Talk:Son of man

message: As the "Refimprove" notice at the top of the main page indicates, this whole page lacks sourcing while resisting the literal, si-fi, people, literature, and other uses of the phrase.  The easy solution is to renamed to have "(religious)" appended, and remove the suffix of "dissambiguation" from the sister-page Son of man (disambiguation).
Sadly, per the dialog on this page it looks like the wiki-page owners have an ax to grind here - maybe there's sponsorship from the WikiProject Christianity PAYING for favorable content. 74.111.4.108 (talk) 05:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I added another instance of the phrase "son of man" being used in the synoptic gospels. I did my best to be fair to both the Christian POV and the naive reading of the passage (if I can use "naive" as a neutral adjective). The last time I tried adding this passage, it was reverted, so I hope I got it right this time. Jonathan Tweet 02:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord of the sabbath 

message: Wouldn't it be fair for the introduction to this page to mention the use of "Son of Man" as an epithet for Jesus? After all, I think that's why this page is so extensive. It's not like everyone's really interested in Near Eastern idioms. Or am I way off base? Jonathan Tweet 02:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, you're not way off base. However, we -do- have a section about Christian theology and the implications of the "Son of Man" (note caps :-) ). The article is primarily about the ancient idiom, and there are tomes of scholarly research on that subject, tracing it's use from Ancient Mesopotamia on down the lines. אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 13:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added something simple and noncontroversial to the introduction. Jonathan Tweet 15:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 15:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: I added another instance of "son of man" in the synoptics, this one clearly refering to Jesus himself but also not generally regarded as an authentic part of the original gospel. I'm tempted to say something about how this verse suggests a change in the usage of the phrase (from earlier "a person" to later "Jesus"), but I don't want to go overboard. Jonathan Tweet 16:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe, I should have read the talk page before I edited things. Although it's not considered authentic (mainly due to it's placement and manuscript evidence), it does follow proper semitic use as a humble self-appelation. אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 17:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost Sheep 

message: In this section, it seems clear to me at least that Jesus is using "son of man" to refer to himself. A scribe says he wants to follow Jesus, and Jesus answers that the "son of man has no where to lay his head." Seems to indicate that Jesus can't offer the scribe any shelter if he follows him, and may suggest that they'll be traveling a lot rather than settled down in one place. If it meant people in general, Jesus would be saying that people, or most people, don't have a place to sleep, which doesn't make nearly as much sense. Wesley 20:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that would be more appropriate to the Son of God article to bring up issues of divinity. There were many Jews in the 1st Century "claiming" to be sons of God (in fact it was common rhetoric for Rabbim of the time to say that all Jews were sons and daughters of God). "Son of man" was just a common way to refer to humanity of oneself in a conversation, and (at least linguistically) shouldn't, in this son of man's opinion, be used as any basis to claim "divinity." ;-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 15:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree. The phrase Son of Man was used to refer to one's self. JPotter 16:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foxes have Holes 

message: While it is true that the expression "a son of man" (or even, "O', son of man") is an ancient Semitic idiom for referring to someone as being an all too typical human being, the term "the son of man" has a specific meaning originating in 2nd Temple Judaism, and especially the apocalyptic writings of that time.
Drawing from the vision recorded in Daniel 7:13, the rabbis and mystics of the 2nd Temple period increasingly spoke of "THE son of man", a heavenly, eternal, uncreated being who sat upon the Throne of God.  He was also associated with "THE angel of the LORD" in the Old Testament - a being who was more than any angel, but was in some way a theophany (or avatar, if you prefer) of God Himself.
Jews of the Inter-testimental period increasingly imagined a cosmos populated with a vast angelic hierarchy, necessary as a means of bridging the gulf between God's utterly perfect righteousness and human sinfulness.  It was believed that God was SO holy and righteous, that if even one of the four guardian Cherubim (who stood about the Throne of God) so much as glimpsed God's Face, even they would be utterly destroyed.
The problem was then, how does anyone "know God"?  How does God have any contact with His creation?  Their answer was, "By the son of man".  This being was believed to exist as the ultimate mediator between God and all creation.  In fact, it was this "THE son of man" who had actually done all the creating ... in God's Name, of course.  He was God's great viceroy, the grand vizier of heaven, prince of all the angels.  Unlike the angels, He was not a created being, but was somehow a perfect reflection of God Himself, eternal and resplendent. He possessed all the glory, majesty, holiness, power, and authority of God.  He was so perfectly submitted to the will and nature of God, that he was utterly transparent to it.  His words were the words of God.  His will was the will of God.  His deeds were the deeds of God.  He was so much like God that no meaningful distinction could be made ... except that the Jews insisted on making one.  He was who (or what) Philo termed, "the logos".
Every book, author, and theorized "source" of the New Testament, and all other early Christian documents, claim that Jesus was and is the incaranation of this being.  In fact, all the evidence that exists overwhelmingly substantiates that this claim originated with Jesus himself.
:That's excellent information! find a source for it and add it to the article. (To make things more confusing, the gospels sometimes record Jesus as using "son of man" to mean "a human being.") Jonathan Tweet 13:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An unfortunate conflation of 2 terms:  "A son of man" and "THE son of man" 

