Why Son of Man?

[Dimi95]

What this typically means is that you only take guidance from the traditional interpretation of the Bible.

Again , you assume
Abel has nothing to do with traditional Christian interpretation

No, it's the canonical text of the the Christian Church. The true word is spoken, not written.

I will rephrase what i said so you can understand it better.
The word of God is eternal.

As for me, this [is] my covenant with them, saith YHWH; My spirit that [is] upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith YHWH, from henceforth and for ever.
Isaiah 59:21

I agree

Read Matthew 13:1-12 first

Then follows Matthew 13:13-15
This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: "`You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.'

That implies an argument from absence.

No,you need to clarify the antecedent of the conditional claim.

Would a righteous servant describe himself as a worm and acknowledge his sin?

Why is the need to describe if the servant is righteous?

That's not part of the prophetic text. It was about knowledge.

He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Isaiah 53:11

Isaiah 25
He will swallow up death forever.
The Sovereign Lord will wipe away the tears from all faces;he will remove his people’s disgrace from all the earth.
The Lord has spoken.In that day they will say,
“Surely this is our God; we trusted in him, and he saved us.This is the Lord, we trusted in him;let us rejoice and be glad in his salvation.”

It was simple murder, not a sacrifice.

Matthew 5:21-26
“You have heard that our ancestors were told, 'You must not murder. If you commit murder, you are subject to judgment. ' But I say, if you are even angry with someone, you are subject to judgment!

And

Exodus 21:12-14
He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. However, if he did not lie in wait, but God delivered him into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place where he may flee. But if a man acts with premeditation against his neighbor, to kill him by treachery, you shall take him from My altar, that he may die."

So why did God not punish Cain and put him to death?

 

[Ebionite]

Again , you assume

I'm not making any assumptions. Abel's offering is sometimes interpreted by Christians as being a blood sacrifice because sacrifice is central to their doctrine of salvation. Where you you think I have previously made assumptions?

 

[Dimi95]

I'm not making any assumptions. Abel's offering is sometimes interpreted by Christians as being a blood sacrifice because sacrifice is central to their doctrine of salvation. Where you you think I have previously made assumptions?

He died for what he offered to God, doesn't metter..

And i have showned you what God said to Cain.

So when he said "Listen!Your brother's blood.... "

He offered and God chose hom over Cain , and he died for that - by his brother's hand , that's my conclusion,anything wrong with it?

 

[Ebionite]

He died for what he offered to God, doesn't metter..

That's your assumption, not mine.

And i have showned you what God said to Cain.

No, YHWH spoke to Cain directly. "God" wasn't involved.

So when he said "Listen!Your brother's blood.... "

He offered and God chose hom over Cain , and he died for that - by his brother's hand , that's my conclusion,anything wrong with it?

Only the usual misidentification. You said that I was making assumptions and you haven't shown support for that.

 

[Dimi95]

That's your assumption, not mine.

Fair enough , yours is just a murder and nothing more.

No, YHWH spoke to Cain directly. "God" wasn't involved.

So who is YHWH?

Only the usual misidentification. You said that I was making assumptions and you haven't shown support for that.

Fair enough , then support your claim and justify the antecedent of the conditional claim with "Son of Man".
Can you do that?

 

[DNB]

Jesus , Son of Man , why?
Why specifically "Son of Man" would be my question.
Where does that come from , to what purpose to be presented like that?

In my understanding, because Jesus was the first-born of all creation - the reason behind all things coming into being; he is God's only begotten son, and therefore he is the son that all men are given life from. He is the sole creature that God has preordained to be ruler of all creation. He is the son of mankind - the one that all men regard to be the unique son of God.

 

[metis]

Don't assume please ,..

I don't assume as I do know generally how it's interpreted in Judaism and for which reason, and whether that's accurate or inaccurate is not really important to me.

 

[Ebionite]

So who is YHWH?

YHWH is the deity of the Abrahamic religions. The name YHWH is an English representation of the tetragrammaton.

Fair enough , then support your claim and justify the antecedent of the conditional claim with "Son of Man".

Num 23:19 - God 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?

Mat 4:17 - From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

 

[Dimi95]

Num 23:19 - God 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?

Mat 4:17 - From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

The definite article (the) is used before a noun to indicate that the identity of the noun is known to the reader.

So this passage has a very komplex explenation where the first sentence connects with the fourth , and the second with the third.

The first and the fourth explain God , the second and the third Son of Man.
These verses have comparing nature in their wisdom.
God is not Son of Man(Jesus) is what you wan't to prove,right? .
So that will make:
1=4 , 2=3;
1=4-God , 2=3-Son of Man
Let's switch 3 and 2 to to understand it better.

So it goes like this
Numbers 23:19 -
God is not a man, or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Neither the Son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it?

So here God and Son of Man are beeing compared in truthfulness.
So yes , God explains Son of Man.
And Son of Man fullfills this prophecy when he was baptized.

