P. 1
Gospel’s "Son of Man" Fulfillment

Gospel’s "Son of Man" Fulfillment

|Views: 25|Likes:
Published by Afromations

Son of man means a product of a man. See more below.
What is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them? (Psalms 8:4).
"God is not as a man, that he should lie nor as a son of man, that he should be changed" (Numbers 23:19).
"Blessed is the man that doth this and the son of man that shall lay hold on this" (Isaiah 56:2).
I've been thinking about Steven’s trial. Steven never mentions Jesus’ resurrection or any mention of a missing body. They (Romans and Sanhedrin) never accuse him or any one of the missing body, nor was there any search for this doubtful resurrection. This would have been a major issue and evidence of a resurrecting Jesus. The absence of this concern sheds light that Paul was discussing something else other than a historical figure—given the fact that he supposedly meet with the disciples of Jesus. According to Galatians 1:11-12 and 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, his experience was one of enlightenment of mankind and resembles works of prior authors: the books of Philo of Alexandria (enlightenment of man by combining Greek and Jewish philosophy 20 BCE), Polonius of Tyana (3 BCE), and The Assentation of Isaiah of the 1st century—celestial being/star sacrificed by Satan before descending to earth. Given the fact that Jesus said he will return on the clouds and everyone will see him is a clear indication that he is in heaven (according to Mathew 24; Acts 1:11; the book of Revelations). Thus, Paul’s experience could not have been with Jesus, but resembles the experience of Constantine and Mohammad—it enlightenment, or a celestial being that Paul is referring to, or a celestial being as enlightenment.

But more concerning is the Acts’ narrative elements of omnipresence as it was written much later. Especially, as Paul was there and he condemns Steven to death and holds the cloaks of the stoners, but later the book of Acts by Luke/Paul describes his vision and experience in great detail of his vision. This is clearly a fictional elaboration. This juxtaposition is not rational in the least bit.

A greater concern is the concept of "son of man", refers to humanity (traditionally known to all Jews according to the TNK; cf. below explanation). As Steven gives his testimony, the audience was listening and not reacting—even to his accusations of being sinners, which was the cause of their teeth on edge. The catalyst was his reference to the son of man sitting at the right hand of G-d. This phrase reflects the idea that it was man kind or his intellect/enlightenment that is at G-d's right hand; that of which he was stoned for. He never references a missing body and the texts never reflect that the “Jewish leaders” knew of a missing body. This brings a great concern to the “New Testament” theology, even more so its logic.
Penultimately, the contradictory teachings of the Gospels and of Paul leads to the understanding that there were two different ideologies here—one was historical and one was not. Here is examples of different teachings between Jesus and Paul: Luke 21:8 vs. Romans 13:12 ; 1 Cor 2:13, Gal 1:12 vs. John 17:14,17; Rom 14:9 vs. Luke 20:38; Rom 13:9 vs. Matt 22:37-40; 1 Cor. 4:15 and Philm 1:10 Paul tells him that he is their father while Jesus says in Matt. 23:9 to call no man your father on earth… Again, Pual’s writings were that of previous philosophy combined by Philo. It is even speculated that Apollonius is Paul.

I speculate that it is enlightenment of man that was being taught/conveyed as Stevens message, which Paul later preached–the combination of Greek and Jewish philosophy as mentioned. What was Steven killed for? Not teaching the death and resurrection of Jesus, but Steven was immediately drug out after stating that humanity (man’s intellect/enlightenment—philosophy taught by Philo) that is at the right hand of G-d in conjunction with the concept that man is created in His image! His statement was that the sinfulness of the priesthood was the death of Jesus a

