(Much of the background for this post comes from here: http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_02_01_SOM.html)

Jesus refers to himself many times in the Gospels as “the Son of Man”. This is taken by many to indicate that Jesus believed himself to be merely human. In fact, the opposite is the case.

Consider this passage:

13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. (Daniel 7:13-14)

The first important thing to note about the phrase “son of man” as used in this passage – the Aramaic word used for “man” in the original text of Daniel here is ’enash, not ’adam (the normal word for “man”). At the time of Daniel, Israel was in exile in Babylon. The term “bar ‘enash” (son of man) meant “heir” in Babylonian usage.

But whose heir was the "son of man" in this passage? Well, the next thing to note about this passage is that the Ancient of Days is God Himself. This is obvious from the earlier verses in Daniel in the same chapter. Thus, if the son of man is the heir to the Ancient of Days (as the passage makes obvious), then the phrase “son of man” is actually equivalent to the phrase “son of God” (because God’s Son is His heir).

Finally, let's look at the honours bestowed upon the son of man:

• He is given authority and sovereign power (something that only God has).
• All nations worship him (YHWH only ever accepts worship of Himself).
• His kingdom is everlasting (only God’s kingdom is everlasting).

Clearly, this “son of man” must also be considered God, otherwise he would not be worshipped, his kingdom would not be everlasting, and he would not have sovereign power.

As an aside: A common push-back I've seen from Jehovah's Witnesses is that "worship" can mean "make obescience", and in this way they explain-away passages where Jesus is worshipped. However this trick will not work here. The Aramaic word translated here as "worship" is "pelakh'". It is only used 10 times in the whole of the Bible, in the following verses (not including the verse under examination - Dan 7:14):

Ezr 7:24, Dan 3:12,14,17,18,28, Dan 6:16,20, Dan 7:27

In every one of these cases, the word refers to worship of a god (false god or YHWH). In fact, Daniel 3 tells the story of Daniel and his companions who refused to follow the king's order that everyone should pelakh' the false god the king had created. It is quite clear that the author meant to say that the son of man was to be worshipped in the same way that YHWH is worshipped.

Seen in the above light, Jesus’ repeated claims to be “Son of Man” must also be seen as a claim to be God.

This deduction is further supported by noting the reaction of the Jewish high priest Caiaphas during Jesus’ trial:

64"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
65Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. (Matthew 26:64-65)

(Compare the “coming on the clouds” with the “coming with the clouds” in the Daniel passage above - it is clear that Jesus was making reference to Daniel 7:13-14)

Caiaphas' reaction is illuminating - when Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man, he was blaspheming. Caiaphas obviously made the connection to the passage in Daniel. Jesus was claiming a divine title for himself. If the Jewish high priest interpreted "Son of Man" as a claim to divinity, then we should too.

We note a similar reaction in the episode of the stoning of Stephen:

55But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56"Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."
57At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. (Acts 7:55-57a)

Stephen was on trial in the Sanhedrin. The Pharisees there clearly made the same link between the "Son of Man" and divinity. For Stephen to claim that the Son of Man was at the right hand of God was in fact to claim that the Son of Man was equal to God - a claim that lead to his stoning.

Summary: The interpretation of Daniel 7:13-14 would have us believe that the "Son of Man" was equal to God. We can see from the reactions of various biblical figures who were in a position to know (Caiaphas at Jesus' trial, the Pharisees at Stephen's trial) that they shared this interpretation. It therefore seems fair to conclude that every time Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man (and he does so on numerous occasions) he was claiming to be equal with God.

In the trial account of Mark, Christ also employs the phrase 'ego eimi'. Note the reaction of the high priest i.e. how he ripped his garments. This was against Jewish law. What would incite such?

You made an excellent point on Pelach. See:

Brown, Driver, Briggs (BDB) definition for Pelach:

Verb. Pay reverence to, serve (deity).
1. Pay reverence to deity, Dan 3:28, 7:14, 27
2. Plural construction as noun, Ezr 7:24, servants of the house of God (+priests, Nethinim, etc.)

