Son of man.

[Bernard Muller]

Ben,

If Christians took my passages out of context, something is wrong; if they took your passages out of context, all is right with the world??

I already explained why "coming with the clouds of heaven" is out of context. I made that point to show that "Mark" did not borrow the phrase as an endorsement of Daniel 7:13, but something to complement his imagery for a passage likely borrowed from 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17.

If Christians took my passages out of context, something is wrong; if they took your passages out of context, all is right with the world??

I do not recall blaming you for claiming Christians took passages from the OT out of context.
Early Christians taking passages from the OT out of context is most common, probably the rule rather than the exception.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

About cut & paste from the OT, it is obvious, but it is only about a few small phrases (of little importance) which are included in the Christian texts. .... What you call connections are short bits of OT texts inserted in Christians writings. That's not connections for me.

When an NT author includes bits of two different OT texts in the same verse — the same phrase, even — that is making a connection by definition.

And for the most obvious connection, Hebrews 2:6-9 which connects Jesus as the "son of man" by using Psalm 8:4-6, you denied it.

I did no such thing. Jesus is obviously the one meant by "son of man" in the Hebrews passage. What I questioned (not denied) was whether the author of Hebrews was treating "son of man" as a title for Jesus. Heck, I even said your hypothesis (as best I understood it) was possible. How do you get from that to "denied"?

I never said they did, just there is a high probability. I did not pretend that Christianity started by people reading some Psalms (these Psalms were only for strengthening/justifying their initial beliefs, and at the same time, from them, (and possibly Daniel 7:13-14) adopting Jesus as the Son of Man. These beliefs started as explained in http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html.

I have not been talking about the origins of Christianity itself in any of this. I have been talking about the origins of the title, Son of Man, as it is applied to Jesus. My arguments and suggestions have, in fact, been intentionally kept clear of arguments that assume that Jesus either existed or did not, except where such information might be absolutely necessary to tracing the development.

However, you suggested that Christianity started from Daniel 7:13-14, without any existence of Jesus.

What???

I do not recall blaming you for claiming Christians took passages from the OT out of context.

Well, you did.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

When an NT author includes bits of two different OT texts in the same verse — the same phrase, even — that is making a connection by definition.

I showed that, in your examples, the NT authors very likely included only one tidbit of OT in an already written (by someone else) Christian passage.

I did no such thing. Jesus is obviously the one meant by "son of man" in the Hebrews passage. What I questioned (not denied) was whether the author of Hebrews was treating "son of man" as a title for Jesus. Heck, I even said your hypothesis (as best I understood it) was possible. How do you get from that to "denied"?

You wrote: "That is why I do not think that "son of man" is being used as a title for Jesus here. The author is saying that Jesus is somehow in view in this verse, but it is not by virtue of his being entitled as the Son of Man, any more than it is by virtue of his being entitled as Man."
And I never said that author originated Jesus with the title of "Son of Man": see
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2580#p57965

I have not been talking about the origins of Christianity itself in any of this. I have been talking about the origins of the title, Son of Man, as it is applied to Jesus. My arguments and suggestions have, in fact, been intentionally kept clear of arguments that assume that Jesus either existed or did not, except where such information might be absolutely necessary to tracing the development.

Well, we differ on that. The origin of Christianity (according to http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html) is important for me about explaining why Jesus got the title of "Son of Man" some time after his death.
Your point 5 "This usage takes on a life of its own to where "the son of man" now = the apocalyptic figure who receives the kingdom of God." does suggest that Jesus, as "the apocalyptic figure who receives the kingdom of God", started from that title "Son of Man" taken from Daniel 7.

However, you suggested that Christianity started from Daniel 7:13-14, without any existence of Jesus.
What???

Certainly your points 1& 2 do not mention Jesus' existence. But I know you carefully crafted your OP points in order not to mention the existence or non-existence of Jesus. But if Jesus did not exist, then it looks in your OP that one of the main belief of Christianity started with Daniel 7 and from that this heavenly "Son of Man' somehow also became a (fictional) man.
That's the impression you gave me.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,

When an NT author includes bits of two different OT texts in the same verse — the same phrase, even — that is making a connection by definition.

I showed that, in your examples, the NT authors very likely included only one tidbit of OT in an already written (by someone else) Christian passage.

I do not even know what this sentence means. It sounds like you are saying that passages such as Revelation 1.7, Didache 16.6-8, and Mark 13.26 were already written by somebody else before those three authors got hold of them. Is that what you are saying? If so, what is your point?