Son of man means a product of a man. See more below.
What is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them? (Psalms 8:4).
"God is not as a man, that he should lie nor as a son of man, that he should be changed" (Numbers 23:19).
"Blessed is the man that doth this and the son of man that shall lay hold on this" (Isaiah 56:2).
I've been thinking about Steven’s trial. Steven never mentions Jesus’ resurrection or any mention of a missing body. They (Romans and Sanhedrin) never accuse him or any one of the missing body, nor was there any search for this doubtful resurrection. This would have been a major issue and evidence of a resurrecting Jesus. The absence of this concern sheds light that Paul was discussing something else other than a historical figure—given the fact that he supposedly meet with the disciples of Jesus. According to Galatians 1:11-12 and 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, his experience was one of enlightenment of mankind and resembles works of prior authors: the books of Philo of Alexandria (enlightenment of man by combining Greek and Jewish philosophy 20 BCE), Polonius of Tyana (3 BCE), and The Assentation of Isaiah of the 1st century—celestial being/star sacrificed by Satan before descending to earth. Given the fact that Jesus said he will return on the clouds and everyone will see him is a clear indication that he is in heaven (according to Mathew 24; Acts 1:11; the book of Revelations). Thus, Paul’s experience could not have been with Jesus, but resembles the experience of Constantine and Mohammad—it enlightenment, or a celestial being that Paul is referring to, or a celestial being as enlightenment.

But more concerning is the Acts’ narrative elements of omnipresence as it was written much later. Especially, as Paul was there and he condemns Steven to death and holds the cloaks of the stoners, but later the book of Acts by Luke/Paul describes his vision and experience in great detail of his vision. This is clearly a fictional elaboration. This juxtaposition is not rational in the least bit.

A greater concern is the concept of "son of man", refers to humanity (traditionally known to all Jews according to the TNK; cf. below explanation). As Steven gives his testimony, the audience was listening and not reacting—even to his accusations of being sinners, which was the cause of their teeth on edge. The catalyst was his reference to the son of man sitting at the right hand of G-d. This phrase reflects the idea that it was man kind or his intellect/enlightenment that is at G-d's right hand; that of which he was stoned for. He never references a missing body and the texts never reflect that the “Jewish leaders” knew of a missing body. This brings a great concern to the “New Testament” theology, even more so its logic.
Penultimately, the contradictory teachings of the Gospels and of Paul leads to the understanding that there were two different ideologies here—one was historical and one was not. Here is examples of different teachings between Jesus and Paul: Luke 21:8 vs. Romans 13:12 ; 1 Cor 2:13, Gal 1:12 vs. John 17:14,17; Rom 14:9 vs. Luke 20:38; Rom 13:9 vs. Matt 22:37-40; 1 Cor. 4:15 and Philm 1:10 Paul tells him that he is their father while Jesus says in Matt. 23:9 to call no man your father on earth… Again, Pual’s writings were that of previous philosophy combined by Philo. It is even speculated that Apollonius is Paul.

I speculate that it is enlightenment of man that was being taught/conveyed as Stevens message, which Paul later preached–the combination of Greek and Jewish philosophy as mentioned. What was Steven killed for? Not teaching the death and resurrection of Jesus, but Steven was immediately drug out after stating that humanity (man’s intellect/enlightenment—philosophy taught by Philo) that is at the right hand of G-d in conjunction with the concept that man is created in His image! His statement was that the sinfulness of the priesthood was the death of Jesus a

More info:

Categories:Types, Presentations
Published by: Afromations on Aug 03, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/03/2014

pdf

text

original

Gospel’s “son of man” Fulfillment

By: D. Hunter
Son of man means a product of a man. See more below.
What is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you
care for them? (Psalms 8:4).
"God is not as a man, that he should lie nor as a son of man, that he
should be changed" (Numbers 23:19).
"Blessed is the man that doth this and the son of man that shall lay hold
on this" (Isaiah 56:2).
I've been thinking about Steven’s trial. Steven never mentions Jesus’
resurrection or any mention of a missing body. They (Romans and
Sanhedrin) never accuse him or any one of the missing body, nor was
there any search for this doubtful resurrection. This would have been a
major issue and evidence of a resurrecting Jesus. The absence of this
concern sheds light that Paul was discussing something else other than
a historical figure—given the fact that he supposedly meet with the
disciples of Jesus. According to Galatians 1:11-12 and 1 Corinthians
15:3-5, his experience was one of enlightenment of mankind and
resembles works of prior authors: the books of Philo of Alexandria
(enlightenment of man by combining Greek and Jewish philosophy 20
BCE), Polonius of Tyana (3 BCE), and The Assentation of Isaiah of the
1
st
century—celestial being/star sacrificed by Satan before descending
to earth. Given the fact that Jesus said he will return on the clouds and
everyone will see him is a clear indication that he is in heaven
(according to Mathew 24; Acts 1:11; the book of Revelations). Thus,
Paul’s experience could not have been with Jesus, but resembles the
experience of Constantine and Mohammad—it enlightenment, or a
celestial being that Paul is referring to, or a celestial being as
enlightenment.