_The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon_ (Coded with Strong's Numbers), Hendrickson, 6th printing, August 2001.


The TWOT definition of Pelach:

serve, worship, revere, minister for

The original meaning of the root was "to cleave [open]" or "divide in two." From this meaning was derived the idea of cultivating a field and ultimately of cultivating (i.e., working hard at) the worship of a deity, hence the idea of service or worship of a deity. In Biblical Hebrew, the root is used only in the sense of cleave or split, and apparently did not develop into a term for religious service, as is the case in Aramaic." (Theological Wordbook of the OT, p. 1059).


From the Expositor's Bible Commentary:

"The universality of the rule of the Son of Man is emphasized in v. 14: “He was given authority [soltan], glory [yeqar] and sovereign power [malku]; all the peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him.” Christ is to be the supreme source of political power on earth after his earthly kingdom is established; and all humans, whatever their race, nationality, ethnic origin, or language, will worship and serve him (leh yiplehun), pelah being equivalent to the cultic use of the Heb. abad)" (EBC, Dan 7:23-25, Parson's Electronic Text).


TDNT:

In the LXX

The Hebrew original is abad, which is usually rendered DOULEUEIN when human relations are at issue and LATREUEIN when the reference is to divine service. LATREUEIN always has a religious sense except in the play on words in Dt 24:48. [Full quote reiterated below]


The Interpreter's Bible:

Daniel 7:14

...The verb Pelah is that used in 3:12-18; 6:16, 20 (M.T. 6:17, 21) for serving in the sense of worshiping or being obedient to a deity, whether the gods of the Heathen or Israel's God. If the Son of Man is a Messianic figure, this connects with the idea of a great conversion of the Gentiles in the last days...Page 462


Elliot's Commentary on the Whole Bible:

(14) Serve him.--In the biblical Chaldee this word is only used of rendering Divine service or worship. The "Son of Man" is therefore here spoken of as God.
Page 381


Keil Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament:

God gave to Nebuchadnezzar, the founder and first bearer of the world-power, a kingdom, and might, and majesty, and dominion over all the inhabitants of the earth, men, and beasts, and birds, that he might govern all nations, and tribes, and tongues (Dan_5:18-19), but not indeed in such a manner as that all nations and tribes should render him religious homage, nor was his dominion one of everlasting duration. These two things belong only to the kingdom of God. ôÌìç is used in biblical Chaldee only of the service and homage due to God; cf. Dan_7:27; Dan_3:12-13, Dan_3:17., Ezr_7:19, Ezr_7:24.

>

What is further interesting is the fact that the LXX translates the word as 'latreuo' (See Rev22:3).

God bless

Just as an FYI, Codex syro-hexaplaris Ambrosianus 88 reads LATREUOUSA, while the better Codex BA- L 22 48 51, from Theodotion reads DOULEUSOUSIN.

-Tony

Just as an FYI, Codex syro-hexaplaris Ambrosianus 88 reads LATREUOUSA, while the better Codex BA- L 22 48 51, from Theodotion reads DOULEUSOUSIN.

Appears I'm experiencing deja vu

Christians employed the LXX often as it is cited more times in the NT than the MS itself. The Jewish response was, of course, to produce a more "accurate" Greek translation of the HOT.

Interestingly..

175 A.D. Irenaeus Against Heresies (3.21.1):

Chapter XXI.-A Vindication of the Prophecy in Isaiah (VII. 14) Against the Misinterpretations of Theodotion, Aquila, the Ebionites, and the Jews. Authority of the Septuagint Version.arguments in Proof that Christ Was Born of a Virgin.

• 1. God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus: ] "Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son,"as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes. The Ebionites, following these, assert that He was begotten by Joseph; thus destroying, as far as in them lies, such a marvellous dispensation of God, and setting aside the testimony of the prophets which proceeded from God. For truly this prediction was uttered before the removal of the people to Babylon; that is, anterior to the supremacy acquired by the Medes and Persians. But it was interpreted into Greek by the Jews themselves, much before the period of our Lord's advent, that there might remain no suspicion that perchance the Jews, complying with our humour, did put this interpretation upon these words. They indeed, had they been cognizant of our future existence, and that we should use these proofs from the Scriptures, would themselves never have hesitated to burn their own Scriptures, which do declare that all other nations partake of [eternal] life, and show that they who boast themselves as being the house of Jacob and the people of Israel, am disinherited from the grace of God.

