Son of Man -VS- Son of God

[firedragon]

.

firedragon,

You are correct. I'm sorry. I was thinking of something else and got confused

.

Oh no problem. Happens to all of us.

Once I was texting an Israeli scholar about Kosher and Halal in this world etc. I typed Poke several times instead of Pork. She made a laugh out of it and the next meeting I was the joke of the town.

One guy asked me if I wanna poke him.

 

[rusra02]

Then is Ephraim his elder brother?

I don't understand your question.

 

[Nefelie]

OK, more details as promised:

1) Secret Mark is actually a letter from Clement of Alexandria to Theodore. It is very interesting in whole and I think that everyone should read it, as it reveals some interesting “way of thinking” of the synoptics at the time. But any way, that’s not my point for now.

For now, I’d like to present this particular narrative of the letter:

<<…And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan…>>

This is about Lazarus, but so differently shown.

First of, it is much clear that “the youth” was not dead in the tomb. He was alive and crying out. This reminds us of certain initiations by the older religions that included the “experience of death” in a tomb (which represents the womb), for the neophyte to face his fears and then be reborn. Some masons still practice that. Seems like Lazarus was not yet ready for this experience and paniced. Hence the cries.

Second of, that “linen cloth over his naked body” is so obviously a ceremonial clothing. And, by the looks of it, Jesus prepared him for the initiation, “told him what to do” and “taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God”… What is that if not an initiation to some mystery?

...I’ll be back with the Acts of John

.

 

[firedragon]

I don't understand your question.

You said Jesus is the Son of God. You believe he is the physical or begotten son of God.

Then Ephraim has to be Jesus's elder brother, because he was called Protokos. First born by God himself.
Also Israel.

Are they all one family?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

1) Secret Mark is actually a letter from Clement of Alexandria to Theodore. I

No. Rather ...

In 1958, Morton Smith found a letter of Clement of Alexandria at the Mar Saba monastary near the city of Jerusalem. The Secret Gospel of Mark is known only from the references in this letter. - source

 

[Meander_Z]

I like this point of view. Never thought about it this way. Thanks


Self sacrifice was not something new for the world. May I remind you of Dionysus Zagreas that every Spring he was sacrificing himself for the good of the world and was then consumed by his believers -bread and wine for body and blood, hence the Holy Communion later in Christianity.



.

My point wasn't that self sacrifice was the global shift, but rather that it led to one. The Christ motif is in many ways based on the template of the mystery cults of Dionysus and Mithras, gods who die and are reborn. The change it brought about led toward an understanding of the death of God, not as a metaphor for the cycle of life and death, but rather as a literal singular event which bares the promise of eternal life for all believers.

The mysteries promised eternal life also, but such was gained by participating in and understanding the nature of the mystery. Initiates enacted their own self sacrifice as a metaphorical proclamation of their own divinity. Jesus took that a step further and actually died in proclamation of his own divinity... and as a result made a long term global impact that other man/gods of his day came no where near to achieving. Compare the divine claim of Augustus Caesar... sure history remembers him, but how many churches are dedicated to his worship. None.

Jesus as far as I can tell was the first god to prove his godhood through the literal fulfillment of death and resurrection. Not that I necessarily believe that he achieved resurrection literally, but his followers then and now believe completely that Jesus was literally resurrected and what more proof should they need. No other gods have done such a thing. Literal sacrificial deaths may have been enacted by prior religions, but literal resurrections have never been claimed, most certainly not with the fervor that fueled early Christians who believed so intently that they were willing to die themselves.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My point wasn't that self sacrifice was the global shift, but rather that it led to one. The Christ motif is in many ways based on the template of the mystery cults of Dionysus and Mithras, gods who die and are reborn.

See here - note the conspicuous absence of any reference to Mithra.

 

[Meander_Z]

OK, more details as promised:

1) Secret Mark is actually a letter from Clement of Alexandria to Theodore. It is very interesting in whole and I think that everyone should read it, as it reveals some interesting “way of thinking” of the synoptics at the time. But any way, that’s not my point for now.

This is about Lazarus, but so differently shown.

First of, it is much clear that “the youth” was not dead in the tomb. He was alive and crying out. This reminds us of certain initiations by the older religions that included the “experience of death” in a tomb (which represents the womb), for the neophyte to face his fears and then be reborn. Some masons still practice that. Seems like Lazarus was not yet ready for this experience and paniced. Hence the cries.

Second of, that “linen cloth over his naked body” is so obviously a ceremonial clothing. And, by the looks of it, Jesus prepared him for the initiation, “told him what to do” and “taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God”… What is that if not an initiation to some mystery?


.

What a fantastic story! Thank you so much for sharing... must read this letter!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What a fantastic story! Thank you so much for sharing... must read this letter!

Good grief.

 

[Meander_Z]

See here - note the conspicuous absence of any reference to Mithra.

