Mark 2nd chapter beginning at the 25th verse
Jesus replied, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need?
During the high priesthood of Abiathar, David entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread which was lawful only for the priests. He gave some to his companions as well.”
Then Jesus declared, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
Therefore, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
Jesus says this in response to Mark 2: 23-24 (his disciples picked the heads of grain on the Sabbath).
1) David and his companions can eat what is considered sacred. The Sabbath is made for man.
2) The Son of Man and his companions can do as they need on the Sabbath.
3) Referencing what David did, the Son of Man can do as priests do.
Conclusion: Well, who did something at that present time? Answer: Jesus’s disciples. Jesus, as their leader, defended them, practically saying, I stand in the position of the Son of Man; and as David did what a priest could do, I also can do what a priest can do.
Luke 5th chapter, beginning at the 20th verse
When Jesus saw their faith, He said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.”
But the scribes and Pharisees began thinking to themselves, “Who is this man who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
Knowing what they were thinking, Jesus replied, “Why are you thinking these things in your hearts?
Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say ‘Get up and walk?’
But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on the earth to forgive sins…” He said to the paralytic, “I tell you, get up, pick up your mat, and go home.”
Conclusion: Jesus did both: forgave sins and healed a paralytic to drive home the point that He was the Son of Man.
“And you will see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God” is Jesus and Stephen saying, although you have captured me on earth, I will ascend from earth and my place will be at the right hand of God. Go on. Condemn yourself by condemning a divinity.
And of course, they tore their clothes not only for the perceived blasphemy but also for the possibility of self-condemnation.
From John 5: 25-27
God has granted the Son authority to execute judgment because God’s son IS the Son of Man.
Conclusion: Jesus was a composite character of historical fiction representing the archangel / Logos / high priest / Chosen/Elect One / the Son of Man and Son of God that lived on earth as a son of man (ironic since Mary was not touched by a man) then ascended back to heaven after he died and resurrected.
With 1 Enoch dating to the first century, when we read of Jesus claiming to be the Son of Man, we must know how that was received by his contemporaries who if they did not know 1 Enoch and the discussions around 1 Enoch, would know what Jesus was fully saying. Even if they did not know 1 Enoch, it was apparent that Jesus was using Daniel’s like a son of man and elevating it to a celestial title that he fulfilled.
Note: the Biblical Jesus’ use of Son of Man as a title did not leave an impression, therefore, the biblical Jesus of the late 20s/early 30s likely did not exist. That would have been a component of the blasphemy for which he was crucified.
The author of 4 Ezra (3:1) dates the work at around ad 100, too late to influence Jesus’ extensive use of the phrase. It seems that the phrase, ‘Son of man’ was not well known or used in any titular way in early Judaism to indicate a heavenly redeemer figure (Leivestad 1972:243-267).
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Argumentation Specialist
But for the use of Son of Man as a title, one does not have to wait for 4 Ezra which dates after 1 Enoch and likely after 2 Enoch.
Robert said
Steefen said
Argumentation Specialist
But for the use of Son of Man as a title, one does not have to wait for 4 Ezra which dates after 1 Enoch and likely after 2 Enoch.
It seems like you are assuming that “Son of Man” is used as a formal title in the Parables of Enoch. It’s not. (Beware of some English translations.) That’s why Bart allows for the possibility that it may have been Jesus himself who first used this as a kind of title. But note also that Bart, following Bultmann, does not believe that the historical Jesus was referring to himself as the Son of Man. This is despite the fact that the Jesus of the gospels does refer to himself as the Son of Man.
What alternative translation of “Son of Man” would you like to put forward that is not a title?
Above, I was not talking about 1 Enoch, the post shows 4 Ezra. The 4 Ezra link says Son of Man picked up the meaning of Heavenly Redeemer.
So, while you provide an alternative translation showing Enoch was not Son of Man in 1 Enoch, provide an alternative translation showing Son of Man was not a title in 4 Ezra also which picked up the meaning of Heavenly Redeemer.
If you are talking about Jesus of the late 20s/early 30s being the first to use the term as a title, I will only allow “as appearing in the gospels, written after the Jewish Revolt began if not after the Jewish Revolt ended.”
Bultmann and Ehrman are not persuasive. (continued in next post)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
So the Son of Man is Lord, even over the Sabbath!”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Therefore, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
So then, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
So the Son of Man is Lord, even of the Sabbath.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
“So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
“Consequently, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath [and He has authority over it].”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
So then, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Therefore, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
so that the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
“Therefore The Son of Man is also master of the Sabbath.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
So the Son of Man is Lord over the Sabbath.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Therefore the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath also.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
so that the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
For this reason the Son of Man has authority over the day of worship.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Therefore, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
so that the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
For this reason the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Therefore the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
so that the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Therefore the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
so that the son of man is lord also of the sabbath.’
= = =
Argumentation Specialist
The Son of Man is a title for one who is lord of the Sabbath.
Bultmann and Ehrman are not persuasive because the Son of Man is the Chosen/the Elect One who judges and the judge may choose not to hold something against the one being judged: the judge may forgive a sin or debt. Jesus forgave the sins of the paralytic: de facto Son of Man / Chosen/the Elect One to whom God delegated judgment of humans.
Robert, Did Bultmann and Ehrman say along with “[We] disagree with what the gospels say: the historical Jesus was not the Son of Man, there is only a third person Son of Man”–along with that, Jesus did not forgive the sins of the paralytic which made him Son of Man de facto?
Neither Bultmann nor Ehrman are convincing unless they remove from the gospels Jesus forgiving the sins of the paralytic.
