Did Jesus ever actually refer to Himself as the ''son of man''?

[Desert Snake]

Did Jesus ever actually call Himself the ''son of man''?
That would be odd if He did, because xians call Him the son of G-d.

 

[George-ananda]

Well, 'Son of Man' could be viewed as a servant of mankind. Another valid way to look at things.

 

[Desert Snake]

Well, 'Son of Man' could be viewed as a servant of mankind. Another valid way to look at things.

This has occurred to me, but personally, I've pretty much dismissed the idea. The wording is awkward, especially considering the theological situation.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

What the scriptures report, and the words that Jesus actually said are not necessarily the same.
nor is our understanding necessary complete.

Mostly the scriptures have to be intrepeted to give them meaning in the modern world.

Jesus is both the son of God and the son of man depending on the context.

 

[b.finton]

"If you had seen me, you had seen the Father also."

This is reportedly said to people looking directly at a human being, a man (and therefore a son of man, a human).

The saying is apparently delivered not by the man, therefore, but by the Spirit speaking through the man. That speaking Spirit is the Son/Projection of YH, the Father, in my understanding of the parable. In other words, the man speaking is a perfectly transparent vehicle: ". . . in him dwells the fullness of the godhead, bodily."

That the man was able to be transparent in the service of the Spirit of the Holy is attributable not to the man himself, but to the Spirit the man serves in the parable. The man affirms this by saying, ". . . of myself, I can do nothing." A man capable of transparency is understood to be a realized being. Such a one is, literally, a Son of Man (mankind): a new creature.

And, now, to my point.

The name "Jesus" occludes the parable because it's unable to carry the weight of a transparent man serving the Spirit of the Holies with perfection. If one name points to both realities, then who's who in any discussion? The difficulty has become boring, as well as counter-productive.

The Hebrew name that has made it into English as "Jesus" can be pronounced two ways, depending upon meaning.

I use the pronunciation, "Y'Shua," to refer to the Son of Man; and the pronunciation, "Yahushua," to refer to the Son of G_d. The man didn't come in his own name.

I understand how upsetting names can be, especially when they signify more than sound; but when I think of the saying, "I will also write on them my new name"? I also recall that there's nothing new under the sun. What's new is what we've forgotten about the old in wars of semantics.

b.

 

[wizanda]

Did Jesus ever actually call Himself the ''son of man''?

Yes multiple times; it isn't odd, learn what Judaism taught, they were also called the children of God.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Did Jesus ever actually call Himself the ''son of man''?
That would be odd if He did, because xians call Him the son of G-d.

Here it is:

Mark 14:62
You have said so," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

John 12:8
For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath

Matthew 20:28

just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many

Here are more:
http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Son-Of-Man

He is the son of man because he is human.

He is the son of God because God chose him to be his word to the men and women who are "children of god" not children of jesus.

 

[George-ananda]

This has occurred to me, but personally, I've pretty much dismissed the idea. The wording is awkward, especially considering the theological situation.

I don't get too hung up on awkward wording. There's been a lot of translations and language evolution between then and now

 

[Sleeppy]

The title stresses the significance of the consequence Adam/Man inherited, after his eating of the forbidden fruit.. Having to experience both good and evil, before gaining certain knowledge. The Son of Man is the result of trial and error; a representative of past wisdom and future innovation.. And, therefore this title really applies to everyone.

 

[b.finton]

The title stresses the significance of the consequence Adam/Man inherited, after his eating of the forbidden fruit.. Having to experience both good and evil, before gaining certain knowledge. The Son of Man is the result of trial and error; a representative of past wisdom and future innovation.. And, therefore this title really applies to everyone.

The title is used to address human beings many times in scripture. You're right.

The Greek writings add another dimension, however, in that they say that human beings are capable of becoming new creatures: not bettered or improved, but new. As sons of man(kind), each of us is capable of becoming a Son of Man: many brothers and sisters have taken their positions in the body of Messiah Yahushua in the footsteps of Y'Shua.

b.

 

[rusra02]

Did Jesus ever actually call Himself the ''son of man''?
That would be odd if He did, because xians call Him the son of G-d.

In fact Jesus referred to himself as the Son of man nearly 80 times in the gospels. This emphasized Jesus was indeed human. As Insight on the Scriptures, page 1001 explains; "Jesus’ application of this expression to himself clearly showed that God’s Son was now indeed a human, having ‘become flesh’ (Joh 1:14), having ‘come to be out of a woman’ through his conception and birth to the Jewish virgin Mary. (Ga 4:4; Lu 1:34-36) Hence he had not simply materialized a human body as angels had previously done; he was not an incarnation but was actually a ‘son of mankind’ through his human mother.—Compare 1Jo 4:2, 3; 2Jo 7."

 

[moorea944]

Did Jesus ever actually call Himself the ''son of man''?
That would be odd if He did, because xians call Him the son of G-d.

Yes, he did. He had to be the son of God and the son of man for a reason.
Jesus's mission was to save his brethren from their sins and in order to do that he had to be both son of God and Son of man.

He had to be Son of God because no man left to himself had or could achieve spotless righteousness as required by God as the basis for forgiveness. Perfection was attained by Jesus because (1) he inherited from his father a unique capacity for spiritual things, and (2) he was given unhindered access to God and he chose to accept it. Sonship of the Father conveyed an insight, an intimacy with His God, an unequalled knowledge of what was in man, fitting him eminently to be the Saviour - if only he chose to be so. Sonship did not make him sinless, but made sinlessness possible. And we see this in Luke 2v52, John 2v24-25, 5v19-20.