message: In the "Hebrew Bible" section there are some quotations which mix (left-to-right) Arabic numerals with (right-to-left) Hebrew text. I don't know about other browsers, but Firefox on Linux deals with these really badly. I've rearranged some of these quotations so you can clearly see which verse has which number (and incidentally added  tags). I can't read Hebrew, so some of these may have been mangled. It took a lot of effort given that none of the editors I can find deal with the mix at all nicely, so I haven't bothered to do the others. I'd appreciate it if someone else could continue (or else revert :). Hairy Dude 04:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying to make RTL/LTR mix display comprehensibly in Firefox (and other browsers?) 

message: Thanks. Garry Denke 23:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Thadman 

message: I tried to leave a message in my edit comments but it seems to have glitched. "Son of man" is not solely used as a reflexive appellation, hence my revert of a good faith edit. אמר Steve Caruso 04:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relfexively comment reverted 

message: In some languages, the word "son" is specifically masculine (e.g., in English). In others, the word "son" is generic, but the corresponding word "daughter" is specifically feminine (e.g., Spanish). In Spanish, if one is talking about a "son" or "sons" in general, the term strictly means "child" or "offspring." European languages with gender often have word pairs that don't map to English, as in "sibling-sister," "parent-mother," "teacher-female teacher," etc. What's the case in the term "son of man"? I've seen it translated as "child of humanity" (Ehrman). In Aramaic, does the term "son of man" mean "child of a mortal man" or does it mean specifically "male child of a mortal man"? Leadwind (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  is "son" specifically masculine? 

message: I have read that some people think that Enoch is the Son of Man. It should probably be mentioned somewhere here.  ADM (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read 1 Enoch 71:14? by the way some scholar think that the whole chapter 71 is a early addition. A ntv (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Enoch

message: I have looked at this article for a few days now and the thought that keeps to mind is "just a boring list of lists". There is so much rich Christology about Son of man and its relationship to other issues in the Hypostatic union etc. that has not even been mentioned. There are no major errors here that I can see, but as is, one needs several cups of coffee to keep awake by the time one gets half way through the lists. And given that not all readers are interested in the Hebrew Bible aspects, it is just too long to read and not enough information keeps the interest of the reader. An encyclopedia should be more than a "list of Bible references" that send the reader to sleep, unless it is intended as a sleeping aid. I think it will be good to separate out Son of man (Christianity) so the Christological issues can be addressed in a clean module. There is no point in adding them here, to make this even longer and more tedious. A separate page with a Main reference from here is needed. History2007 (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How are you doing my friend? How are things? I have done my best to avoid working on this article. It will just be too much work. Maybe next year... I will make a new year resolution. That way I can put it off for another year. History2007 (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Information vs lists

message: 208.95.51.156 introduced the claim that "most Christians believe" that the phrase son of man took on Messianic significance within the Christian movement primarily due to the Jewish eschatology during the time of its early conception, and the "most Christians" part is sourced to Delbert Burkett's book, but no page number is given. I haven't read the entire book, but in the introduction Burkett says there is no consensus, with two interpretations predominating: The apocalyptic/messianic and the idiomatic/nontitular (p. 5). Where exactly does Burkett claim that the messianic interpretation is the one held by most Christians? Huon (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr(s) IP malcited the source, it seems. Not too unusual in this genre on Wikipedia. If unsure delete IP's hasty claims! Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most Christians believe... 