Robert
The alternative translation of Son of Man is almost always ‘this’ or ‘that son of man’, ie, ‘this’ or ‘that human figure’. Enoch himself can be addressed as ‘son of man’ (61,10) as is Ezekiel very frequently.
Steefen
1 Enoch 71, verse 5-17
5. And he translated my spirit into the heaven of heavens, And I saw there as it were a structure built of crystals, And between those crystals tongues of living fire.
(** you do not have permission to see this link **)
(** you do not have permission to see this link **) “10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, 11 having the glory of God. Her light was like a most precious stone, like a jasper stone, clear as crystal.”
(** you do not have permission to see this link **) “3 Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them.”
= = =
7. And round about were Seraphin, Cherubic, and Ophannin: And these are they who sleep not And guard the throne of His glory.
(** you do not have permission to see this link **)
8. And I saw angels who could not be counted, A thousand thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand, Encircling that house. And Michael, and Raphael, and Gabriel, and Phanuel, And the holy angels who are above the heavens, Go in and out of that house.
(** you do not have permission to see this link **)
10. And with them the Head of Days, His head white and pure as wool, And His raiment indescribable.
(** you do not have permission to see this link **)
14. And he (i.e. the angel) came to me and greeted me with His voice, and said unto me ‘ This is the Son of Man who is born unto righteousness, And righteousness abides over him, And the righteousness of the Head of Days forsakes him not.’
(** you do not have permission to see this link **), (The Book of Enoch 62:1-2)
16. And all shall walk in his ways since righteousness never forsaketh him: With him will be their dwelling-places, and with him their heritage, And they shall not be separated from him for ever and ever and ever.
(** you do not have permission to see this link **)
17. And so there shall be length of days with that Son of Man, And the righteous shall have peace and an upright way In the name of the Lord of Spirits for ever and ever.’
(** you do not have permission to see this link **)
= = =
Verse 14 “This is the Son of Man who is born unto righteousness…”
Verse 17 “And so there shall be length of days with that Son of Man…”
I am not going to quibble over “title” versus one specific human in 1 Enoch who did rise in rank. The difference between having a title and rising in rank is moot. Your counter claim is rejected. Read what happens to Enoch, rising.
Second, what translation of 1 Enoch and 2 Enoch are you suggesting, anyway.
Robert
I think Bultmann and Ehrman are persuasive. The biblical Jesus certainly used the term but the historical Jesus did not.
Steefen
The historical Jesus did not consider himself the Chosen/Elect One who would judge humans (forgive them or not forgive them) because why?
Because, once he knew he would be killed, the first person Son of Man / Chosen/Elect One would be killed, therefore there must be someone else to fill the role?
The only one (Son of Man) following the tribulation of AD70 was Vespasian and Titus, kingdom rulers of a glorious empire.
Jesus was not the Son of Man because when he realized he would be killed he couldn’t be the Son of Man.
There must be only one Son of Man, not one who dies followed by another.
Well, Enoch was the Son of Man (one who rose in rank, if not title–a ridiculous assertion), then Jesus usurped Enoch. So, there already had been more than one Son of Man.
That line of reasoning against Jesus being the Son of Man would not be persuasive. So, come back with something better than that.
Robert
Bultmann and Ehrman are talking about the the historical Jesus, not Jesus as portrayed in the gospels, which were written later.
Steefen
For the sake of discussion, there is the historical Jesus, there is the non-historical Jesus, and there is the partially historical Jesus.
Since I used the term Biblical Jesus:
The Biblical Jesus is the partially historical Jesus because so much of the Biblical Jesus has been rejected.
There is no historical Jesus. It makes absolutely no feasible sense to say Bultmann and Ehrman are talking about an historical Jesus because what you get is the Biblical Jesus minus subjective items officially listed nowhere.
Robert
Bart allows for the possibility that it may have been Jesus himself who first used this as a kind of title.
1 Enoch 71 questions that possibility
Verse 14 “This is the Son of Man who is born unto righteousness…”
Verse 17 “And so there shall be length of days with that Son of Man…”
Robert
Enoch himself can be addressed as ‘son of man’ (61,10)
Steefen
Here is 1 Enoch 61: 10
10. And he will call all the Host of the Heavens and all the Holy Ones above, and the Host of the Lord, the Cherubim, and the Seraphim, and the Ophannim, and all the Angels of Power, and all the Angels of the Principalities, and the Chosen One, and the other host that is upon the dry ground, and over the water, on that Day.
Above is 1 Enoch 71: 14 and 17 where “Son of Man” is not “son of man.”
So, you have not made your point because the item you want us to see is not at 1 Enoch 61: 10. Perhaps, you can provide your preferred publication of 1 Enoch.
Second, proposing David/Jesus is not the Son of Man but Humanity is the Son of Man is erroneous.
All of humanity is not interchangeable with David/Jesus because all of humanity does not have the personal relationships the Biblical David and the Biblical Jesus had with the Hebrew God. Mark 2:28 (Therefore, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.) cannot be corrupted that way.
Your contribution simply says what Mark 2: 27 says (The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath OR The Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath).
It makes absolutely no feasible sense to say Bultmann and Ehrman are talking about an historical Jesus because what you get is the Biblical Jesus minus subjective items officially listed nowhere.
Perhaps if you read more New Testament scholarship, you might be able to understand that these discussions certainly do make sense.
Steefen
Not persuasive. Scholars need to publish their version of the historical Jesus. The Jesus Seminar subtracted what in their scholarly opinion they thought Jesus said. Scholars need to go beyond what Jesus said and didn’t say to what Jesus did and did not do.
Let’s see how far scholars get with an historical Jesus who wasn’t taken down from the cross but left there to be eaten by dogs and rot–which cancels the Jesus tomb verses and the empty tomb verses in a three-day period.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)