He had to be Son of man in order to inherit the consequences of Adam's transgressions, a weak and mortal nature "prone to sin", so that he might condemn sin. He had to be tempted in all points like us and yet be sinless in order to be the Saviour. Sin could only be condemned by one possessing the same flesh with its tendency to sin. (Heb. 2v14, 4v15, Rom. 8v3)

 

[b.finton]

Yes

and (2) he was given unhindered access to God and he chose to accept it

This acceptance signals immaculate conception.

Adam's transgressions

My view is that Adam also ate, that he might minister to Eve in the eons to come. Greater love has no man.

b.

 

[Latuwr]

Hi q konn:

Blessings to you through Messiah Yahushua, My YAHWEH and My ELOHIM!

Shabbat Shalom!

You asked:

Did Jesus ever actually call Himself the ''son of man''?

As far as I know, Yahushua never actually referred to HIMSELF as "son of man". I have not looked at every instance in which the Greek New Testament uses the phrase often translated into English as "the son of man" or "son of man". In the Greek, every place that I have checked uses the phrase "the son of the man" because the definite articles are found with the two nouns. So, the English translations which neglect to include the definite article with "man" are sadly deficient.

If Yahushua claims to be "the son" of a very specific individual as the Greek definite article with "man" indicates, do you know who "the man" is?

Thanking you in advance should you be moved to reply, I am,

Sincerely, Latuwr

 

[moorea944]

This acceptance signals immaculate conception.



My view is that Adam also ate, that he might minister to Eve in the eons to come. Greater love has no man.

b.

This acceptance signals immaculate conception.

I totally agree

 

[moorea944]

Hi q konn:

Blessings to you through Messiah Yahushua, My YAHWEH and My ELOHIM!

Shabbat Shalom!

You asked:

Did Jesus ever actually call Himself the ''son of man''?

As far as I know, Yahushua never actually referred to HIMSELF as "son of man". I have not looked at every instance in which the Greek New Testament uses the phrase often translated into English as "the son of man" or "son of man". In the Greek, every place that I have checked uses the phrase "the son of the man" because the definite articles are found with the two nouns. So, the English translations which neglect to include the definite article with "man" are sadly deficient.

If Yahushua claims to be "the son" of a very specific individual as the Greek definite article with "man" indicates, do you know who "the man" is?

Thanking you in advance should you be moved to reply, I am,

Sincerely, Latuwr

Actually he did many times. Quite a few in Revelation and other books. I never heard of "the son of the man" before, even in my Greek translations. But in scripture, Jesus does call himself son of man quite often.

 

[Latuwr]

(Note: I began writing this post yesterday in reply to a post by q konn which was posted at 2:28 PM yesterday. His post was no longer there this morning.)

Hi q konn:

Blessings to you through Messiah Yahushua, My YAHWEH and My ELOHIM!

Thank you for your reply. You have stated:

"I personally don't belive that jesus has/had a ''human'' father."

It is very obvious to me that the various translators of the Greek New Testament into English also believed as you believe; otherwise, they would have paid more than lip service to the actual Greek. There exists no other explanation for omitting the definite article before "man" in their translations other than the realization that none of them believed that Yahushua was the son of a very specific man. In the Christian world, it is heresy to even contemplate such an eventuality, is it not?

Yahushua never referred to HIMSELF as "the son of the woman"; rather, Yahushua referred to HIMSELF as "the son of the man". We know who HIS Mother was, but we have little understanding concerning "the man" whose Son Yahushua plainly and repeatedly claims to be. Indeed, YAHWEH has pointedly stated right here through Balaam that HE is not as a man:

Numbers 23:19
19 EL is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

If YAHWEH is not a man, who, therefore, is "the man"?

Thanking you in advance should you be moved to reply, I am,

Sincerely, Latuwr

 

[Brickjectivity]

Did Jesus ever actually call Himself the ''son of man''?
That would be odd if He did, because xians call Him the son of G-d.

In Psalms and various prophets the people of Israel are referred to as the son of the LORD, son of man, the suffering servant and some other things such as prince of peace. Also if Jesus is called these things then so are his followers: How can they not be when they are told to bear the same cross, do greater works, give glory to God and are called the body of Christ on Earth? So it isn't just talking about one man when it talks about the 'Son of man' and the 'Son of God' but about Jesus and everyone associated with him. So the statement is not about an individual being called both son of God and son of man but an entire group.

For example: Psalm 80:16-18 Your vine is cut down, it is burned with fire; at your rebuke your people perish. Let your hand rest on the man at your right hand, the son of man you have raised up for yourself. Then we will not turn away from you; revive us, and we will call on your name.

 

[12jtartar]

Did Jesus ever actually call Himself the ''son of man''?
That would be odd if He did, because xians call Him the son of G-d.

q Konn,
Yes!!! Jesus called himself the son of man in several places. Consider Matt 16:13, where Jesus asked his disciples who they were saying that the son of man is?
John 5:25-27 is a very good place to understand the reason for Jesus calling himself the son of man. It was because, not only was he the son of God, but because he came to earth to be a man, God has given Jesus the authority to call the resurrected ones back from the dead.