When did white people stop trusting experts on Hebrew (and learning from Kabbalah) that Jesus means 'man'? It would seem that reference entries to 'Jesus' stopped including the idea by the mid-eighteenth century. However there are isolated examples of commentaries and the like still referencing this idea:
(commenting on Exodus 15:3) And it will be no other than Jehovah-Jesus, the El Gibbor, " God the Mighty Man," who will thus suddenly appear as Israel's deliverer in the hour of their sorest need. (David Baron Zechariah-Commentary 1918 p. 87]
(commenting on Joshua 5:6) There stood a man (= ish). One in the appearance of a man, one whom Joshua at first took for a man. That he was a superhuman being, however, is evident from what follows; and there seems no good reason to dissent from the established opinion of both ancient and modern expositors that this was no other than the Son of God, the Eternal Word appearing in that form which he was afterwards to assume for the redemption of men. The reasons for this opinion are (i) the title which he here gives himself, “Captain of the host of the Lord,” which is but another form of the name, “Lord of hosts,” implying the ruler of all the heavenly hosts, and which is evidently the appropriate title of Jehovah-Jesus (George Bush Critical Commentary on Joshua 1838, 1840, 1844, 1878, 1881)
Thus the Lord Jesus is a Man of War, Exod. xv. 3. And appears majestic in his warlike Dress, being clothed in a Vesture dipt in Blood, and his Name is called, The Word of God ; for he accomplishes the Will of God. And he hath on his Vesture, [Cave An epistle to the inhabitants of Gillingham 1781 p. 32]
But if it be improper for us to call God a man, what authority had Moses to call him a man; saying, The LORD is a MAN of war. Exod. xv. 3. We also read that when Jacob was about to pass over the brook Jabbock, “there wrestled a man with him until the break of day;”-and he says “I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” Gen. xxxii. 24.30.) etc [Pilkington, An investigation of "Unitarian remarks on a compliance 1824 p. 38]
Ignoring the fact that I am impulsive and have a habit of reacting or making arguments impulsively the argument might be expressed more soberly like this.
1. In early Jewish/Hebrew sources there is an acceptance that God appeared as a man.
2. Samaritanism developed a tendency to mask 'anthropomorphism' in the third - fourth century because of the implications of (1)
3. (1) and (2) can be argued to derive from a monarchian imposition placed on all religions in the Empire in the third and fourth centuries as the Empire was disintegrating.
4. the preference for interpretation or revaluing or redefining the nomen sacrum IS in terms of or as an abbreviation (now embedded in the surviving manuscripts from the third - fourth centuries) rather than as (1)
I hope that helps. In short, 'white men' (= the Imperial government based in Rome) for their own security and longevity basically forced all religions to be monarchian/monotheistic so as to reshape them in to Emperor worship as much as possible. I tend to speak in terms of 'white' this or that not because I am trying to pretentious (I might be) or 'woke' but because of my background and my job. I happen to be aware of European culture imposing itself on foreign (non-European) culture. Sometime it sounds 'woke' but I don't mean to be. I am saying that European governments weren't interested in preserving 'authentic' religious traditions as much as they were reshaping them for continued hegemony over subjected peoples.