message: I count the article to contain 28 sections, whereof only 9 are properly sourced with secondary sources. Secondary sources in this case should be a scholarly exposition on the relevant place in the Bible, explaining that "the hebrew/aramaic/greek original phrase 'X' means 'Y' in this context". At the very least. Any long-range dependencies, such as comparing this usage with that usage also needs secondary sources, and of course also general usages in a certain section of the Bible. I'll label the article as missing inline needing more citations. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Marked. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I can't remember seeing a single reliable secondary source from you. The various movies and TV series are obviously primary sources, and I doubt many of them even use the term "son of man" - for example, I'm pretty sure the Borg aren't called that, and it would be rather illogical because their fictional origin has nothing to do with mankind at all (they aren't computers or artificial intelligence, either). If I remember your timeline correctly, we'll only have to wait another year and a half until the AI arises to which Matthew 25:13 apparently refers; once that has happened, we'll surely have many reliable sources discussing such a world-changing event, and if those sources use the term "son of man" to refer to the new AI, we can add them to this article. I just re-checked that you had mathematical proof for the date; so we'll just have to wait a little and the problem will resolve itself. Huon (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Yes, those are simply not reliable, i.e. proper, sources or anywhere close to it. Please read WP:Reliable sources to discover what you need to support your claims, and refrain from adding original research until you do.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just removed the IP's latest edit based on one of a number of ebooks by George W. Barclay Jr, a retired cardiologist. Self-published by someone who couldn't be considered a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 05:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Far too few secondary sources

message: Seems the religions want to OWN THE WORDS in addition to its source from the bible.  3 simple words interpreted literally seem to face extreme opposition both here and on the dissabiguation page.  To me it demonstrates the short comming of Wiki, and dishonisty of several mods on this page.  Enjoy your lies when the "Son OF Man" comes.  
Son = offspring
of = from who
Man = mankind
Most honest Christians begin with LITERAL TRANSLATION rather than TRADITION.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.106.203.110 (talk) 05:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The Moderation of This Page is BIASED

message: There are a few newly created accounts that really look like sockpppets of User:Spt172012. Note how one puppet retired another. And attempt to delete an Afd page.
Anyway they are making a mess all over the place. I moved out some Christian items to its own page, given my comments above here from 18 months ago. But the new page needs help too, but with rational edits,not like this. History2007 (talk) 07:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The key puppet was indef blocked and I have started to clean up Son of man (Christianity) - did not want to do it at all... But should be ok in a day or two. Now why does this topic attract all the loony bin crowd with the human-computer ideas and these puppets and IPs with way out ideas? History2007 (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Sockpuppets running wild

message: I think here we can take an approach similar to Holy Spirit, which is an overview article, and has four separate sub-articles:
:* Holy Spirit (Christianity)
:* Holy Spirit (Judaism)
:* Holy Spirit (Islam)
:* Maid of Heaven (Bahá'í)
That has worked well there. Unless there are objections, I will do that, now that the Christianity material is a separate page. I do not plan to change any of the material in teh Jewish section, just make it a separate page and leave a summary here. But it would even be better if someone more familiar with that does it. History2007 (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Restructuring

message: IP 85.183.56.74 is adding unsourced, incorrect mataerial and making a mess of things. Don't want to revert him again, but needs to read policy - does not seem to have read it. On his talk page says policy does not apply to him. History2007 (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the IP editor meant to say that his edits actually follow policy and that the criticism therefore does not apply. Anyway, even though the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia is in the public domain, I don't think lengthy swathes of copied text are a good addition to this article. In particular I'd be very careful when citing the Jewish Encyclopedia on Matthew. To me the text sounds anything but neutral; especially when it claims that "obviously" the Biblical text supports their preferred interpretation - I somehow doubt Christians would find that quite as obvious. Furthermore the Jewish Encyclopedia is old, and we should use newer sources to adequately represent the scholarly consensus (as opposed to what might have been the consensus a century ago). Huon (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There are multiple issues, one the WP:OR such as "we can see that ברנשא bar nasha is used in a general form for humanity." in the gnostics, "idiosycratically denotes a prophesied, divine eternal ruler." in the lede etc. These are unsourced and in fact less than correct. And the topic has been the subject of ongoing debate in which opinions have changed and what was agreed to 20 years ago is now rejected. So what he added is a clear degradation of fully sourced text. History2007 (talk) 09:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I started to do some editing but reverted instead. We shouldn't be using the JE and we certainly shouldn't be copying it, PD or not. Dougweller (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. And some of it was not even from the JE necessarily and was WP:OR, as above. History2007 (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Ip adding unsourced items and outdated sources