Source here.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) states:

• "But another cause widened still farther the distance between the texts of Jerusalem and Alexandria. This was the adoption of the Septuagint by the Christian church. When Christians began to cite the Alexandrian version in proof of their doctrines, the Jews began to question its accuracy. Hence, mutual recriminations which are reflected in the pages of Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho. “They dare to assert,” says Justin (Dial., 68), “that the interpretation produced by your seventy elders under Ptolemy of Egypt is in some points inaccurate.” A crucial instance cited by the Jews was the rendering “virgin” in Isa 7:14, where they claimed with justice that “young woman” would be more accurate. Justin retaliates by charging the Jews with deliberate excision of passages favorable to Christianity.
  
  "That such accusations should be made in those critical years was inevitable, yet there is no evidence of any material interpolations having been introduced by either party. But the Alexandrian version, in view of the revised text and the new and stricter canons of interpretation, was felt by the Jews to be inadequate, and a group of new translations of Scripture in the 2nd century AD supplied the demand. We possess considerable fragments of the work of three of these translators, namely, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, besides scanty remnants of further anonymous versions."
  
  ["Septuagint"]

Jezz-

I didn't mention this in my last post but it is somewhat pertinent to your point.

It is also interesting to note the fact that the Apostolic Father Polycarp applies 'latreuo' to Christ:

• “Therefore prepare for action and serve (douleusate) God in fear” and truth, leaving behind the empty and meaningless talk and the error of the crowd, and “believing in him who raised” our Lord Jesus Christ “from the dead and gave him glory” and a throne at his right hand; to whom *all things in heaven and on earth were subjected, whom every breathing creature **serves (latreuei), who is coming as “Judge of the living and the dead,” for whose blood God will hold responsible those who disobey him… [The Apostolic Fathers, Greek Texts And English Translations, edited and revised by Michael W. Holmes [Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI 1999], pp. 207, 209]

*Cf..Rev5:13 **Cf..Matt4:10.

Polycarp's application is referrenced under the BDAG's definition for 'latreuo':

Eur., Ion 152; Pult., Mor. 405c; 407E; Philo, Spec. Leg. 1, 300 hOLH t. PUXH. Cf. En, 10, 21) Mt 4:10; Lk 4:8 (both Dt 6:13); 1:74; Ac 7:7 (cf. Ex 3:12); 24:14; 27:23; Hb 9:14; Rv 7:15; 22:3; Pol 2:1

God bless

Originally posted by Jezz

(Much of the background for this post comes from here: http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_02_01_SOM.html)

Jesus refers to himself many times in the Gospels as “the Son of Man”. This is taken by many to indicate that Jesus believed himself to be merely human. In fact, the opposite is the case.

Consider this passage:

13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. (Daniel 7:13-14)

The first important thing to note about the phrase “son of man” as used in this passage – the Aramaic word used for “man” in the original text of Daniel here is ’enash, not ’adam (the normal word for “man”). At the time of Daniel, Israel was in exile in Babylon. The term “bar ‘enash” (son of man) meant “heir” in Babylonian usage.

But whose heir was the "son of man" in this passage? Well, the next thing to note about this passage is that the Ancient of Days is God Himself. This is obvious from the earlier verses in Daniel in the same chapter. Thus, if the son of man is the heir to the Ancient of Days (as the passage makes obvious), then the phrase “son of man” is actually equivalent to the phrase “son of God” (because God’s Son is His heir).

Finally, let's look at the honours bestowed upon the son of man:

• He is given authority and sovereign power (something that only God has).
• All nations worship him (YHWH only ever accepts worship of Himself).
• His kingdom is everlasting (only God’s kingdom is everlasting).

Clearly, this “son of man” must also be considered God, otherwise he would not be worshipped, his kingdom would not be everlasting, and he would not have sovereign power.