Matthew 4:17
From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

 

[Soapy]

But he offered them and was killed for that.Even worse..
And he was not instructed to offer , so Abel did that on his own.
And God chose him over Cain


It's exclusive for Jesus as i showed in the previous answer.

J. Barton Payne, has found as many as 574 verses in the Old Testament that somehow point to or describe or reference the coming Messiah.
Alfred Edersheim found 456 Old Testament verses referring to the Messiah or His times. Conservatively, Jesus fulfilled at least 300 prophecies in His earthly ministry.

And there are more things that Jesus did that are not written in the scriptures …. So there are the missing 156!!

 

[Soapy]

YHWH is the deity of the Abrahamic religions. The name YHWH is an English representation of the tetragrammaton.

Num 23:19 - God 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?

Mat 4:17 - From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Just asking… Who is the ruler of the kingdom of Heaven?

 

[Ebionite]

The definite article (the) is used before a noun to indicate that the identity of the noun is known to the reader.

There is no definite article in the Masoretic text.

In the verse from Leviticus, the term "son of man" associates with repentance, nothing else.

 

[Ebionite]

Just asking… Who is the ruler of the kingdom of Heaven?

YHWH is sometimes described as a king,

Isa 45:18 - For thus saith YHWH that created the heavens; Elohim that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am YHWH; and there is none else.

 

[Betho_br]

There is no definite article in the Masoretic text.

In the verse from Leviticus, the term "son of man" associates with repentance, nothing else.

1) Adam, entrusted with the noble mission of serving and preserving Eden, carried out his duties, which included divine worship and guarding the Paradise. Unfortunately, he failed when he allowed Eve to consult the oracle he had received, in the presence of the cunning Serpent. Abel, endowed with perspicacity in the face of events, resembled Job in his relentless pursuit of justice, even going so far as to consider himself proudly upright in his own eyes. In his sagacity, Abel sought a type of sacrifice that distanced itself from the land cursed by God. He offered blood as an offering, attempting to escape the divine curses imposed on all humanity. However, this choice provoked the wrath of Cain, similar to the reaction of Joseph's eleven brothers upon hearing the revealing dreams of the young man.

2) The phrase "son of man" carries a diminutive and depreciative connotation in the context of Numbers 23:19, Psalms 8:4, 143:3, Job 25:6; perhaps this was Jesus' way of "subduing" proud spirits.

 

[metis]

It appears that "YHWH" was one deity in the southern Arabian Peninsula brought up north possibly be Jewish traders. BAR had an interesting article on that a couple of editions ago.

 

[Betho_br]

It appears that "YHWH" was one deity in the southern Arabian Peninsula brought up north possibly be Jewish traders. BAR had an interesting article on that a couple of editions ago.

The origin of Yahweh, distinct from El, raises intriguing questions, as he was not originally a recognizable Canaanite deity, absent from the Ugaritic pantheon lists. While the Old Testament readily equates Yahweh with El, it exhibits a hostile stance towards deities like Baal. Modern research over the past few decades suggests that Yahweh's origins may be traced outside the land of Israel, possibly to the south, in the region of Midian (as indicated in Judges 5.4-5; Deut. 33.2; Hab. 3.3, 7).

A growing trend among scholars is the location of Mount Sinai and Kadesh in northwestern Arabia, as opposed to the traditional Sinai Peninsula. This perspective, long championed by German scholars, challenges previous interpretations. In this context, Yahweh's connection to Midian and the potential reinterpretation of biblical geography suggest complexity in the deity's evolution over time and across different cultural contexts.

Source consulted: Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, John Day, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 265 Copyright © 2000, 2002 Sheffield Academic Press.

 

[Ebionite]

Abel sought a type of sacrifice that distanced itself from the land cursed by God. He offered blood as an offering, attempting to escape the divine curses imposed on all humanity.

This is a common misinterpretation of the text. Abel's animals were given as an offering, not killed as a sacrifice.

 

[Betho_br]

This is a common misinterpretation of the text. Abel's animals were given as an offering, not killed as a sacrifice.

The play on Hebrew words is the same as I find in 1 Samuel 15:22.

And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. 1 Sam. 15:22 KJV

I am not fluent in English, perhaps having difficulty grasping your argument more clearly.

 

[Betho_br]

This is a common misinterpretation of the text. Abel's animals were given as an offering, not killed as a sacrifice.

מִנְחָתֽוֹ (Gen. 4:4 WTT) - Gen. 4:3-5; 32:14, 19, 21-22; 33:10; 43:11, 15, 25-26;

Okay, I looked at the Hebrew text, you are correct.

But the argument remains valid in asserting that Abel sought to make an offering that distanced itself from the cursed land.

 

[Ebionite]

I am not fluent in English, perhaps having difficulty grasping your argument more clearly.

My argument is that animal sacrifice was repudiated by the prophets and this idea is continued in the gospels, although the symbolism of the wine of communion as blood can cause confusion.