message: This article http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/sonofman.html in site Tektonics.org (an apologetics ministry) shows how the 'Son of Man' title as used by Jesus corresponded with the 'Son of man' from Daniel and how the words used by Daniel ('bar enash' instead of 'bar adam') indicated not merely a human being (which 'bar adam' always means in the OT/Tanakh), but instead a royal heir, and related concepts that finally add to a(nother) claim to divinity (when taking all Daniel says about this 'son of man'). The article is at the least very educating regarding its meaning, and his sources probably could fit here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.9.128.146 (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Son of Man' as a royal title, back in the day

message: As Christ spoke Aramaic, "Son of Man" is obviously a translation of Aramaic "Bar Nasha" and obviously an erroneous translation. The error consists in "etymological confusion", in taking etymology for meaning. Etymology of "Bar Nasha" is indeed "Son of Man", but its meaning at Christ's time was "Man". -You DON'T translate "baise-en-ville" as "make love downtown" (etymology), but as "overnight bag" (meaning in current French); -you DON'T translate "cul-de-sac" as "ass-of-bag", but as "blind alley"; -you DON'T translate "bistro" as "hurry up!" (Russian etymology), but as "French bar"; -you DON'T translate French "vasistas" as "what's that?" (German etymology) but as "fanlight" (current French meaning); -you DON'T translate Russian "vaksal" as "Vauxhall" (English etymology), but as "railway station" (current Russian meaning). You DON'T translate "BAR NASHA" as "SON OF MAN" (etymology), but as "MAN" (current Aramaic meaning at Christ's time). Hebrew ben-adam means "man", a point, and it does not even have the etymology of "Son of Man" but "Son of Soil", "adama" meaning soil in hebrew. This error calls in question the whole article, which should be at least partially rewritten. I could do it with pleasure, if accepted.
Added to article by  so I moved it here for discussion. Zgmet, you will need sources meeting WP:RS discussing "Son of Man". Dougweller (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from article - etymology 

message: I entered a POV tag because I am having trouble with the statement "Modern scholarship increasingly sees the phrase not as one genuinely used by Jesus but as a one put in his mouth by the early Church." in the History section. It only has a single source. Basileias (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That source is Burkett, possibly the leading "son of man" scholar of the present day. Are you proposing to know more about the subject? I find your style of editing tendentious and pov-driven. PiCo (talk) 07:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Been busy. Burkett stated there is no consensus and that statement (paraphrased) was one agreed among others. A piece of the source has been obviously  cherry picked. This misrepresents the author Burkett. Basileias (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be best to put a complete coverage of the debate over the origin of the term. Ashorocetus (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not suggesting what you put forward is invalid, but that is a separate issue from what I brought forward. I am also not interested in taking that on at this time. My issues here are how the sources have been used in the History paragraph. Statements in them have clearly been cherry picked and then paraphrased. I have corrected that and I am waiting to see if it will stand with other editors. Basileias (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. I agree with you on this point, what you have is a much more accurate representation of the source. Ashorocetus (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Ok, this shouldn't be a hard article to do, just find sources and do it, right? I'll give it a go.PiCo (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Son of Man sources 

message: I have removed the content added by Preston Kavanagh, largely for two reasons: Firstly, his work was given undue weight compared to the rest of the article. Secondly, that book is brand new, published only in 2017, and I feel rather uncomfortable with an author adding their own new work to the relevant Wikipedia article. Particularly for a book advertised as providing an explanation that has escaped theologians and bible scholars for millennia, I would like to see whether that explanation indeed is acceptted by other scholars as the new consensus or whether it's just another one in the spectrum of theories. Huon (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substitute kings 

message: Here is proof that the son of Man is Adam who is also called The Chosen One.
Here is the book online with scripture backing it including the Dead Sea Scrolls including Book of Enoch: https://sites.google.com/view/sonofman/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.181.168.42 (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proving Son of Man is Adam (Chosen one, Elect one) 

message: under "Children of Men Interpretation" there's just a bunch of nonsense and blathering. they use the term "friend zone" and I know that's not in the Bible. this doesn't seem like the kind of content that belongs on Wikipedia 50.193.137.89 (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  what's going on with this page?