But more concerning is the Acts’ narrative elements of omnipresence
as it was written much later. Especially, as Paul was there and he
condemns Steven to death and holds the cloaks of the stoners, but later
the book of Acts by Luke/Paul describes his vision and experience in
great detail of his vision. This is clearly a fictional elaboration. This
juxtaposition is not rational in the least bit.

A greater concern is the concept of "son of man", refers to humanity
(traditionally known to all Jews according to the TNK; cf. below
explanation). As Steven gives his testimony, the audience was listening
and not reacting—even to his accusations of being sinners, which was
the cause of their teeth on edge. The catalyst was his reference to the
son of man sitting at the right hand of G-d. This phrase reflects the
idea that it was man kind or his intellect/enlightenment that is at G-d's
right hand; that of which he was stoned for. He never references a
missing body and the texts never reflect that the “Jewish leaders” knew
of a missing body. This brings a great concern to the “New Testament”
theology, even more so its logic.
Penultimately, the contradictory teachings of the Gospels and of Paul
leads to the understanding that there were two different ideologies
here—one was historical and one was not. Here is examples of
different teachings between Jesus and Paul: Luke 21:8 vs. Romans
13:12 ; 1 Cor 2:13, Gal 1:12 vs. John 17:14,17; Rom 14:9 vs. Luke
20:38; Rom 13:9 vs. Matt 22:37-40; 1 Cor. 4:15 and Philm 1:10 Paul
tells him that he is their father while Jesus says in Matt. 23:9 to call
no man your father on earth… Again, Pual’s writings were that of
previous philosophy combined by Philo. It is even speculated that
Apollonius is Paul.
I speculate that it is enlightenment of man that was being
taught/conveyed as Stevens message, which Paul later preached–the
combination of Greek and Jewish philosophy as mentioned. What was
Steven killed for? Not teaching the death and resurrection of Jesus, but
Steven was immediately drug out after stating that humanity (man’s
intellect/enlightenment—philosophy taught by Philo) that is at the right
hand of G-d in conjunction with the concept that man is created in His
image! His statement was that the sinfulness of the priesthood was the
death of Jesus as Josephus points out (see below). Not once was the
argument taught that Jesus died and resurrected and his missing body
was evidence. He was accused of preaching against the Law. This was
initiated by his healings.
Essentially, Christians and Messianic are worshiping the Flavians
as messiah of the Jewish people! See below of evidence of claims
and definition of “son of man”!
Further research of the “son of man” (DEFINITION IN
EVIDENCE OF CLAIM)
Interestingly, Christians have pointed out imaginative symbolism of
how Joana resembles Jesus: berried for three days with wreath around
his head like a crown thons; however, they will exclude explicit texts
that conflict with their desire of belief. They pick and choose which out
Josephus’ work to validate a historical Jesus, but exclude others that
show the multiple Jesus existed. This is not academic and bares no
intellectual integrity. In textual comparison of genres in literature, it is
clear that the Gospels were allegories of significant events and of a
person(s) that were punished and combined into a fictitious character.
These allegories were used many Jesus’ characteristics that was
detailed in Josephus’ writings. Jesus did exist, many of them did, but
not the Jesus of the Gospels (see below for evidence). Many people
have come to the understanding that the Synoptic Gospels were written
about Titus (born 30 AD) riding on clouds and destroying the temple
(evidence see below). Comparing these text alongside the history of
Josephus shows the exact sequence of Titus’ military campaign in
sequential order. These Gospels were to change the “Messianic Age”
doctrine of the first century to a more submissive one vs. the warrior
messiah doctrine that would deliver Israel out of the occupying hands.
This aggressive doctrine was a greatest threat to Rome, which they
changed through literature by having people submit themselves to
Roman rule, “give to Caesar what is Caesar.” This became the doctrine
to get the people to submit. Why is the Christian cannon as it is? What
were the qualifiers? There were no qualifiers except to include books
