Jump to content

The Son of Man


MatthewG

Recommended Posts

I'm LDS but thought I'd tell you what I think about it anyway.

I think that by referring to himself as "the Son of Man" Jesus was alluding to Daniel chapter 7 where one like the Son of man comes before the Ancient of days (Adam) and receives his kingdom, thereby also possibly hinting not only at his status as the Messiah, but also at his relationship to Adam (adam meaning man/mankind in Hebrew).

Link to comment

I am also LDS and my take comes from the following scripture:

(Moses 6:57)"Wherefore teach it unto your children, that all men, everywhere, must repent, or they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God, for no unclean thing can dwell there, or dwell in his presence; for, in the language of Adam, Man of Holiness is his name, and the name of his Only Begotten is the Son of Man, even Jesus Christ, a righteous Judge, who shall come in the meridian of time."
Link to comment
What is the difference between the Son of Man and the Son of man. Sometimes it's capital and sometimes it's lowercase. Is that just a bible error?

There are no capitals in Hebrew.

The most ancient of Greek texts did not use lowercase (i.e., they were in ALL CAPS). And the use of caps in Greek was radically different from modern, USmerican English. In the XVIII, most English writers followed the German pattern of capitalizing all nouns, even common ones, rather than just proper nouns.

It's very hard to say what the difference is based solely on the capitalization. Context is going to have to supply the meaning, and it's no trivial task.

Lehi

Link to comment

There are no capitals in Hebrew.

The most ancient of Greek texts did not use lowercase (i.e., they were in ALL CAPS). And the use of caps in Greek was radically different from modern, USmerican English. In the XVIII, most English writers followed the German pattern of capitalizing all nouns, even common ones, rather than just proper nouns.

It's very hard to say what the difference is based solely on the capitalization. Context is going to have to supply the meaning, and it's no trivial task.

Lehi

So you have to go scripture by scripture? "Man" isn't referring to Elohoim, and "man" humans?

Link to comment

It's a modern LDS convention to use the term Son of Man to refer to Christ as the Son of Man of Holiness (Elohim). It's also a modern LDS convention to view the Ancient of Days figure someone other than the Most High God. Specifically distinct is the modern LDS usage of the term to refer to Adam. The term Ancient of Days is used in contemporary apocalyptic literature (like 1 Enoch), and the same figure is also called the Lord of Spirits, to whom Michael (and the other archangels) is subordinate and reports.

My understanding (as a Latter-day Saint) is that Joseph used the scene in Daniel as a template, and 're-cast it' to express a new understanding concerning one aspect of the End Times. I think it's very incorrect in a historical biblical sense to understand that the writer of the Book of Daniel had in mind Adam, Michael the Archangel, presiding over a meeting in Missouri when he used the term Ancient of Days. But to use the imagery of that scene and to re-cast it in a modern light and context (like what was done in much of the JST, and even spilled over into the language of the D&C) makes so much more sense.

Link to comment
So you have to go scripture by scripture? "Man" isn't referring to Elohoim, and "man" humans?

Probably not.

And, keep in mind that the editor/translator was the one who chose whether to capitalize, so were one to go solely on the capitalization, he'd be surrendering his theology to that person, not to the Holy Ghost, or even his own mind and spirit.

Lehi

Link to comment

Probably not.

And, keep in mind that the editor/translator was the one who chose whether to capitalize, so were one to go solely on the capitalization, he'd be surrendering his theology to that person, not to the Holy Ghost, or even his own mind and spirit.

Lehi

Wow how confusing.

Link to comment
13I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.14And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

From a non-LDS perspective, everything stays the same with one exception. The Son of man is from Daniel 7:13-14, just like everyone else here said. The verses are explaining how Jesus' kingdom will never pass away. The difference is the Ancient of Days is not Adam, but God the Father.

Link to comment

From a non-LDS perspective, everything stays the same with one exception. The Son of man is from Daniel 7:13-14, just like everyone else here said. The verses are explaining how Jesus' kingdom will never pass away. The difference is the Ancient of Days is not Adam, but God the Father.

From a non-LDS perspective....what he said

Link to comment
Just sang a song in Elders Quorum that had the words "the Son of Man" in it. I'm familiar with the title but am interested to hear what our non-LDS posters think the title means, who it's talking about and who is "Man"?

Son of Man, is referring to Christ's relationship to all humanity.

you see JS prophesied that Christ would return in 1891, they year JS would have been 85 had he not been unjustly murdered.

and the entire LDS membership was eagerly waiting to meet the Son of Man in 1891.

the Son of Man actually was on earth in 1891 as JS had prophesied... only not in the United States.

Link to comment

Son of Man, is referring to Christ's relationship to all humanity.

you see JS prophesied that Christ would return in 1891, they year JS would have been 85 had he not been unjustly murdered.

and the entire LDS membership was eagerly waiting to meet the Son of Man in 1891.

the Son of Man actually was on earth in 1891 as JS had prophesied... only not in the United States.

Seven posts by aka-me, seven bombs thrown.

And given the nature of his tag-line, we're definitely looking at a sockpuppet.

My money is on Finch.

