Dharma

But it is funny if you understand the two myths have nothing to do with one another -- there is a major face lift or shift if you would like to call it on the meaning of "ben Adam"

13and among the lampstands was someone “like a son of man,� dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash round his chest. 14His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance (Rev. 1:13–16, NIV).

Here is Daniel:

Dan 7:13-14
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. 14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. KJV

Now that's another strange thing "one LIKE a Son of Man"...now that's a funny thing to say if all you mean is someone who is an ordinary human progeny -- not to mention the fantastic accounts of the "throne of one LIKE the son of Man" riding on clouds in glory with dominion and power?


Of course they are used differently -- I have quoted Daniel and the New Testament -- they are used very differently .


Here is the official stance of many Jewish scholars from the Jewish encyclopedia who also say that the Book of Daniel uses the term in a "peculiar" way and is not clearly understood -- tell me, why is this term, which even Jewish scholars agree is used in a "peculiar" fashion not clearly understood by Jewish scholars themselves if it is an inherent part of tradition ?

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...M&search=enosh

In Daniel.

The expression "son of man" ("bar enash") has a peculiar use in Dan. vii. 13. Daniel in a vision sees "one like the son of man coming on [A. V. "with"] the clouds of heaven and appearing before the Ancient of Days," to receive from Him "the dominion, the glory, and the kingdom for all time" (Hebr.). There is no dispute among commentators that Israel is thereby meant; but they differ as to the question whether the "son of man" depicted is merely a personification of the people, or whether the writer had in mind a concrete personality representing Israel, such as the Messiah or Israel's guardian angel, the archangel Michael. The latter interpretation, proposed by Cheyne and adopted by others, has little in its favor compared with the older opinion that the person of the Messiah is alluded to—a view shared by the Rabbis (Sanh. 98a; Midr. Teh. to Ps. ii.; comp. the name "'Anani" in Targ. to I Chron. iii., and "bar nefele" [= "son of the clouds"] in Sanh. 96b) and the Apocalyptic as well as Christian writers (Enoch xxxvii.-lxxi.; IV Esdras xiii. 3; Justin Martyr, "Dialogus cum Tryphone," p. 31, and Ephraem Syrus in his commentary to Daniel, l.c.; see also the commentaries of Nowack and others to the passage).

spin

So??

It might be worthwhile reading the text of Daniel. It says that there were four beasts, one like a lion, one like a bear, one like a leopard, one without like (=elephant) and against them was one like a son of man. Get it? This figure had human form. It's just the same use of son of man as all the rest in the HB.


spin

CJD

Well, of course not! But if you're so willing to quote rabbinic material on the subject, why not the NT (especially the writings of Paul, a self-described pharisee, i.e., teacher of Torah)?

CJD

Dharma

As I stated before:

1) there is a ben Adam -- regular guy -- human.
2) Daniel then brings a different meaning -- someone with human form (ben adam) but with glory, power, riding on the clouds of heaven -- basically a description of some immortal "heavenly King".

Spin, you cannot say this is not a new development -- this new guy is more than a normal human being -- he is some great heavenly king with power.

There is nothing like this concept even in the story of "king David" - king David was a human being as far as the story goes.

Dharma

I'm trying to find out the source and influence of this new rabbinical material of the Messiach now being some sort of immortal king in heaven -- such a story is not even found in the story of King David from whom the final messiach will be born. Remember, the Messiach in traditional Judaism is not some immortal king, just a guy who believes in God and is rewarded by God for his faith to become king of Israel.

The Question is,who is the "immortal king in heaven" described in Daniel and how does "messianic" Judaism get this new concept, which is old in many other traditions.

CJD

Again, I am fully aware of the variegated Jewish messianic expectations of that particular era. I think you may be misreading the Daniel pericope (which is why spin quipped: "It might be worthwhile reading the text of Daniel."). You see, the pericope does not describe one like an "immortal king in heaven." That concept is foreign to the text. Per my argument above (with spin), the concept is not even found in the Synoptics where the "son of man" imagery is employed.

CJD

Dharma

hmm, I wish others would read 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.
7:14
And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
-----------------------------------------------------------

like son of man, clouds of heaven, given kingdom -- what doesn't sound like it's some king in heaven?

cass256

Who was Jesus referring to, as being the son of man? Paul writes about a light he saw in the sky. That doesn't sound like a son of man. Matthew talks about a virgin birth, THAT would be NO son of MAN. John makes him sound like god. That is no son of MAN.

spin

Actually, if you knew the background the figure like a son of man is in origin Baal as portrayed regarding his battle with the sea (Yam) in the Ugaritic literature, not just 'some immortal "heavenly King"'. It's been transmogrified in Daniel, but it's a the literary background.

Nevertheless, one like a son of man is not a son of man. There is no reason to believe that the figure is human except in form (ie he ain't a regular guy, but looks like one), as in the other cases where the figues are of the form of animals, but there is no reason to believe that the writer was saying that they really were animals.


spin

spin

The literalistic nature of transforming text into reality is this post's undoing.