that fit the image of Constantine (also baring the name Neo-
Flavian) family name and decided to use his family’s religion and
make it Roman religion. Suetonius records Romans controlling history
by crucifying slaves of other historians that did not follow the Roman
formula (Domitian 10). This is why the other Gnostic Gospels and texts
did not make it—interestingly the book of John and Revelation made it.
The Book of Revelations has already been fulfilled during Titus’
campaign. One simply did not interfere with the histories of this period
without risking dire consequences. A case can be made that the
Christians and Gospels were actually a product of the Flavians.
According to Suetonius, Vespasian’s son, Titus, was a master forger
and propagandist who installed a select group of exceptional men who
served the succeeding emperors as invaluable servants for both their
private and public needs: “It often amused Titus to compete with his
secretaries at shorthand dictation, or so I have heard; and he claimed
that he could imitate any handwriting in existence and might, in
different circumstances, have been the most celebrated forger of all
time.” “He chose as his friends men whom succeeding emperors also
retained as indispensable alike to themselves and to the State, and of
whose services they made special use” (Suetonius, Titus, 3 & 7).
Why is there a book of Titus? Titus was the son of Vespasian and
Apollounius crowned him as king in 79 AD at Tarsus. Apollonius was
the teacher of Titus. There is ample evidence to connect Paul of Tarsus
to Apollonius. Titus was his epistle of the Rome, Rome was the church.
Creatively concluded, we never hear of Paul dying in Acts but assume
he did during the revolt in Rome. As we know, Titus Josephus Flavius
was supposable adopted into the family and wrote the history that
deified the Flavians as “god ordained saviors” to the world and the
Jews. Immediately after his coronation, Titus destroyed Jerusalem as
prophesied by Josephus. The Gospels and texts were written with Titus
in mind. What you are reading are allegorical texts of Flavian history.
See below for evidence. It is by tradition that the books of “Paul” were
written before the destruction of the temple and not by any linguistic
standards.
“Not only are the journeys of Paul and Apollonius very similar, their
names are as well. While Paul is "Paulos" in Greek, Thayer's Lexicon
states that "Apollos" is, according to some ancient authorities,
contracted from "Apollonios." Interestingly, "Apollos" is mentioned in
five places in Paul's 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, in such a way -
juxtapositioned with the names of Paul, "Cephas" and Christ; Paul and
Christ; or Paul alone - as to attribute great significance to him. It has
further been asserted that this contraction of the name Apollonius,
Apollos, was found uncontracted in the Codex Bezae of the New
Testament.”
The earliest Gospel fragment dates back to the second century. Why is
acclaimed Jewish literature, the Gospels, all in Greek while the Qumran
writings were in Hebrew during the same period; additionally, why are
so many text missing during this period? Rome destroyed all texts that
may usurp their authority, even ethnic identity writings and infused
their Hellenistic Greek-Roman religion through their literature and
military power. The Roman church sprang from the Therapeutae
religion. Paul continued being a Therapeutae as he by healing the sick
physically (Philo: On the Essenes of Egypt, p. 1) and spiritually. He
continued Philo’s doctrine that man’s ingeniousness and enlightenment
was the right hand of G-d (Praem 39-43). Evidence of this
understanding and occurance was documented by Philostratus' or
Lucius Flavius Philostratus. Intentionally, the church uses such terms
as “the physition” and other Therapeutae titles. Therapeutae were
simple spiritual people that focused on healing the soul and body—they
used herbal remedies to do so. In the 3
rd
century Eusebius later
identifies Philo’s Therapeutae as the first Christian monks in his
Ecclesiastical History. Thus continuing this new Christian religion with
the hybreeding Greco-Roman philosophy and medicine with Jewish
religion/philosophy. Connect the dots of the Hellenistic history and one
can see that this is Rome establishing a Roman religion with self-
fulfilled prophecies.
Suetonius discusses Josephus’ prophecy of the Flavians being
Christ.