Time for the mods to start checking IP addresses and do what they should have done in the first place. :P

Link to comment

"The Ancient of Days" is usually understood to be El in biblical scholarship. However, there are good reasons to think it could be Adam (though Adam would not be equated with Michael). In The Testament of Abraham, Abraham is brought to the first gate of heaven:

"Abraham saw two ways, the one narrow and contracted, the other broad and spacious, and there he saw two gates, the one broad on the broad way, and the other narrow on the narrow way. And outside the two gates there he saw a man sitting upon a gilded throne, and the appearance of that man was terrible, as of the Lord. And they saw many souls driven by angels and led in through the broad gate, and other souls, few in number, that were taken by the angels through the narrow gate. And when the wonderful one who sat upon the golden throne saw few entering through the narrow gate, and many entering through the broad one, straightway that wonderful one tore the hairs of his head and the sides of his beard, and threw himself on the ground from his throne, weeping and lamenting. But when he saw many souls entering through the narrow gate, then he arose from the ground and sat upon his throne in great joy, rejoicing and exulting...This is the first-created Adam who is in such glory, and he looks upon the world because all are born from him, and when he sees many souls going through the narrow gate, then he arises and sits upon his throne rejoicing and exulting in joy, because this narrow gate is that of the just, that leads to life, and they that enter through it go into Paradise. For this, then, the first-created Adam rejoices, because he sees the souls being saved. But when he sees many souls entering through the broad gate, then he pulls out the hairs of his head, and casts himself on the ground weeping and lamenting bitterly, for the broad gate is that of sinners, which leads to destruction and eternal punishment. And for this the first-formed Adam falls from his throne weeping and lamenting for the destruction of sinners, for they are many that are lost, and they are few that are saved, for in seven thousand there is scarcely found one soul saved, being righteous and undefiled." (The Testament of Abraham XI)

Compare to Daniel's writings:

"I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened." (Daniel 7:9-10)

The following are comments from Phillip Munoa:

"Like the Ancient of Days, Adam is enthroned in the presence of angels and is described as a 'terrifying' being who looks like the 'Master'. These motifs of angelic beings and terror are found in Daniel 7."

"By itself Adam's adornment in 'glory' does not render him godlike, but when his glorious appearance is coupled with the 'master's' (God's) appearance, Adam's divine status appears to be implied...Thus, Adam's appearance makes him godlike."

"Adam is not called a judge in the Testament of Abraham, but he is part of the judgmental process...[T]he Ancient of Days is not explicitly called a judge in Daniel 7, but appears first in the judgment scene, just as Adam does in the Testament of Abraham."

"Perhaps even the title given to Adam, 'first-formed', which obviously can be understood as implying his great age or patriarchal stature, can be connected to the title 'Ancient of Days' in Daniel."

"A sampling of both the Adam literature and other related texts dealing with Adam's glorification reveals how Adam was believed by some to be exalted over all creation, great in size, innocent of sin, and even the creator. An examination of those texts dealing with Adam's enthronement, his position at the gate of Paradise and Hell, his divine likeness, and his overseeing of creation will provide a context which makes an Adam-Ancient of Days interpretation feasible." (Phillip B. Munoa, III, Four Power In Heaven: The Interpretation of Daniel 7 in the Testament of Abraham, Sheffield Academic Press: 1998)

My friend David Larsen (Ph.D. candidate, University of St. Andrews) said:

"If Daniel was written in the 3rd/2nd century BC (as many claim), then it would be separated from the Canaanite texts by around 1000 years (that's my estimation, I'd have to look it up). It's much more likely that instead of just borrowing directly from Canaanite myths, the author of Daniel was getting his imagery from within the Israelite/Jewish tradition. It is also possible that within the Jewish tradition, the old symbols could have begun to be reused for slightly different purposes. Therefore, it is not impossible that Daniel could be using the "Ancient of Days" figure to refer to someone else besides the ancient Father God."

"Naturally, any subsequent king would have to receive his authority from the first king, Adam. This was part of the Israelite royal ideology. The current king was always seen as a representation of the first king, Adam. If the "one like the Son of Man" was understood to be the Messiah, he was to be a Davidic king, and would share in this same ideology (I have simplified a rather messy topic here as there are so many disputes over who these figures are meant to represent)." (personal communication, 2/22/10)

Link to comment
"Naturally, any subsequent king would have to receive his authority from the first king, Adam. This was part of the Israelite royal ideology. The current king was always seen as a representation of the first king, Adam. If the "one like the Son of Man" was understood to be the Messiah, he was to be a Davidic king, and would share in this same ideology (I have simplified a rather messy topic here as there are so many disputes over who these figures are meant to represent)." (personal communication, 2/22/10)

Genesis is full of kingship motifs, such as Adam being given dominion over the animals. This can be seen in representations from Mesopotamia, in which the king has his foot on a weak domestic animal (thus indicating dominion), whilst combatting a wild lion. The king was meant to protect the weak. See Othmar Keel's The Symbolism of the Biblical World, pg. 58-59.

Link to comment

Genesis is full of kingship motifs, such as Adam being given dominion over the animals. This can be seen in representations from Mesopotamia, in which the king has his foot on a weak domestic animal (thus indicating dominion), whilst combatting a wild lion. The king was meant to protect the weak. See Othmar Keel's The Symbolism of the Biblical World, pg. 58-59.

Nice link to Mesopotamia there. I'd never heard that version.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...