I did no such thing. Jesus is obviously the one meant by "son of man" in the Hebrews passage. What I questioned (not denied) was whether the author of Hebrews was treating "son of man" as a title for Jesus. Heck, I even said your hypothesis (as best I understood it) was possible. How do you get from that to "denied"?

You wrote: "That is why I do not think that "son of man" is being used as a title for Jesus here. The author is saying that Jesus is somehow in view in this verse, but it is not by virtue of his being entitled as the Son of Man, any more than it is by virtue of his being entitled as Man."

Yes, I initially wrote that I do not think "son of man" is being used as a title here. You later expanded your interpretation of the verses, and I wrote, "Your view is possible. I do not see how it is more likely than any other." Did you miss that post of mine? So I currently do not deny that "son of man" can possibly be thought of as a title in Hebrews. I just do not see much beyond the possibility.

And I never said that author originated Jesus with the title of "Son of Man": see
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2580#p57965

Okay, since I am obviously incapable of understanding you correctly, please tell me how you think Jesus came to receive the title Son of Man. I think it is clear that you think he never called himself by that title. So it must have been early Christians. Please tell me what you think led them to do that, as clearly and as cogently as possible. I have read your bit about the "son of man" verses in the Psalms, but again, I do not find actual Christian texts making those same connections.

I know you think it has to do with the fact that Jesus was known to have been a real human being, and that is fine; include that in the mix, if you wish. But just be aware that this is completely insufficient as an explanation for it being given to him as a title. JFK is known to have been a real human being, but nobody goes around calling him Mr. Human or the like.

Your point 5 "This usage takes on a life of its own to where "the son of man" now = the apocalyptic figure who receives the kingdom of God." does suggest that Jesus, as "the apocalyptic figure who receives the kingdom of God", started from that title "Son of Man" taken from Daniel 7.

No, other way around. I think it was thought that Jesus would return to earth in messianic power, and then the title was applied to him from Daniel 7.13. My position is not (necessarily) that Christianity itself originated from Daniel, but that the idea for calling Jesus the Son of Man came from Daniel 7.13.

You mentioned that Daniel 7.13 is more appropriate for the ascension, and I do not disagree; in fact, I suspect the connection started out as a statement that Jesus is vindicated, currently enthroned in heaven. But at some point early Christians definitely thought of Daniel 7.13 in terms of his return, too, which makes some sort of sense on its own merits. Acts 1.8 even spells it out for us: "This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched him go into heaven."

But if Jesus did not exist, then it looks in your OP that one of the main belief of Christianity started with Daniel 7 and from that this heavenly "Son of Man' somehow also became a (fictional) man.
That's the impression you gave me.

I have no idea how my words could have given you such an impression, since the existence or nonexistence of Jesus was not the topic at all when I wrote the OP, unless you are incapable of debating people online without seeing the spirits of Doherty and Carrier hovering over their shoulder at every turn.

Ben.

[Ben C. Smith]

Jewish Scriptures

Daniel 7.13-14:

13 “I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven one like a Son of Man was coming, and He came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him. 14 “And to Him was given dominion, glory and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations and men of every language might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which will not pass away; and His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed.”

Isaiah 19.1:

19 The oracle concerning Egypt. Behold, the Lord is riding on a swift cloud and is about to come to Egypt; the idols of Egypt will tremble at His presence, and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them.

Zechariah 12.10:

10 “I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.”

Zechariah 14.4-5:

4 In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south. 5 You will flee by the valley of My mountains, for the valley of the mountains will reach to Azel; yes, you will flee just as you fled before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the Lord, my God, will come, and all the holy ones with Him!

Christian Texts

Didache 16.6-8:

6 And then shall appear the signs of the truth: first, the sign of an outspreading in heaven, then the sign of the sound of the trumpet. And third, the resurrection of the dead -- 7 yet not of all, but as it is said: “The Lord shall come and all His saints with Him.” 8 Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven.

Mark 13.26-27:

26 “Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven.”

Matthew 24.30-31:

30 “And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. 31 And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.”

Acts 1.9-11:

9 And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. 11 They also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”

Revelation 1.7:

7 Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.

[Michael BG]

... You are saying that Christians saw Jesus as the son of man because the son of man is in Daniel*. I think this is highly improbable. There has to be a reason why they saw Jesus as the son of man. I mean they must have seen a characteristic of the son of man in Jesus. That characteristic I think is, that Jesus after his resurrection is a heavenly figure just like the son of man. I think it is important to be clear in what is being said.

* "the son of man" is not in Daniel.

Daniel 7:13-14 has "one like a son of man"

Thanks I do know that Daniel is translated as “one like a son of man” even if it only has “כבר אנש”, which I think does not have “one” but might include “like” and “a”.