EVIDENCE:
EVIDENCE: Summary of Apollonius of Tyana
http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/apollonius/apollonius_life.html
Chapters 29-34 focus on Apollonius' contacts with Vespasian's son and
crown prince Titus. Apollonius writes a letter of eulogy of Titus for
having refused to be crowned after the fall of Jerusalem (6.29). Titus
invites Apollonius for a discussion in Tarsus before returning to Rome.
The sage praises the harmony existing between Vespasian and Titus
(6.30) and assigns Demetrius to the heir apparent as his philosophical
advisor (6.31). He issues a cryptic prophecy of Titus' death (6.32) and
brings about the immediate granting of a request made by the people of
Tarsus.
Publius Cornelius Tacitus Writes in Book Five verse 13: There had
been seen hosts joining battle in the skies, the fiery gleam of arms, the
temple illuminated by a sudden radiance from the clouds. The doors of
the inner shrine were suddenly thrown open, and a voice of more than
mortal tone was heard to cry that the Gods were departing. At the same
instant there was a mighty stir as of departure. Some few put a fearful
meaning on these events, but in most there was a firm persuasion, that
in the ancient records of their priests was contained a prediction of how
at this very time the East was to grow powerful, and rulers, coming
from Judaea, were to acquire universal empire. These mysterious
prophecies had pointed to Vespasian and Titus, but the common
people, with the usual blindness of ambition, had interpreted these
mighty destinies of themselves, and could not be brought even by
disasters to believe the truth.
Josephus mentions the chariots on the clouds and the death of
Jesus (Book VI, Chapter 6, Section 3):
Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the one-and-twentieth day
of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible
phenomenon appeared; I suppose the account of it would seem to be a
fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events
that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals;
for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour
were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities .
Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were
going by night into the inner [court of the] temple, as their custom was,
to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place,
they felt a quaking , and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a
sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence."
But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus,
a plebeian, and an husbandman, who, four years before the war began,
and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity ,
came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make
tabernacles to God in the temple, began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A
voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds,
a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the
bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!"
This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes
of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace
had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and
gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say
anything for himself, or anything peculiar to those that chastised him,
but still he went on with the same words which he cried before.
Hereupon our rulers supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a
sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator-
where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet did he not
make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his
voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip
his answer was , "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" And when Albinus (for he
was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence he
came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to
what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till
Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him. Now, during all
the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any
of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day
uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow,
"Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" Nor did he give ill words to any of those that
beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but
this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy
presage of what was to come. This cry of his was the loudest at the
festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months,
without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time
that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased;
for, as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost
