippians 2:6-8, I believe.

Forgive me for remaining unconvinced.

Sirus
Mar 28th 2009, 08:33 PM
Biastai, the resurrected Christ said he had flesh and bone and to touch and see that it was in fact Jesus and not just spirit. Not all flesh is the same according to the passage you claim for support. You'd do well to heed the words in that passage and realize flesh is not by necessity evil and corrupt, for we know the resurrected Jesus had flesh and bone.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Now in case you want to say man the mediator here refers to Jesus while on earth and not now....
Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.I'd say you are not understanding biblical authority set forth by God.

Jesus is the Son of man by necessity. He referred to himself as Son of man out of necessity. God crowned man with glory and honor and placed all things in subjection to him and there is nothing that is not subject to him. First Adam failed, the last Adam did not. Man has dominion. There needed to be a man, that could reach one hand up to God from earth and bring the two together (reconciliation).
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image,........
......
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Heb 2:6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
Heb 2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honor, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
Heb 2:8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Heb 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;

Heb 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

It is the Son of man that returns in his glory. The same man seen ascending will return. Someday the man will deliver the kingdom to the Father, but someday has not come yet. This is also in the passage you cited in 1Cor 15
1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
1Co 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Compare that to
Heb 2:8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
If he is not a man, he cannot rule and reign!

Julian
Mar 28th 2009, 09:29 PM
The term 'son of man' simply refers to human beings, who are begotten by human beings.
Jesus was begotten by God, but born of a human female. Thus, both Son of God and son of man.

And he was made of a woman - hence 'son of man'.

THOM
Mar 28th 2009, 09:56 PM
What exactly does son of man mean....who is the son and who is the man?? I dont know why but that term just bothers me...probably because I dont know what it means. Or is it easier than I think?

Adam was a "son of GOD (Luke 3:38)", Cain was a "son of man (Adam)"; Cain was to reflect the "image and likeness" of his Father (Adam), just as Adam was to reflect the "image and likeness" of his Father [CREATOR], GOD.

THE SON of Man [JESUS CHRIST] reflects the "image and likeness" of HIS FATHER (GOD: biologically; and Joseph: Legally Adopted).

When addressing The Divinity of JESUS CHRIST, HE IS THE SON of GOD; and when addressing The Humaneness of JESUS CHRIST, HE IS THE SON of Man(kind). . .not just 'a son', but 'THE SON': THE PERFECT REPRESENTATION of what a Son of a Father is supposed to be and look like.

Biastai
Mar 29th 2009, 12:02 AM
Biastai, the resurrected Christ said he had flesh and bone and to touch and see that it was in fact Jesus and not just spirit. Not all flesh is the same according to the passage you claim for support. You'd do well to heed the words in that passage and realize flesh is not by necessity evil and corrupt, for we know the resurrected Jesus had flesh and bone.

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Now in case you want to say man the mediator here refers to Jesus while on earth and not now....

Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
I'd say you are not understanding biblical authority set forth by God.

Jesus is the Son of man by necessity. He referred to himself as Son of man out of necessity. God crowned man with glory and honor and placed all things in subjection to him and there is nothing that is not subject to him. First Adam failed, the last Adam did not. Man has dominion. There needed to be a man, that could reach one hand up to God from earth and bring the two together (reconciliation).

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image,........
......
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Heb 2:6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
Heb 2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honor, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
Heb 2:8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Heb 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;

Heb 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

It is the Son of man that returns in his glory. The same man seen ascending will return. Someday the man will deliver the kingdom to the Father, but someday has not come yet. This is also in the passage you cited in 1Cor 15

1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
1Co 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Compare that to

Heb 2:8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
If he is not a man, he cannot rule and reign!

First of all, thank you for putting forth the effort to use scripture to construct a proof. The source of my frustration was from other posters' thinking a single unsupported statement magically refutes a number of unaddressed scripture-supported statements.

Jesus' body immediately after the resurrection being fleshly is an excellent point. His wounds were felt in Luke and he ate a piece of fish in John.

The verses in Hebrews (2:9 especially) infers Jesus became a man in order to taste death. One could argue his manhood terminated then and that he took upon himself another nature thereafter. Both sides could be argued for.

There are different sides to this argument. I personally take into account the Jewish eschatology of the times. Other Christians don't. I find it to be more in line with the scriptures using the "Son of Man" as a proper noun describing Jesus with messianic undertones. After all, when Jesus does return, I don't believe its going to be his human nature that will command our attention then, but his majesty as God's agent.

joedelsy
Apr 2nd 2009, 04:03 AM
Do any of you know that God himself came in the flesh as a man long before Jesus? God walked with Moses, Noah and ate dinner with Abraham.

Learning about the true and living God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He spoke with man from Adam to Malachi (except for the Egyptian Captivity), to Jesus, the Apostles, in the last days, and will again face to face with Israel as He did in Egypt. He walked with Adam. Noah walked with God. Abraham mistook Him for a man and fixed a meal; which they ate together. Jacob wrestled with God and built a monument for seeing God face to face. Moses spoke with God face to face as a familiar friend; and saw most of His body in all its glory. Ezekiel told of seeing Him in the appearance of man.

The Trinitarian creed would have us belief that God is "incomprehensible." There is no "Thus saith the Lord in Babylon." It teaches this unknown God begat seed on a married woman and became God in the flesh. Yet Jesus prayed to God, subjected his will to God, was ordained into the Melchisedec Priesthood by God, died and spend three days in hell, was raised from the dead by God, received all power from God, and sits at the right hand of God.

Read the Scripture.