BTW, I do not think the Greek in Da 7:13 has "one like the son of man" but rather "one like a son of man"

The Septuagina has ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου - like a-son of-man.
Revelation has ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου - like a-son of-man.
Luke 12:8 has ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου - the son of-the man.

Your point 5 "This usage takes on a life of its own to where "the son of man" now = the apocalyptic figure who receives the kingdom of God." does suggest that Jesus, as "the apocalyptic figure who receives the kingdom of God", started from that title "Son of Man" taken from Daniel 7.

No, other way around. I think it was thought that Jesus would return to earth in messianic power, and then the title was applied to him from Daniel 7.13. My position is not (necessarily) that Christianity itself originated from Daniel, but that the idea for calling Jesus the Son of Man came from Daniel 7.13.

You mentioned that Daniel 7.13 is more appropriate for the ascension, and I do not disagree; in fact, I suspect the connection started out as a statement that Jesus is vindicated, currently enthroned in heaven. But at some point early Christians definitely thought of Daniel 7.13 in terms of his return, too, which makes some sort of sense on its own merits. Acts 1.8 even spells it out for us: "This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched him go into heaven."

I think your first paragraph here is contradicted by your second. You seem in your second paragraph to be agreeing with me, that once Christians “saw” Jesus vindicated and in heaven they equated him with “son of man” in Daniel. It is the next step where we differ, as I think it probable that Jesus spoke of a coming son of man figure to sit in judgment and once early Christians had equated Jesus with the son of man in heaven he also takes on the functions of the son of man as stated by Jesus – coming to earth and sitting in judgment.

(I think your reference – Acts 1:8 is incorrect. Do you mean 1:11 “and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven”? I think this is a Lucan creation. If behind Acts 2:22-36 there is a very early Kerygma then such a role is missing [“the Lord” in Acts 2:20-21 might well still mean God and not Jesus].)

Should these be added to your list Ben?

Joel 2:28-32

[28] "And it shall come to pass afterward,
that I will pour out my spirit on all flesh;
your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
your old men shall dream dreams,
and your young men shall see visions.
[29] Even upon the menservants and maidservants
in those days, I will pour out my spirit.
[30]"And I will give portents in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and columns of smoke.
[31] The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the great and terrible day of the LORD comes.
[32] And it shall come to pass that all who call upon the name of the LORD shall be delivered; for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls.

And Acts 2:17-21

[17] `And in the last days it shall be, God declares,
that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh,
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams;
[18] yea, and on my menservants and my maidservants in those days
I will pour out my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.
[19] And I will show wonders in the heaven above
and signs on the earth beneath,
blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke;
[20] the sun shall be turned into darkness
and the moon into blood,
before the day of the Lord comes,
the great and manifest day.
[21] And it shall be that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall
be saved.'

[Ben C. Smith]

I think your first paragraph here is contradicted by your second. You seem in your second paragraph to be agreeing with me, that once Christians “saw” Jesus vindicated and in heaven they equated him with “son of man” in Daniel.

It may appear from your point of view to be a contradiction, but you have to remember that my primary point has nothing to do with the exact content of the connection between Jesus and Daniel 7.13. All I am saying is that "a son of man" may well have become "the son of man" when Christians began referring to the figure in Daniel, just as "a leopard" often becomes "the leopard" when modern exegetes refer to the kingdom a few verses earlier.

For you, this process may have already started with Jesus himself, speaking about some other person as if he were the figure in Daniel 7.13, right? But it would be much the same linguistic process, would it not? An indefinite noun becomes definite when people are referring to its presence in a text. (A character whom a novelist refers to as "a woman in a yellow hat" may well become "the woman in the yellow hat" when readers start talking about the character.)

It is the next step where we differ, as I think it probable that Jesus spoke of a coming son of man figure to sit in judgment and once early Christians had equated Jesus with the son of man in heaven he also takes on the functions of the son of man as stated by Jesus – coming to earth and sitting in judgment.

I laid out in a recent post the exact Christian connections made between 3 or 4 scriptural texts: that Christians connected Zechariah 12.10 to Daniel 7.13, for example, is no idle hypothesis; we actually possess a Christian text which does exactly that. So do you have evidence of this kind for your proposition that the heavenly "son of man" figure took on other functions which Jesus himself had attributed to him? Are there texts in which this reasonably appears to be the best reconstruction of what is happening behind the scenes, as it were?