force, "Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy
house!" And just as he added at the last - "Woe, woe to myself also!"
there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed
him immediately: and as he was uttering the very same presages, he
gave up the ghost.
Definition of the “son of man”
You made a good observation about Ezekiel's use of "son of man." This
term is used by God to address Ezekiel over 90 times in the book, but
"son of man" is rarely used anywhere else in the Old Testament.
In Hebrew, to say "son of ..." is a way of saying it belongs to something
or to emphasize its association with something. For example, Isaiah 5
describes a fertile hill literally in the Hebrew as "a hill, the son of
fatness." The phrase "son of fatness" is a Hebrew idiom for "very fat"
or very fertile. So when God calls Ezekiel "son of man," it is a way of
saying he is completely a man, a mere human creature in contrast to the
Creator. So the term "son of man" in Ezekiel stresses Ezekiel's humility
in contrast to God's glory.
In Contrast to Deity
The rendering for the Hebrew "ben adam," applied to mankind in
general, as opposed to and distinct from non-human relationship;
expressing also the larger, unlimited implications of humanity as
differentiated from limited (e.g., national) forms and aspects of human
life. Thus, contrasted with the "sons of God" ("bene Elohim") are the
"daughters of man" ("benot ha-adam"), women taken by the former,
non-human or super-human, beings as wives (Gen. vi. 2 et seq.). As
expressing difference from God, the term occurs in the blessing of
Balaam: "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man,
that he should repent" (Num. xxiii. 19). Similarly, David appealing to
Saul puts Yhwh over and against the children of men (I Sam. xxvi. 19).
The punishment of God, also, is contrasted with that of the "children of
men," the former being much more severe, as appears from the promise
solemnly given to David (II Sam. vii. 14). God alone knows the heart
of the "children of man" (II Chron. vi. 29 et seq.). In the prayer in
which this thought is expressed, "man" is used in distinction to the
"people of Israel"; indeed, "children of men" appears to mark a contrast
to "children of Israel" in the Song of Moses (Deut. xxxii. 8, R. V.).
"Son of man" is a common term in the Psalms, used to accentuate the
difference between God and human beings. As in Ps. viii. 4 (A. V. 5),
the phrase implies "mortality," "impotence," "transientness,"as against
the omnipotence and eternality of God. Yhwh looks down from His
throne in heaven upon the "children," or "sons," of "man" (Ps. xi. 4,
xxxiii. 13). The faithful fail among them (Ps. xii. 2 [A. V. 1]); the seed
of Yhwh's enemies will not abide among the "children of men" (Ps. xxi.
10). "Children of men" is thus equivalent to "mankind" (Ps. xxxvi. 8
[A. V. 7], lxvi. 5).
"Sons of men," or "children of men," designates also the slanderers and
evil-doers in contrast to the righteous, that is, Israel (Ps. lvii. 5 [A. V.
4], lviii. 2 [A. V. 1]). It occurs most frequently, however, as a synonym
for "mankind," "the human race" (Ps. xc. 3, cvii. 8, cxv. 16, cxlv. 12); it
has this sense also in the passage in which wisdom is said to delight
with the "sons of men" (Prov. viii. 31). Job(xvi. 21) employs the
expression in the passionate plea for his rights while he is contending
against God and against his neighbors. But Bildad insists that the "son
of man," who is a mere worm, can not be justified with God (Job xxv.
4-6). In the same spirit the prophet (Isa. li. 12) censures Israel for being
afraid of "the son of man which shall be made as grass" when Yhwh is
their Comforter; but in Isa. lvi. 2-3 the Sabbath is extolled as making
the "son of man" (i.e., any man, regardless of birth) blessed; indeed,
God has His eyes "open upon all the ways of the sons of men: to give
every one according to his ways" (Jer. xxxii. 19).
In Ezekiel the term occurs in Yhwh's communications as the prevailing
form of address to the prophet (ii. 1; iii. 1, 4, 10, 17; iv. 1 et al.; in all
about 90 times). It has been held that it conveyed the special idea that a
wide chasm stood between God, the speaker, and the prophet so
addressed, but that it implied at the same time that Ezekiel was
considered to be the ideal man. This view must be abandoned as
unwarranted. The term "ben adam" is merely a cumbersome but solemn
and formal substitute for the personal pronoun, such substitution being
due, perhaps, to the influence of Assyro-Babylonian usage (see
Delitzsch, "Wörterbuch," s.v. "Amelu"; comp. "zir amiluti" in the
Babylonian myth concerning Adapa).
Similarly, in Aramaic, "son of man" is the usual designation for "man,"
and occurs in the inscriptions in Syriac, Mandaic, Talmudic, and other
