Jesus is not the Son of Man

[neilgodfrey]

From a thread titled 'Son of Man': there is a difference b/w a son of man and 'the Son of Man' -

Interpretation of the use of "the Son of man" in the New Testament has remained challenging and after 150 years of debate no consensus on the issue has emerged among scholars.[1][2]

The expression "the Son of man" occurs 81 times in the Greek text of the four Canonical gospels, and is used only in the sayings of Jesus.[3]

Some of this argument was the target of Lester Grabbe's chapter; conclusions @ viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2976&start=20#p66755

[MrMacSon]

Some of this argument was the target of Lester Grabbe's chapter; conclusions @ viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2976&start=20#p66755

It's interesting that that excerpt you have quoted doesn't refer to the definitive article 'the Son of Man' which is what others have focused on.

[spin]

OK, Neil, since you insist on breaking Wheaton's law with such zeal, what besides your own poor rhetoric is my "agenda"?

The "agenda" to which I was specifically referring was the one you were setting out as a suggestion in the last couple of paragraphs of the comment of yours to which I was replying. Freudian slip on your part to assume I meant something less obvious?

If you seriously wanted a discussion with me then you could begin by cutting the insult and other various personal attack bollocks and sustaining that drought for more than just two comments in a row. I suspect you're too set in your aged ways to change by now, though.

I'll take that as a lack of interest in contributing to the topic of oral traditions at this juncture.

[neilgodfrey]

If you seriously wanted a discussion with me then you could begin by cutting the insult and other various personal attack bollocks and sustaining that drought for more than just two comments in a row. I suspect you're too set in your aged ways to change by now, though.

I'll take that as a lack of interest in contributing to the topic of oral traditions at this juncture.

LOL! I love you, spin. Who else (apart from Tim O'Neill) twists an insistence upon civility in exchanges as a "lack of interest" or whatever in a topic! But it takes all types to make a world.

Only you and Tim, in my experience, have bowed out of discussions because I have insisted on that intolerable condition of civility!

"If I can't be sarcastic and insulting then I will accuse you of being "not interested in topic X" or "too scared to take me on in debate"; if you expose my straw men and non-sequiturs in debate I'll accuse you of having a persecution complex".... and you wonder why I don't take your childishness seriously!!!!!

[neilgodfrey]

Some of this argument was the target of Lester Grabbe's chapter; conclusions @ viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2976&start=20#p66755

It's interesting that that excerpt you have quoted doesn't refer to the definitive article 'the Son of Man' which is what others have focused on.

Yes, guilty, sorry. I don't feel I have enough knowledge to contribute to the "article significance" discussion -- I have assumed it's not as important as we make it, but that's just my assumption based on the lack of attention to it that I have found in the literature. Of course I could well have missed significant work.

[MrMacSon]

I wasn't having a dig at you Neil. More just making note of the distinction between 'the Son of Man' vs 'a son of man' or 'son of man', and that that distinction may or may not have been made by Grabbe (which would probably be a major failing)

[spin]

If you seriously wanted a discussion with me then you could begin by cutting the insult and other various personal attack bollocks and sustaining that drought for more than just two comments in a row. I suspect you're too set in your aged ways to change by now, though.

I'll take that as a lack of interest in contributing to the topic of oral traditions at this juncture.

LOL! I love you, spin. Who else (apart from Tim O'Neill) twists an insistence upon civility in exchanges as a "lack of interest" or whatever in a topic!

I enjoyed your attempts at civility in this exchange when you talked of my "little ego game", my "habit of setting up and attacking straw men", or "acting like an intellectual snob or bully", or "Too manifestly ego driven".

[neilgodfrey]

I wasn't having a dig at you Neil. More just making note of the distinction between 'the Son of Man' vs 'a son of man' or 'son of man', and that that distinction may or may not have been made by Grabbe (which would probably be a major failing)

I didn't think you were having a dig at me. I'm just sorry I can't contribute to the specific question in a directly meaningful way.

[neilgodfrey]

I enjoyed your attempts at civility in this exchange when you talked of my "little ego game", my "habit of setting up and attacking straw men", or "acting like an intellectual snob or bully", or "Too manifestly ego driven".

You got it, spin. I'm not like Bernard who simply takes it all -- all your insulting language and tone, the sarcasm and insults -- without a murmur. He is truly the ultimate gentleman. I prefer to call out snobishness and bullying when I see it.

[spin]

I enjoyed your attempts at civility in this exchange when you talked of my "little ego game", my "habit of setting up and attacking straw men", or "acting like an intellectual snob or bully", or "Too manifestly ego driven".

You got it, spin. I'm not like Bernard who simply takes it all -- all your insulting language and tone, the sarcasm and insults -- without a murmur. He is truly the ultimate gentleman. I prefer to call out snobishness and bullying when I see it.

As civil as you started! Hypocrisy becomes you.