As an aside: A common push-back I've seen from Jehovah's Witnesses is that "worship" can mean "make obescience", and in this way they explain-away passages where Jesus is worshipped. However this trick will not work here. The Aramaic word translated here as "worship" is "pelakh'". It is only used 10 times in the whole of the Bible, in the following verses (not including the verse under examination - Dan 7:14):

Ezr 7:24, Dan 3:12,14,17,18,28, Dan 6:16,20, Dan 7:27

In every one of these cases, the word refers to worship of a god (false god or YHWH). In fact, Daniel 3 tells the story of Daniel and his companions who refused to follow the king's order that everyone should pelakh' the false god the king had created. It is quite clear that the author meant to say that the son of man was to be worshipped in the same way that YHWH is worshipped.

Seen in the above light, Jesus’ repeated claims to be “Son of Man” must also be seen as a claim to be God.

This deduction is further supported by noting the reaction of the Jewish high priest Caiaphas during Jesus’ trial:

64"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
65Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. (Matthew 26:64-65)

(Compare the “coming on the clouds” with the “coming with the clouds” in the Daniel passage above - it is clear that Jesus was making reference to Daniel 7:13-14)

Caiaphas' reaction is illuminating - when Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man, he was blaspheming. Caiaphas obviously made the connection to the passage in Daniel. Jesus was claiming a divine title for himself. If the Jewish high priest interpreted "Son of Man" as a claim to divinity, then we should too.

We note a similar reaction in the episode of the stoning of Stephen:

55But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56"Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."
57At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. (Acts 7:55-57a)

Stephen was on trial in the Sanhedrin. The Pharisees there clearly made the same link between the "Son of Man" and divinity. For Stephen to claim that the Son of Man was at the right hand of God was in fact to claim that the Son of Man was equal to God - a claim that lead to his stoning.

Summary: The interpretation of Daniel 7:13-14 would have us believe that the "Son of Man" was equal to God. We can see from the reactions of various biblical figures who were in a position to know (Caiaphas at Jesus' trial, the Pharisees at Stephen's trial) that they shared this interpretation. It therefore seems fair to conclude that every time Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man (and he does so on numerous occasions) he was claiming to be equal with God.

Interesting discussion on the Son of Man in the bible. I think the jews also have a problem with this [as they do with most of scripture]

Very good thread. However, why did you post it in UnOrthodox Theology? Seems Orthodox to me...

Originally posted by furay

Very good thread. However, why did you post it in UnOrthodox Theology? Seems Orthodox to me...

Hi furay. I suppose because of the way revelation relates to Daniel and the coming Son of Man. Seems to be a difference of doctrines concerning whether revelation is the destruction of Jerusalem or not. If it is, then Christ already came, if not, then this is future, since Christ is only coming ONE more time without sin for Salvation. God bless.

reve 14:14 Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and on the cloud sat [One] like the Son of Man, having on His head a golden crown, and in His hand a sharp sickle. 16 So He who sat on the cloud thrust in His sickle on the earth, and the earth was reaped.

Daniel 7:12 "As for the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away, yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time. 13 " I was watching in the night visions, And behold, [One] like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him.

Originally posted by furay

Very good thread. However, why did you post it in UnOrthodox Theology? Seems Orthodox to me...

Take a look at the date of Jezz' OP- it's almost 2 years old!

We used to have a forum called "Christology 201," and when this "unorthodox theology" forum was created, we mostly had in mind issues of Christology, so we just dumped all the threads that were in Christology into this one.

Originally posted by Jezz

(Much of the background for this post comes from here: http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_02_01_SOM.html)

Jesus refers to himself many times in the Gospels as “the Son of Man”. This is taken by many to indicate that Jesus believed himself to be merely human. In fact, the opposite is the case.

Consider this passage:

13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. (Daniel 7:13-14)

The first important thing to note about the phrase “son of man” as used in this passage – the Aramaic word used for “man” in the original text of Daniel here is ’enash, not ’adam (the normal word for “man”). At the time of Daniel, Israel was in exile in Babylon. The term “bar ‘enash” (son of man) meant “heir” in Babylonian usage.

