ChandraRama

I just completed the above mentioned book. There, Ehrman boldly declares that the "Son of Man" is different individual than Jesus. Jesus is expecting "Son of Man" to come and save the world and all he is preaching is that whoever does not listen to him(Jesus) is bound to be rejected by "son of man".

Does this mean that there are already the Christ cults (Son of Man) were existing at the time of Jesus? And all Jesus did was to proclaim the "good news" of Christ (some other person ) coming?

Ehrman looks like very through and honest historian. But this does seem far fetched extraction from the gospels.

If this is the case, then Paul needs to reread with this in mind where it is possible that Paul had Christ cult in mind and the Jesus reference was inserted later by the Pius fraud people. This may also justify why there is very scant reference to Jesus of Nazareth in Paul.

mountainman

The priority for the phrase "Son of Man" exists in the literature
known as the Book of Enoch which has been traditionally viewed
as some form of "literature associated with christianity", but without
any form of justification.

The recent opinions about the Book of Enoch indicate it is (far?)
earlier than the presumed dating of the gospels, and anything christian,
and may be entirely independent of the phenomenom known as
christianity.

Enoch has been associated with the Idris (qur’ánic Idrês) and Hermes.
There exists a Hermetic tradition of the Egyptians, which in part has
been subsumed in a continuation under the Roman empire, the Hermetic
tradition of the Roman Empire. Additionally, there is preserved in part
the writings of the Arabian/Islamic Hermetic tradition, which recognises
the importance of Balinas (Apollonius of Tyana) as an author of works.

See this thread for further info:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=163171

Best wishes,



Pete Brown
http://www.mountainman.com.au/namaste_2006.htm
NAMASTE: “The spirit in me honours the spirit in you”

JP2

I believe it has to do with the Jewish Messiah tradition from either Isaiah or Daniel (I don't really have time to look it up) which suggests that the coming of the Messiah would be preceded by the second-coming of Elijah. While, to my knowledge, it is never explicitly stated in the gospels that Jesus believed John the Baptist to be the second incarnation of Elijah, the Q source seems to indicate that Jesus at least believed that John was necessary for paving the way for his ministry (Matt 11:10, Luke 7:27). Later on in Matthew, Jesus explicitly says:

(Matt 11:13-15)

Then:

(Matt 11:18-19)

I'm not sure from the context whether Jesus believed John was Elijah or whether he believed that John was the Son of Man (or, indeed, whether he believed Elijah was the Son of Man) but what this does indicate is that there was most likely a tradition predating Jesus which suggested that John was worshipped by some, at least, as the incarnation of Elijah. The fact that the later Gospel of John has John the Baptist deny that he is Elijah (John 1:21) suggests that the JTB / Elijah / Son of Man "cult" may have posed enough problems for early Christians for them to address and reject the claims in their literature.

Zeichman

Also, I cannot reccomend enough The Son of Man Debate by Delbert Burkett for a critical survey of the many, many issues of interpreting the Son of Man. Personally, I find Norman Perrin's assesment to be of great use, check out his book A Modern Pilgrammate in New Testament Christology, especially chapters two and five, in which he argues for a very interesting origin of these sayings.

Amaleq13

We also have Justin's Trypho expressing a belief that the Messiah would be unknown even to himself until anointed by "Elijah".

IMO, this matches up nicely with Mark's depiction of Jesus going to John for the remission of sins but, upon being anointed, being informed that he is God's Son.

ChandraRama

reference please

Amaleq13

It is "Elias" rather than "Elijah" but...

"But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all." Dialogue with Trypho, ch.8

Vorkosigan

Is that tense correct? The passage is written expecting the events to occur in the future?

Vorkosigan

pharoah

I haven't read the book, so I don't know whether Ehrman deals with this or not, but here's one of the best examples that I see to support his hypothesis.

If you deny Jesus or speak a word against the Holy Spirit then you can't be forgiven, but that's not the case when speaking against the Son of man. Seems like two distinct beings here.

Rick Sumner

It's a little out of context. The speaker here is Trypho, who represents the opposing view in Justin's dialogue. Justin subsequently corrects Trypho's mistake.

Regards,
Rick Sumner