dialects (see Nathanael Schmidt in Cheyne and Black, "Encyc. Bibl."
iv. 4707-4708). In Dan. vii. 13, the passage in which it occurs in
Biblical Aramaic, it certainly connotes a "human being." Many see a
Messianic significance in this verse, but in all probability the reference
is to an angel with a human appearance, perhaps Michael.
Among Jews the term "son of man" was not used as the specific title of
the Messiah. The New Testament expression ! "#$% &'( )*+,-.'/ is a
translation of the Aramaic "bar nasha," and as such could have been
understood only as the substitute for a personal pronoun, or as
emphasizing the human qualities of those to whom it is applied. That
the term does not appear in any of the epistles ascribed to Paul is
significant. Psalm viii. 5-7 is quoted in 0eb. ii. 6 as referring to Jesus,
but outside the Gospels, Acts vii. 56 is the only verse in the New
Testament in which the title is employed; and here it may be a free
translation of the Aramaic for "a man," or it may have been adopted
from Luke xxii. 69.
IN THE GOSPELS
In the Gospels the title occurs eighty-one times. Most of the recent
writers (among them being II. Lietzmann) have come to the conclusion
that Jesus, speaking Aramaic, could never have designated himself as
the "son of man" in a Messianic, mystic sense, because the Aramaic
term never implied this meaning. Greek translators coined the phrase,
which then led, under the influence of Dan. vii. 13 and the Logos
gospel, to the theological construction of the title which is basic to the
Christology of the Church. To this construction reference is made in
Abbahu's controversial saying in Ta'an. 65b. Indeed, examination of
many of the passages shows that in the mouth of Jesus the term was an
equivalent for the personal pronoun "I."
Philo’s reasoning
For God gave man such a perception “as should prove to him that God
exists, and not to show him what God is.” Philo believes that even the
existence of God “cannot possibly be contemplated by any other being;
because, in fact, it is not possible for God to be comprehended by any
being but himself ” (Praem. 39-40). Philo adds, “Only men who have
raised themselves upward from below, so as, through the contemplation
of his works, to form a conjectural conception of the Creator by a
probable train of reasoning” (Praem. 43) are holy, and are his servants.
Multiple Jesus
Jesus ben Sirach. This Jesus was reputedly the author of the
Book of Sirach (aka 'Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus
the Son of Sirach'), part of Old Testament Apocrypha. Ben
Sirach, writing in Greek about 180 BC, brought together
Jewish 'wisdom' and Homeric-style heroes. Jesus ben
Pandira. A wonder-worker during the reign of Alexander
Jannaeus (106-79 BC), one of the most ruthless of the
Maccabean kings. Imprudently, this Jesus launched into a
career of end-time prophesy and agitation which upset the
king. He met his own premature end-time by being hung on
a tree – and on the eve of a Passover. Scholars have
speculated this Jesus founded the Essene sect. Jesus ben
Ananias. Beginning in 62AD, this Jesus had caused disquiet
in Jerusalem with a non-stop doom-laden mantra of 'Woe to
the city'. He prophesied rather vaguely: "A voice from the
east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a
voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against
the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against the
whole people." – Josephus, Wars 6.3.Arrested and flogged by
the Romans, he was released as nothing more dangerous
than a mad man. He died during the siege of Jerusalem from
a rock hurled by a Roman catapult. Jesus ben Saphat. In the
insurrection of 68AD that wrought havoc in Galilee, this
Jesus had led the rebels in Tiberias. When the city was about
to fall to Vespasian's legionaries he fled north to Tarichea on
the Sea of Galilee. Jesus ben Gamala. During 68/69 AD this
Jesus was a leader of the 'peace party' in the civil war
wrecking Judaea. From the walls of Jerusalem he had
remonstrated with the besieging Idumeans (led by 'James
and John, sons of Susa'). It did him no good. When the
Idumeans breached the walls he was put to death and his
body thrown to the dogs and carrion birds. Jesus ben Stada
was a Judean agitator who gave the Romans a headache in
the early years of the second century. He met his end in the
town of Lydda (twenty five miles from Jerusalem) at the
hands of a Roman crucifixion crew. Jesus ben Thebuth. A
priest who, in the final capitulation of the upper city in
69AD, saved his own skin by surrendering the treasures of
the Temple, which included two holy candlesticks, goblets of
pure gold, sacred curtains and robes of the high priests. The
booty figured prominently in the Triumph held for
Vespasian and his son Titus.*

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->