But whose heir was the "son of man" in this passage? Well, the next thing to note about this passage is that the Ancient of Days is God Himself. This is obvious from the earlier verses in Daniel in the same chapter. Thus, if the son of man is the heir to the Ancient of Days (as the passage makes obvious), then the phrase “son of man” is actually equivalent to the phrase “son of God” (because God’s Son is His heir).

Finally, let's look at the honours bestowed upon the son of man:

• He is given authority and sovereign power (something that only God has).
• All nations worship him (YHWH only ever accepts worship of Himself).
• His kingdom is everlasting (only God’s kingdom is everlasting).

Clearly, this “son of man” must also be considered God, otherwise he would not be worshipped, his kingdom would not be everlasting, and he would not have sovereign power.

As an aside: A common push-back I've seen from Jehovah's Witnesses is that "worship" can mean "make obescience", and in this way they explain-away passages where Jesus is worshipped. However this trick will not work here. The Aramaic word translated here as "worship" is "pelakh'". It is only used 10 times in the whole of the Bible, in the following verses (not including the verse under examination - Dan 7:14):

Ezr 7:24, Dan 3:12,14,17,18,28, Dan 6:16,20, Dan 7:27

In every one of these cases, the word refers to worship of a god (false god or YHWH). In fact, Daniel 3 tells the story of Daniel and his companions who refused to follow the king's order that everyone should pelakh' the false god the king had created. It is quite clear that the author meant to say that the son of man was to be worshipped in the same way that YHWH is worshipped.

Seen in the above light, Jesus’ repeated claims to be “Son of Man” must also be seen as a claim to be God.

This deduction is further supported by noting the reaction of the Jewish high priest Caiaphas during Jesus’ trial:

64"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
65Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. (Matthew 26:64-65)

(Compare the “coming on the clouds” with the “coming with the clouds” in the Daniel passage above - it is clear that Jesus was making reference to Daniel 7:13-14)

Caiaphas' reaction is illuminating - when Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man, he was blaspheming. Caiaphas obviously made the connection to the passage in Daniel. Jesus was claiming a divine title for himself. If the Jewish high priest interpreted "Son of Man" as a claim to divinity, then we should too.

We note a similar reaction in the episode of the stoning of Stephen:

55But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56"Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."
57At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. (Acts 7:55-57a)

Stephen was on trial in the Sanhedrin. The Pharisees there clearly made the same link between the "Son of Man" and divinity. For Stephen to claim that the Son of Man was at the right hand of God was in fact to claim that the Son of Man was equal to God - a claim that lead to his stoning.

Summary: The interpretation of Daniel 7:13-14 would have us believe that the "Son of Man" was equal to God. We can see from the reactions of various biblical figures who were in a position to know (Caiaphas at Jesus' trial, the Pharisees at Stephen's trial) that they shared this interpretation. It therefore seems fair to conclude that every time Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man (and he does so on numerous occasions) he was claiming to be equal with God.

Perhaps he missed this passage:

Psalm 146:3. Do not put your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.

Hebrew:
אַל-תִּבְטְחוּ בִנְדִיבִים-- בְּבֶן-אָדָם שֶׁאֵין לוֹ תְשׁוּעָה.

Aramaic:
לא תתרחצון ברברביא בבר אנש דלית ליה פורקנא׃

Targum to the Psalms:
Psalm 146:3. You shall not place your trust in rulers, in a son of man(Bar Enash) who has no redemption.

maybe this one was missed

Originally posted by eliyosef

Perhaps he missed this passage:

Psalm 146:3. Do not put your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.

Hebrew:
אַל-תִּבְטְחוּ בִנְדִיבִים-- בְּבֶן-אָדָם שֶׁאֵין לוֹ תְשׁוּעָה.

