Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 11-11-2010, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

..I really need to take issue whith almost everything in this paragraph.

First, I seriously doubt that "It appears to most commentators that the gospels are not based on fixed traditions and do not go back to any eyewitnesses of Jesus". Can you provide some documentation for this claim about most commentators?

I am not going to rehash the last few decades of Biblical criticism or do any sort of statistical analysis of Biblical commentary. Perhaps I should have said most non-evangelical commentators who don't impress me as idiots.

Quote:

Second, the Gospel writers do not represent Jesus as having made the claim that he is the Messiah. Its not a matter of if, it is something to be explained by anyone who thinks they took the son of man title from Daniel as a subtle way of having him make a messianic claim. Why so subtle?

Because the gospels are full of subtle allusions. Why not?

Quote:

Third, the gospels do not all represent Jesus as concealing his true identity, Mark does, John quite the opposite. Not even in John though does Jesus claim to be the Messiah, only the son of man.

Why should Jesus claim to be the Messiah? That's giving away the end of the story.

steamer · 11-11-2010, 01:15 PM

So if Jesus was not the "son of god", was the "son of god" referring to Yahweh, son of El?

Also, can anyone recommend a good book about the canaanite pantheon?

spamandham · 11-11-2010, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustSteve

Second, the Gospel writers do not represent Jesus as having made the claim that he is the Messiah. Its not a matter of if, it is something to be explained by anyone who thinks they took the son of man title from Daniel as a subtle way of having him make a messianic claim. Why so subtle?

I really am not understanding this odd banter about whether or not Jesus claims to be the messiah. The gospel authors don't beat around the bush on the matter, and scholarly consensus -which I agree with in this case- is that the dialog attributed to Jesus in the gospels is literary in nature even if the wisdom sayings are authentic.

So the authors think it makes for a more interesting story for Jesus to be coy about who he is (other than his name of course, which is itself a reference to the messiah). So what?

aa5874 · 11-11-2010, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

For those who think that Jesus existed and referred to himself as “son of man” it is useful to know what Jews mean by “son of man”. It is an idiom best understood as "just a regular guy",

No! Absolutely not. The son of man is undeniably a reference to Ezekiel, the one raised up by God himself. There is no sense in which it is meant to mean "just a regular guy".

Haven't you frequently spoken here of your Jewish background? How can you not know who the son of man is?

The Jesus character was a product of supposed prophecies in Hebrew Scripture.

The book of Daniel has the words spoken by the Son of Man, Jesus, before he was crucified.

Daniel 7:13 -

Quote:

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.

Matthew 24:30 -

Quote:

And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Matthew 26:64 -

Quote:

Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Markr 14:62 -

Quote:

And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Only DANIEL in Hebrew Scripture "prophesied" that the Son of Man will be coming in the clouds, so it is almost certain that the author of the Jesus story used the the term "Son of Man" for Jesus to claim that Jesus FULFILLED the prophecy of DANIEL.

And this will be confirmed when the Son of Man, Jesus, mentioned the "abomination that made desolate" again found ONLY in Daniel.

Daniel 11:31 -

Quote:

And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.....

Daniel SEEMS to have prophesied CORRECTLY about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Fall of the Temple and the author of the Jesus story will call his Jesus the Son of Man based on DANIEL.

These are the words of the Son of Man, Jesus, as found in DANIEL.

Mr 13:14 -

Quote:

But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains...

The Son of Man character, Jesus, in the NT was SIMPLY based on the supposed fufilled prophecies in Daniel.

show_no_mercy · 11-12-2010, 09:53 AM

The "son of man" was seen as a heavenly being in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch as well. There isn't such a sharp divide between Christianity and Judaism. Reading a lot of apocrypha from 2nd temple Judaism (and not Rabbinic or modern Judaism) it seems a bit more obvious where Christians got their ideas from. For example, Melchizedek is seen as a heavenly being who redeems sins in the Qumran literature, and is also born from a virgin in other 2nd temple Jewish writings.

Daniel obviously used the "son of man" in its traditional meaning (a human being) to refer to a restored Israel (as opposed to the other kingdoms who are like animals) but later Jews/Christians took this to imply an actual person, and not the anthropomorphication of Israel.

aa5874 · 11-12-2010, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

The "son of man" was seen as a heavenly being in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch as well. There isn't such a sharp divide between Christianity and Judaism. Reading a lot of apocrypha from 2nd temple Judaism (and not Rabbinic or modern Judaism) it seems a bit more obvious where Christians got their ideas from. For example, Melchizedek is seen as a heavenly being who redeems sins in the Qumran literature, and is also born from a virgin in other 2nd temple Jewish writings.

Daniel obviously used the "son of man" in its traditional meaning (a human being) to refer to a restored Israel (as opposed to the other kingdoms who are like animals) but later Jews/Christians took this to imply an actual person, and not the anthropomorphication of Israel.

Daniel did NOT use "Son of Man" in Daniel 7. 13 as a human being but as some kind of HEAVENLY creature.

And further the passage in DANIEL says "ONE LIKE the Son of Man came in the CLOUDS of HEAVEN.

Da 7:13 -

Quote:

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.

The one LIKE the Son of Man is HEAVENLY in Daniel 7.13.

Diogenes the Cynic · 11-13-2010, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

The "son of man" was seen as a heavenly being in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch as well. There isn't such a sharp divide between Christianity and Judaism. Reading a lot of apocrypha from 2nd temple Judaism (and not Rabbinic or modern Judaism) it seems a bit more obvious where Christians got their ideas from. For example, Melchizedek is seen as a heavenly being who redeems sins in the Qumran literature, and is also born from a virgin in other 2nd temple Jewish writings.

Daniel obviously used the "son of man" in its traditional meaning (a human being) to refer to a restored Israel (as opposed to the other kingdoms who are like animals) but later Jews/Christians took this to imply an actual person, and not the anthropomorphication of Israel.

Daniel did NOT use "Son of Man" in Daniel 7. 13 as a human being but as some kind of HEAVENLY creature.

And further the passage in DANIEL says "ONE LIKE the Son of Man came in the CLOUDS of HEAVEN.

Da 7:13 -

Quote:

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.

The one LIKE the Son of Man is HEAVENLY in Daniel 7.13.

The "like" is not in the Aramaic or the Greek LXX. It just says "bar enash" in the Aramaic. No "like."

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-11-2010, 01:15 PM	#22
steamer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: CA Posts: 7,653	So if Jesus was not the "son of god", was the "son of god" referring to Yahweh, son of El? Also, can anyone recommend a good book about the canaanite pantheon?

11-12-2010, 09:53 AM	#25
show_no_mercy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Dancing Posts: 9,940	The "son of man" was seen as a heavenly being in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch as well. There isn't such a sharp divide between Christianity and Judaism. Reading a lot of apocrypha from 2nd temple Judaism (and not Rabbinic or modern Judaism) it seems a bit more obvious where Christians got their ideas from. For example, Melchizedek is seen as a heavenly being who redeems sins in the Qumran literature, and is also born from a virgin in other 2nd temple Jewish writings. Daniel obviously used the "son of man" in its traditional meaning (a human being) to refer to a restored Israel (as opposed to the other kingdoms who are like animals) but later Jews/Christians took this to imply an actual person, and not the anthropomorphication of Israel.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.