Diogenes the Cynic

Nothing about a crucifixion fulfills anything in pre-Christian Jewish expectation or scripture.

Horatio Parker

Seems more important than a generic reference to anyone or to someone who looks like a man.

Diogenes the Cynic

Why are you quoting Mark? That's not Jewish, and the incident described is completely ahistorical. No high priest ever asked Jesus that question. Mark made it up. Mark either misunderstood or misused the phrase as titular. Notice that Paul never uses it.

ETA I should add that Daniel was referring to a Messianic figure, but he was not giving that figure a title, just saying he would be a human being.

ETA again. I should probably also point out that, in context, Daniel is using that phrase "one like a son of man" directly after describing visions of four beasts. He says he saw a lion, a leopard, a bear a monster with ten horns, then finally, a human being. He's merely distinguishing the final figure from the animals.

aa5874

Please, gMark's Jesus was LIKE a man NOT a man.

gMark's Jesus DEFIED Gravity, Buoyancy and the Biology of the Human Anatomy when he WALKED on water and Transfigured.

gMark's Jesus story is about one that was LIKE the Son of Man but was NOT a man.

gMark's Jesus REMINDS us of Marcion's Phantom WITHOUT birth and Flesh but was LIKE a man.

Mark 6:48 KJV
gMark's Jesus had no known birth and Had NO Flesh LIKE man.

It is USELESS to attempt to argue that a character was a man in a story where he walked on water.

Diogenes the Cynic

Mark is irrelevant to what I'm saying about Jewish beliefs.

aa5874

gMark's Jesus was LIKE a Son of Man which is EXACTLY what is written in Daniel.

Daniel 7.13

Horatio Parker

The OP....

What Mark thought or wanted to convey is the point. What happened historically, if anything, is secondary.

Point noted.

aa5874

The short gMark Jesus story had NOTHING whatsoever do with Salvation by Sacrifice.

In the short gMark story, Jesus TAUGHT his disciples that he would be Rejected and handed over to be Killed.

1. Jesus in short gMark did NOT want the Outsiders to understand what he said. Mark 4.12

2. Jesus did NOT want the Outsiders to be converted but to REMAIN in Sin. Mark 4.12

3. Jesus did NOT want the Outsiders to know he was Christ. Mark 8.30

4. Jesus Taught the INSIDERS that he would be REJECTED by the Jews and handed over to be Killed. Mark 8, 9, 10.

5.In the short gMark Jesus story it is claimed his OWN disciple would Betray him. [u]Mark 14.18

6. In the short gMark Jesus story it is claimed Peter would DENY Jesus. Mark 14.30

The authors of the Jesus stories were NOT embarrassed at all when they claimed the JEWS Rejected Jesus and Handed him over to be Killed.


Mark 15:13 KJV The short gMark Jesus story is the fulfillment of supposed prophecy.

Mark 13:29 KJV

sotto voce

The word 'son' here does not indicate offspring or product, but 'manifestation', the whole phrase meaning simply 'Manifestation of Man'. The signification is much greater. 'Son of Man' does not, as some suppose, signify ordinary humanity, as it does elsewhere; quite the reverse. The concept of ransom here provides, with servant-hood, the meaning for 'Son of Man'. Jesus sees himself as Representative Man, man as he should be, able to offer a pure sacrifice; his moral ideal is to represent in a legal sense 'many' who by faith make use of the ideal, the perfection of man. That ideal cannot be transferred to any individual arbitrarily, but requires the substitutionary death of the Son of Man, the suffering servant. Jesus' claim to be 'Son of Man' is in effect claim to be 'God, with us,' because 'only one is good', and only one could offer an acceptable ransom. Jesus anyway referred to the soteriological effect mentioned in Psalm 80:17-18: 'Let your hand rest on... the son of man you have raised up for yourself; then we will not turn away from you.' Then of course there was for his hearers the associated final outcome of Dan 7:13.

This meaning, founded on crucifixion and resurrection, is predicated in all the eighty NT uses of 'Son of Man', no matter what the context.

Diogenes the Cynic

Not a bit of that has any scholarly basis. Bar 'enash (or bar'nash) in Aramaic just means person. It was never a title.

Maurice Casey argues that the phrase could be self-referential circumlocution in Aramaic idiom to indicate embarrassment, maybe something akin to "yours truly." (whoops, the son of man just let one go), which (Casey contends) has led to confusion about how Jesus sometimes uses it, but it was never titular or Messianic. It just means "person," or maybe sometimes "this guy."