Aramaic:
לא תתרחצון ברברביא בבר אנש דלית ליה פורקנא׃

Targum to the Psalms:
Psalm 146:3. You shall not place your trust in rulers, in a son of man(Bar Enash) who has no redemption.

maybe this one was missed

Hi Eli. Well, since only God Himself can ever redeem both Israel and Judah of their sin and curse[malachi 2], how do you propose your messiah will do that? It can't be thru sacrifices, as God destroyed the temple in the first century. Besides, I don't put my trust in rulers or son of man, but the written Word of scriptures.
Anyway, I hope yours and Israel's "redeemer" comes soon, as Christ my redeemer came as promised, though I thought He would come to the jews first before He came to me?.
Oh, but don't worry, some christians believe Jesus will come back to save you in the future and reign on earth a 1000yrs with ya, while we are safely eating with our King and Savior in heaven. Oh well.

Ezekiel 1:26 And above the firmament over their heads [was] the likeness of a throne, in appearance like a sapphire stone; on the likeness of the throne [was] a likeness with the appearance of a man high above it. 27 Also from the appearance of His waist and upward I saw, as it were, the color of amber with the appearance of fire all around within it; and from the appearance of His waist and downward I saw, as it were, the appearance of fire with brightness all around. 28 Like the appearance of a rainbow in a cloud on a rainy day, so [was] the appearance of the brightness all around it. This [was] the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. So when I saw [it,] I fell on my face, and I heard a voice of One speaking.

Ezekiel 2:1 And He said to me, "Son of man, stand on your feet, and I will speak to you."

reve 1:12 Then I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and in the midst of the seven lampstands [One] like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band. 14 His head and hair [were] white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; 15 His feet [were] like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters;

Originally posted by Amazing Rando

Take a look at the date of Jezz' OP- it's almost 2 years old!

We used to have a forum called "Christology 201," and when this "unorthodox theology" forum was created, we mostly had in mind issues of Christology, so we just dumped all the threads that were in Christology into this one.

Whoops! Thanks for clearing that up, Rando.

Originally posted by InChristAlways

Hi Eli. Well, since only God Himself can ever redeem both Israel and Judah of their sin and curse[malachi 2], how do you propose your messiah will do that? It can't be thru sacrifices, as God destroyed the temple in the first century. Besides, I don't put my trust in rulers or son of man, but the written Word of scriptures.
Anyway, I hope yours and Israel's "redeemer" comes soon, as Christ my redeemer came as promised, though I thought He would come to the jews first before He came to me?.
Oh, but don't worry, some christians believe Jesus will come back to save you in the future and reign on earth a 1000yrs with ya, while we are safely eating with our King and Savior in heaven. Oh well.

Ezekiel 1:26 And above the firmament over their heads [was] the likeness of a throne, in appearance like a sapphire stone; on the likeness of the throne [was] a likeness with the appearance of a man high above it. 27 Also from the appearance of His waist and upward I saw, as it were, the color of amber with the appearance of fire all around within it; and from the appearance of His waist and downward I saw, as it were, the appearance of fire with brightness all around. 28 Like the appearance of a rainbow in a cloud on a rainy day, so [was] the appearance of the brightness all around it. This [was] the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. So when I saw [it,] I fell on my face, and I heard a voice of One speaking.

Ezekiel 2:1 And He said to me, "Son of man, stand on your feet, and I will speak to you."

reve 1:12 Then I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and in the midst of the seven lampstands [One] like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band. 14 His head and hair [were] white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; 15 His feet [were] like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters;

G-d doesnt need any help to "save" mankind in however way you are using this word. G-d can do it all by himself.

the term "son of man" in hebrew "ben adam" in aramaic it is "bar enash" simply denotes a human being. there is nothing special about the usage of the terms in Hebrew or Aramaic.

Originally posted by eliyosef

G-d doesnt need any help to "save" mankind in however way you are using this word. G-d can do it all by himself.

the term "son of man" in hebrew "ben adam" in aramaic it is "bar enash" simply denotes a human being. there is nothing special about the usage of the terms in Hebrew or Aramaic.

Thanks. Just wondering why Israel or Judah would need a messiah then.
Us "gentiles" have to call on the name of Jesus to be saved, so we have no choice as God sent Him to us. God bless.

