spin

It is interesting how this one passage was fastened onto by an ignorant christian community and absorbed into the theological quagmire or mix-and-match. It is quite inappropriate for the use that was given to it. This is probably because the "apocalyptic part had been extracted from its context and so more easily ignored.

Again interesting, because there was no messianic intent for its use in Daniel, in which it was purely descriptive for the figure mentioned: it is a simile like the various other similes in the passage. While the other figures were like certain animals, this figure was "like a son of man". This use of the notion "son of man" was the same as that found in Ezekiel, except that here it was used descriptively to describe the form of the figure. Naturally, the figure representing the Hebrews was in the form of a man, while the others were rapacious animals.

I must underline that the use of "son of man" in Dan 7 is certainly not titular. It is not "the son of man", but "one like a son of man".

Of further interest is that the figure like a son of man takes its imagery from Baal who, having defeated the beasts from the sea (in his battle with the sea "Yamm"), returns to heaven on the clouds, where the ancient one, El, rewards him. The one like the son of man is going to heaven and the one seeing it is in heaven, for he sees him coming with the clouds, and he came to the ancient of days, who was of course in heaven.

The Marcan writer has this totally screwed up, making his son of man come to earth on the clouds.


spin

andrewcriddle

I agree that in Daniel 7:13 the 'one like a son of man' is ascending to heaven with the clouds of heaven.

However this does seem to be a prelude to his earthly vindication and rule.

Verse 14 'and to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples nations and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed'. Verse 22 'until the ancient of days came and judgment was given for the saints of the most high and the time came wheen the saints received the kingdom' and verse 27 may also be relevant, particularly if the 'son of man' here represents not Israel in general but the righteous persecuted minority within Israel.

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic

The title of this thread is 'Prophecy of the suffering and glorified Messiah,' but I haven't seen any evidence at all that Jesus was the suffering and glorified Messiah, only that the Gospel writers portrayed him as such. We don't even know what Jesus actually said about himself, only what the anonymous Gospel writers said that he said, at best no better than second hand, and possibly even third hand or fourth hand. CJD said in another thread that Jesus did not meet the majority's expectations. Who could blame them? For instance, Micah 5:2 says that someone would come from Bethlehem Ephratah who would become ruler in Israel. Jesus did not become ruler in Israel. What is the minority expect?

spin

El gave Baal dominion, when he returned to heaven.

El is the ancient of days.

Israel is often a shortcut for the remnant of Israel or the faithful of Israel.

I don't see it as a prelude in Daniel for "the son of man" (a la Mark) coming to the world on the clouds.


spin

andrewcriddle

I agree that Jesus did not fulfil the mrssianic prophecies in the this-worldly political sense that the majority expected. And that this is an important reason why most of the Jews of that period did not accept that he was the Messiah at all.

However the disaster of Bar Kochba's attempt a century later, to be a political this-worldly Messiah, may indicate that the prophecies were never intended to be fulfilled in that way.

Andrew Criddle