(I think your reference – Acts 1:8 is incorrect. Do you mean 1:11 “and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven”? I think this is a Lucan creation. If behind Acts 2:22-36 there is a very early Kerygma then such a role is missing [“the Lord” in Acts 2:20-21 might well still mean God and not Jesus].)

Yes, I listed the wrong verse. Acts 1.11 is the one I meant.

I imagine it is a Lucan creation, as well, but the point is that a past ascent to heaven, a current enthronement in heaven, and a future descent from heaven are all easily connected. It could have happened, and Acts 1.11 is proof that it did happen.

Should these be added to your list Ben?

Joel 2:28-32

[28] "And it shall come to pass afterward,
that I will pour out my spirit on all flesh;
your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
your old men shall dream dreams,
and your young men shall see visions.
[29] Even upon the menservants and maidservants
in those days, I will pour out my spirit.
[30]"And I will give portents in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and columns of smoke.
[31] The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the great and terrible day of the LORD comes.
[32] And it shall come to pass that all who call upon the name of the LORD shall be delivered; for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls.

And Acts 2:17-21

[17] `And in the last days it shall be, God declares,
that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh,
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams;
[18] yea, and on my menservants and my maidservants in those days
I will pour out my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.
[19] And I will show wonders in the heaven above
and signs on the earth beneath,
blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke;
[20] the sun shall be turned into darkness
and the moon into blood,
before the day of the Lord comes,
the great and manifest day.
[21] And it shall be that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall
be saved.'

Maybe, but I am not sure it helps to clarify the origins of the title, Son of Man.

Ben.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

I do not even know what this sentence means. It sounds like you are saying that passages such as Revelation 1.7, Didache 16.6-8, and Mark 13.26 were already written by somebody else before those three authors got hold of them. Is that what you are saying? If so, what is your point?

I said that in the Christian passages you showed, for each one, only one bit of OT was included. The rest of the passage was written with knowledge of a Christian text written earlier.
So there is no connection of two or more OT bits in these Christian passages.
BTW, about "connections": even if a Christian author includes two or more OT bits in a verse or consecutive verses, that does not mean he is endorsing the verses from which he draws these OT bits. Most likely, he is doing that cut & paste to get something that the OT authors of the verses in question never wanted to mean.

I just do not see much beyond the possibility.

I take that as a 90% denial.

Okay, since I am obviously incapable of understanding you correctly, please tell me how you think Jesus came to receive the title Son of Man. I think it is clear that you think he never called himself by that title. So it must have been early Christians. Please tell me what you think led them to do that, as clearly and as cogently as possible. I have read your bit about the "son of man" verses in the Psalms, but again, I do not find actual Christian texts making those same connections.

I explained that already: the Psalms (8:4-8 (as used in Hebrews), 80:17-19 + 110:1-2,5-6), Daniel 7:13-14, and that Jesus was crucified as King of the Jews, believed saved in heaven close to God & coming back soon as the ultimate King.
Some or all of that led to "the Son of Man" in Mark 13:26 (and in 9 previous verses, starting at 2:10). Can we know exactly? I do not think we can.

You mentioned that Daniel 7.13 is more appropriate for the ascension, and I do not disagree; in fact, I suspect the connection started out as a statement that Jesus is vindicated, currently enthroned in heaven. But at some point early Christians definitely thought of Daniel 7.13 in terms of his return, too, which makes some sort of sense on its own merits. Acts 1.8 even spells it out for us: "This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched him go into heaven."

I respect your thought but this is just a suspicion. I see the bit from Daniel 7:13 as embellishment of a passage that "Mark" took from 1 Thessalonians. As for "the Son of Man", Mark used that for Jesus many times before (it is not a first).

I want to add: at first, in my website, I wanted to put Daniel 7:13-14 front & center for the "the Son of Man" in gMark.
But there is Hebrews 2, showing that "Son of Man" for Jesus, as an exceptional entity & ultimate future ruler of everything, was used well before gMark was written. Furthermore, from several authors, I read that the book of Daniel was not widely accepted at the beginning of the 1st century, but after 70 AD, it was because believed to prophecy Jerusalem destruction by the Romans (therefore part of God's plan: don't worry, God is still there and in control! ).
Certainly, Christian texts prior to 70 AD do not mention 'Daniel" but gMark alludes to it.

Cordially, Bernard

[Michael BG]

I think your first paragraph here is contradicted by your second. You seem in your second paragraph to be agreeing with me, that once Christians “saw” Jesus vindicated and in heaven they equated him with “son of man” in Daniel.