I'm not sure that I understand the point you are making with this article. It doesn't bother me that the idea of death resurrection gods has been critically refuted. Everything has been critically refuted at some time or another. I am content with the evidence as presented... namely that death and resurrection (or reemergence from an underworld or spiritual realm if you prefer) was a common motif in ancient religions. The lack of mention of Mithra doesn't strike is as particularly conspicuous either. Are you making a statement that Mithra was not a death and resurrection god? I don't know loads about Mithra... I think of him as a watered down version of Dionysus that catered specifically to soldiers and other macho types who were uncomfortable with the feminine/androgynous aspects of D.

Of course I think my inquiry is getting dangerously off topic. My original intention was just to reaffirm that I do have a grasp on the human/divine, death/resurrection motifs in pagan religions that may have influenced Jesus's claims of Son of Man and Son of God. The mystery cults were known for claiming themselves to be Children of the Earth and of the Starry Sky. Earth being mortal, human, animal and Starry Sky being immortal, spiritual, divine. I'm not a Biblical scholar so I don't know precisely what Jesus was meant to have claimed about himself directly, but his status as both man and god have become a very important part of his motif. This motif wasn't original, but it took the motif to a new level. That of being literal and therefore provable. (On the topic of proofs... I'd like to add that I know that Jesus's resurrection is not provable according to the scientific method and modern thinking, but that style of thinking did not exist for early Christians.)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm not sure that I understand the point you are making with this article. It doesn't bother me that the idea of death resurrection gods has been critically refuted. Everything has been critically refuted at some time or another.

So much for discernment.

I am content with the evidence as presented...

Have you ever read Clauss?

Never mind.​

 

[paarsurrey]

So who were they?

The were human beings.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Son of man and son of God, Ben Adam and ben elohim are not synonymous at the outset of it, even by the looks of it. E.g. Ezekiel 33:2, God refers to Ezekiel as Son of Man. Sometimes it is directly addressed at one person, e.g. Ezekiel. It has various usages.
You have to understand the language. The beauty of it. Ben is not only Son. It could mean a member of a society, grandson etc. Like Little in many Asian languages. Anyway, you must do your own study.

The Christians believe that Jesus was a literal and physical son of god, it is not correct, it is in the same sense as Jesus was son of man, not literally and physically. Jesus was only son of Mary, as mentioned in Quran.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

But what I am curious about is, you said "Please, Adam did have father and mother". Whats your belief on this and from where I would like to know.

Every human being has parents, so did Adam. Quran does not mention Adam as first human being. Quran mentions Adam as a prophet/messenger of G-d, and prophets/messengers are sent to a group of people to guide them.
Regards

 

[Meander_Z]

So much for discernment.

Discernment: The willingness to alter ones understanding based solely on the idea that someone else has a different understanding.

Hmm... So much for definitions.

Discernment: The ability to judge well.

Do you assume that my response proves that I am unable to judge well? Perhaps it only proves that I'm not willing to go that far off topic on this particular thread. Says more about your capacity for discernment than mine.

 

[firedragon]

The Christians believe that Jesus was a literal and physical son of god, it is not correct, it is in the same sense as Jesus was son of man, not literally and physically. Jesus was only son of Mary, as mentioned in Quran.
Regards

Bro. With all due respect, you dont understand the bible, nor do you even try to understand the language or way its used.

Son of God is one who follows the Gods commandments.
Son of man is human.

Two different things, used a lot in the bible. Ben Adam and Ben Elohim. In Aramaic it would be Bar Nasha.

We are not children of Adam but the Quran addresses us by that phrase. No one is physically a child of Israel but the Quran uses that phrase.

Son in semetic languages is also to refer to a person belonging to something.

Jesus calls himself Bar Nasha, Son of Man, Human and you dont accept it. Then what is Son of Man in your view? Speak to a scholar. Ill give you one. Richard Bauckham. Or you want a Muslim scholar?

 

[firedragon]

Every human being has parents, so did Adam. Quran does not mention Adam as first human being. Quran mentions Adam as a prophet/messenger of G-d, and prophets/messengers are sent to a group of people to guide them.
Regards

Normally humans have both parents. But not Jesus and Adam. You said Adam had both mother and father. You may have a point.

But explain this.

3:59 The example of Jesus with God is similar to that of Adam; He created him from dust, then He said to him “Be” and he was.
3:60 The truth is from your Lord, so do not be of those who doubt.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Discernment: The willingness to alter ones understanding based solely on the idea that someone else has a different understanding.

No. The willingness of someone to respect scholarship rather than arrogantly presuming that one's preferred narrative is somehow of equal value.

 

[First Baseman]

The were human beings.
Regards

Could you be a little more specific?

 

[whirlingmerc]

Not so simple.... Jesus wanted to 'keep a lid on things' until he rose from the dead and so 'son of man' was more convenient than Son of God for that time

In reality 'son of man' was the title of the one in Daniel who comes in the clouds in Daniel 7 to be served by all people tribes and languages and so 'son of man' and 'son of God' are the same emphasizing different things. Jesus is fully man (son of man) and fully God (son of God)
Two sides of the same coin

Not one vs the other but two aspects showing a whole. A perfect mediator between God and man: the God man. Human enough to die and sympathize with sinners. Divine enough to raise himself from the dead. See John 2 "tear down this temple and in 3 days I will raise it again speaking of his body'