Sheshbazzar

While I await spin's response, I am willing to continue further discussion on these matters with others.
I admit that I am at present quite perplexed with spin's statement;
"Jesus is portrayed as using the term in the traditional sense of the word, as for example one sees throughout Ezekiel."
As this does not at all seem to jibe with Jesus's alleged usage of the term (phrase) in such verses as;
Mat. 13:41, 16:27, 24:30, 26:64
Mk. 2:28, 13:26, 14:62
Lk. 9:26, 12:40, 17:24, 21:27, 21:36, 22:69
Jhn 13:3, 12:34
Acts 7:56
Rev 1:13, 14:4
None of which seem to convey any expression of 'commonness' or lowly 'humble humility', but appear as being exalted as a TITLE of absolute authority and power.

So what do we do with all of these Jesus statements? Claim that he did not really say them? or the NT authors actually did not write them?
What huge gaping holes we would leave in the narratives if we were to omit them all as being inauthentic!
Do we take them at face value, that they are his personal statements as to his exclusivity, ultimate authority, and power in Judgment?

I am very interested in hearing as to how these usages can be explained away as being the common humble speech of a common humble believer prophet on the par with the Ezekiel usages.

Anyone is welcome to take on the above listed verses, one by one, and explain how it is that they only signify the views of contemporary common simple humble humanity, and could have as easily been spoken by any other.

This was posted before I saw the preceding post.
My previous statements as to how Jesus and the NT writers viewed and interpreted Daniel (or altered Daniel per spin's preceding post)
do not hinge upon what might be the 'correct' interpretation of Daniel, but upon what Jesus, his contemporary listeners, and the NT writers thought about Daniel 7:13, which by the evidence of The NT would be that he and the writers were intent upon having the audiences (and future readers) identify Jesus with the figure of 'The SON OF MAN' presented in Daniel 7:13-, and as being the promised Messiah.
Whether such identification was correctly 'Scriptural' or valid is not what is under consideration, but rather would the contemporary audience, 'crowds' have so understood these 'son of man' pronouncements.
That he, or the writers were effective in the conveying of such idea is evidenced by the existence and growth of the messianic religious movement now called Christianity.


Oh. and 'Something (that) has happened between the time of the traditions indicated in the HB and those placed in the mouth of Jesus." was likely the composition of such popular Jewish writings as The Book of Enoch with its many references to "The Son of man".
The transition was not wholly the product of nor the inventions of latter Christian's.

sweetpea7

Sheshbazzar, I cannot presume to speak for spin, and I am sure he will do a far better job than I could at explaining those verses for you. It seems to me, though, that spin has already answered your question in his previous post:

The common understanding of the idiom son of man evolved over time. It changed from being understood as 'a human being' to the more specific 'the human one'-- an apocalyptic figure.

This is a good example of what I meant earlier when I said that language and meaning are not set in stone.

Iskander

Why humble believer?

In general a believer is never humble .He/she is more likely to be a visionary of things to come and a visitor to unknowable places and the messenger of the absolute.

The believer says things that today takes them to a doctor of medicine to be diagnosed and treated and in the past it took them to the wealthy no longer believers [ acting out believers] of a established church, temple, mosque... to be purged and burnt, lapidated... for rocking the boat.


The character of the GT is one of those visionaries and to try to understand every extant distorted and isolated Greek word uttered by a non-Greek speaker is a task suitable for Tantalus.

It is the completed tapestry as a whole which matters, not the individual threads.

Sheshbazzar

Agreeing that it had evolved, (and certainly do, never argued otherwise) the phrase stayed the same. My many quotations from The NT ought to be sufficient evidence that I have been consistently discussing how it was understood by contemporary NT audiences. God! how many times have I used that word contemporary in this thread? Contemporary with 'Jesus'.
Audiences well acquainted with the evolved "Son of Man" figure as portrayed in The Book of Enoch and many other contemporary sectarian Jewish writings.
The NT writings were only carrying forward, capitalizing, and expanding an already existent literary creation.

sweetpea7

I will take a shot at explaining it the best I can. Let's take a look at spin's post one more time:

(bolding mine)

Now let's look at a quote by Sheshbazzar:

(bolding mine)

I see a discrepancy here. The phrase did not stay the same. It went from the general to the specific. It went from "one like a son of man coming" to "the son of man coming".

It is correct that the words "son of man" or "human being" did not change. The indefinite to a definite article in the phrase changed, thus altering the meaning. This is equal to "a human being" in the general, and "The human one" in the specific.

Sheshbazzar

The quoted sentence is only in respect to that specific list of verses preceding it.
If you wish to to comment upon the content one of those specific verses listed, demonstrating how that specific verse can be construed as common humble speech of a common humble believer, you are welcome to.
Trying to expand the quotation to other verses or into other contexts that it was never intended for is off topic, and will not be pursued.

Iskander

You win.

sweetpea7

I think that you are trying to find consistency in the NT that just doesn't exist. The gospels do not all portray Jesus in the same way. Some verses in the NT may present Jesus using the term as "human being" and then other verses may have Jesus use the term meaning "The human one" referencing an expected apocalyptic figure or himself as the awaited apocalyptic figure.

Sheshbazzar

Returning then to The Common English Bible's preferred usage of "The Human One", in each NT instance of the phrase, that the rendition has been so altered in no way significantly affects the fact that the term continues to be employed as an exclusive TITLE applicable to only ONE specific individual given the contexts.
You of course, in commenting on the 'discrepancy' and 'The phrase did not stay the same. It went from the general to the specific. It went from "one like a son of man coming" to "the son of man coming".
Are only considering comparison with its usage in the HB cannon texts, However that transition took place through many apocryphal texts, TaNaKa commentaries. and various sectarian post-TaNaKa writings, some very popular, and with which the contemporary audiences, the 'crowds', would have been well familiar.
Very few would have objected to the change from "one like the son of man" in Daniel, into the title "The Son of Man", and it wasn't as though the 'Christians' (no such name or term at that time) had even done so, that change had already long since been made, and been willingly recieved and long repeated and invoked in Jewish society as a proper and popular TITLE for their expected Messiah.
Of course fervent Messianic believers would have quite naturally employed it in their speech, both before and after his (alleged) coming.
Even as a strictly literary creation, it would have been almost imperative that any Messiah figure must be "THE" son of man" being promoted in contemporary popular imagination and writings.

Just my honest take on it.


The Book of 1 Enoch (see also Jude 1:14)

.

Sheshbazzar

Please then, give your best rendition of Matthew 13:41, and accompanying comments.