Malachi 3:1 "Behold, I send My messenger, And he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming," Says the LORD of hosts. 2 "But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He [is] like a refiner's fire And like launderer's soap.

Originally posted by InChristAlways

Thanks. Just wondering why Israel or Judah would need a messiah then.
Us "gentiles" have to call on the name of Jesus to be saved, so we have no choice as God sent Him to us. God bless.

To be G-d right hand man(only a Human) here on earth. and to signal us of the coming messianic Age.

As for teh "saving" us from our sins. that is not a part fo Jewish theology. We account for our own sins. And do Teshuvah to cleanse us of them.

The whole Idea of "saving man from his sins" is not a Jewish concept but a christian one.

Originally posted by eliyosef

To be G-d right hand man(only a Human) here on earth. and to signal us of the coming messianic Age.

As for teh "saving" us from our sins. that is not a part fo Jewish theology. We account for our own sins. And do Teshuvah to cleanse us of them.

The whole Idea of "saving man from his sins" is not a Jewish concept but a christian one.

Hi Eli. If the jews read Isaiah 28 carefully, they will note the Messiah coming as the "cornerstone", then vengeance and wrath afterward [Day of the Lord], which happened in the first century as prophecied.
I myself don't judge jews, muslims, chinese, africans etc, as they are judged on their own righteosness before God's eyes.
Israel on the other hand was picked by God as His special treasure/first born nation and it was to them the redeemer/Messiah was to come and come from, Judah, and the curses of Deut 28 if they disobeyed. Note Isaiah 28 concerns the jews and Jerusalem, not gentiles. The cornerstone came to the jews in the first century but somehow, the jews appeared to have missed it. Anyway, I hope your redeemer/savior come soon brother, otherwise the 2 nations of Judah and Israel will be seperated until He does come, as Israel is still divorced and Judah is still married to God. God bless.

Isaiah 28:14 Therefore hear the word of the LORD, you scornful men, Who rule this people who [are] in Jerusalem, 15 Because you have said, "We have made a covenant with death, And with Sheol we are in agreement. When the overflowing scourge passes through, It will not come to us, For we have made lies our refuge, And under falsehood we have hidden ourselves." 16 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation, A tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation; Whoever believes will not act hastily.


Isaiah 49:1 "Listen, O coastlands, to Me, And take heed, you peoples from afar! The LORD has called Me from the womb; From the matrix of My mother He has made mention of My name. 2 And He has made My mouth like a sharp sword; In the shadow of His hand He has hidden Me, And made Me a polished shaft; In His quiver He has hidden Me." 3 "And He said to me, 'You [are] My servant, O Israel, In whom I will be glorified.' 4 Then I said, 'I have labored in vain, I have spent my strength for nothing and in vain; Yet surely my just reward [is] with the LORD, And my work with my God.' " 5 " And now the LORD says, Who formed Me from the womb [to be] His Servant, To bring Jacob back to Him, So that Israel is gathered to Him ( For I shall be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, And My God shall be My strength), 6 Indeed He says, 'It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob, And to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, That You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.' " 7 Thus says the LORD, The Redeemer of Israel, their Holy One, To Him whom man despises, To Him whom the nation abhors, To the Servant of rulers: "Kings shall see and arise, Princes also shall worship, Because of the LORD who is faithful, The Holy One of Israel; And He has chosen You." 8 Thus says the LORD: "In an acceptable time I have heard You, And in the day of salvation I have helped You; I will preserve You and give You As a covenant to the people, To restore the earth, To cause them to inherit the desolate heritages;

Originally posted by InChristAlways

Hi Eli. If the jews read Isaiah 28 carefully, they will note the Messiah coming as the "cornerstone", then vengeance and wrath afterward [Day of the Lord], which happened in the first century as prophecied.

Prove it! Prove that it happened in the first century dont just sit there and claim this and this happened without substantiation.
from my reading there si no prophecy in there that says " This will happen in the first century CE. All I see is "dont expect it any time soon!"


P.S. what happened to the "Son of man" thing? Was what I said so devastating it warranted a change of subject?