You say I'm grasping at straws.  I say you're denying reality and drunk on your wiki-power (blood of your Saint Contributors).  The disambiguation page is full of supporting examples of authors playing on the religious fears from the phrase while using its more literal meaning. For example: 
Books
 Jesus, the Son of Man, a 1928 book by Kahlil Gibran about the life of Jesus
 Hijo de hombre, a 1960 book by the Paraguayan author Augusto Roa Bastos
 Son of Man (novel), a 1971 science fiction novel by Robert Silverberg that explores humanity by musing about its manifestations millions of years into the future.
 The Son of Man (book), a 1998 nonfiction book by Andrew Harvey about the life of Jesus
 Son of Man, a 1979 novel by Yi Munyol
 Son of Man, a 2004 collection of Hellblazer 129-133
Film and television
 Son of Man (play), a 1969 television play by Dennis Potter
 Son of Man (1980 film), a 1980 film directed by Yu Hyun-mok, based upon the 1979 novel
 Son of Man (film), a 2005 South African film that debuted at the Sundance Film Festival
Music
 Sunz of Man, a Wu-Tang Clan affiliated rap group
 "Mab y Dyn" ("Son of Man"), a 1967 choral by Arwel Hughes
 "Son of Man", a 1975 chamber work by Philip Cannon, commissioned to mark Britain's entry into Europe
 "Son of Man" (song), written in 1999 by Phil Collins written for Disney's film Tarzan
 "Son of Man", a 2006 track on the 10cc album Greatest Hits ... And More
Art
 The Son of Man, a 1964 painting by René Magritte
So by pushing all those direct uses of the literal phrase onto an OBSCURE "dissambiguation" page you've successfully glorified your religion while denying the reality of popular culture.  You seem to feel good about it too - to me its a disgusting example of manipulated authorship.  And yea there's a lot of money in religion so its not a surprise either. 74.111.4.108