It may appear from your point of view to be a contradiction, but you have to remember that my primary point has nothing to do with the exact content of the connection between Jesus and Daniel 7.13. All I am saying is that "a son of man" may well have become "the son of man" when Christians began referring to the figure in Daniel, just as "a leopard" often becomes "the leopard" when modern exegetes refer to the kingdom a few verses earlier.

For you, this process may have already started with Jesus himself, speaking about some other person as if he were the figure in Daniel 7.13, right? But it would be much the same linguistic process, would it not? An indefinite noun becomes definite when people are referring to its presence in a text. (A character whom a novelist refers to as "a woman in a yellow hat" may well become "the woman in the yellow hat" when readers start talking about the character.)

I can agree that a conversation could go:
“Look a bird!”
“The bird is using the birdbath.”
It is possible that it was first century Jews and Jesus who first referred to the heavenly being like a son of man as “the son of man” and not Christians. How far away is “that son of man” of the Similitudes of Enoch from “the son of man”?

It is the next step where we differ, as I think it probable that Jesus spoke of a coming son of man figure to sit in judgment and once early Christians had equated Jesus with the son of man in heaven he also takes on the functions of the son of man as stated by Jesus – coming to earth and sitting in judgment.

I laid out in a recent post the exact Christian connections made between 3 or 4 scriptural texts: that Christians connected Zechariah 12.10 to Daniel 7.13, for example, is no idle hypothesis; we actually possess a Christian text which does exactly that.

I do not understand how Christians quoting from Zechariah 12.10 and Daniel 7.13 together would counter my position. If we accept that Jesus spoke of a coming end of time event and linked this to the son of man, it makes perfect sense to me that a Christian author would link Old Testament texts that refer to the coming of God such as Joel 2:28-32 or Zechariah 14.4-5 to Daniel 7:13-14.

So do you have evidence of this kind for your proposition that the heavenly "son of man" figure took on other functions which Jesus himself had attributed to him? Are there texts in which this reasonably appears to be the best reconstruction of what is happening behind the scenes, as it were?

Of course there are gospel texts which have Jesus speak of “a coming son of man” and “a son of man having a judging role”. Are you really asking for these texts?

I imagine it is a Lucan creation, as well, but the point is that a past ascent to heaven, a current enthronement in heaven, and a future descent from heaven are all easily connected. It could have happened, and Acts 1.11 is proof that it did happen.

I don’t think I am denying that and I certainly would not deny that by 100 CE lots of Christians believed that Jesus Christ would descend from heaven in the future. What I am saying is that it was a Christian later creation and does not go back to Jesus.

I think we might be disagreeing on which came first the chicken or the egg.

[Ben C. Smith]

How far away is “that son of man” of the Similitudes of Enoch from “the son of man”?

Not sure, to be honest.

I laid out in a recent post the exact Christian connections made between 3 or 4 scriptural texts: that Christians connected Zechariah 12.10 to Daniel 7.13, for example, is no idle hypothesis; we actually possess a Christian text which does exactly that.

I do not understand how Christians quoting from Zechariah 12.10 and Daniel 7.13 together would counter my position.

It does not counter your position; that is not what I was doing. I was demonstrating the kind of evidence I like to see for propositions that such-and-such happened or did not happen in early Christianity. You seem to be claiming that Jesus uttered certain "son of man" sayings. On this very thread, just as one example, Bernard denies that Jesus ever did so. (And, even if he did not, it is certainly denied by some.) So I am asking you for your evidence that Jesus himself uttered certain "son of man" sayings. Which ones did he utter? And what makes you think he uttered them?

If we accept that Jesus spoke of a coming end of time event and linked this to the son of man....

I do not accept that without evidence. I am not saying it is not true; I am frankly not sure either way, and want to know why you think it is true.

Of course there are gospel texts which have Jesus speak of “a coming son of man” and “a son of man having a judging role”. Are you really asking for these texts?

No, I can read. What I am asking for is which sayings, in your judgment, are most likely to actually go back to Jesus, and why you think they do. The text saying that Jesus said something does not make it so, since we all agree that sayings were artificially put on Jesus' lips.

I don’t think I am denying that and I certainly would not deny that by 100 CE lots of Christians believed that Jesus Christ would descend from heaven in the future. What I am saying is that it was a Christian later creation and does not go back to Jesus.

I think we might be disagreeing on which came first the chicken or the egg.

I think what we are disagreeing on is what we are trying to demonstrate. Your points often seem to have the assumption lurking behind them that Jesus actually said some of the "son of man" sayings. I just want you to defend that assumption before I can adopt it as my own in my reconstruction of how "son of man" became a title.

Ben.