What does “Son of Man” mean?

#maklelan2110

[@codyrhodes1344]

To say that the costume on your shirt is the correct costume sounds like a dogmatic argument favoring the original depiction of the character Wolverine. There's limited to no univocality in Marvel characters.

[@sketchygetchey8299]

I think that’s one of Dan’s few dogmas that he admits to. 😅

[@cdadamly]

It's not even his original costume, but it is correct dogma.

[@TomCarlson]

It’s not dogma when it’s a fact.

[@davidross2004]

@@cdadamlyHow can something as subjective as dogma be “correct”?

[@NWPaul72]

And very little consensus on canon amongst devotees. Some schisms threaten to become violent.

[@Goodguy507]

As a speaker of a Semitic language (Arabic) what Dan is saying is absolutely correct, it is a convention in Arabic to say “son of Adam” to mean man, and “eve” to mean woman, this isn’t just a poetic thing btw, we use it a lot in everyday speech, especially to show certain emotions like frustration, sarcasm, amazement, etc. it can also be used in the same way you’d say “my man” or “bro” in English, it’s a bit hard to explain but Arabic speakers probably know what I mean

[@mark-wright]

Nothing is inherently correct or incorrect about Wolverine's costume. You are negotiating with the comic book text.

[@calanm7880]

I well remember excitedly projecting Jesus into that Daniel reference, in the same way I had slapped the Trinity onto beginning of Genesis: thinking them highly profound. Now I can smile that I built a house of cards upon a Greek translator’s choice of rendering a common Semitic slightly poetic phrase for “looked like an ordinary bloke” 😅

[@jameschapman6559]

Were you taught that projection from your church or Bible College and then had to unlearn it? I only ask because it was the way it was taught to me.

[@PavelR1]

Great explanation as always Doc, keep it up!

[@markrothenbuhler6232]

Wolverine "in his correct costume"I believe is a direct quote from the Book of Logan.

[@Wolfkiller]

The book of James also quotes this, but it's proven to be a later scripture that's claiming to be older than the Logan manuscripts.

[@Outspoken.Humanist]

I find it fascinating that it is not enough to simply translate words because the way words and phrases are used within one language might make no sense in another. It adds weight to the need for true scholarship instead of merely looking up words in a concordance or dictionary. I have always enjoyed learning and every day is a school day, even at 65 yrs of age.

[@raza3001]

A question , why should jesus be son of man god is not a man marry is not son of man nor jesus is carrying any male DNA from any ancestors . How can you people translate and any thing what ever your want .

[@Outspoken.Humanist]

@@raza3001 I do not know what you are trying to ask. I think that English is not your first language. I will answer in the best way I can and I am sorry if I have misunderstood you. Proper, accurate, translation is not a matter of choice. All languages have fixed rules. Once we understand what those rules are, a translation must give a specific result. If it is done correctly and honestly. It is important not to be influenced by what you want it to say. Some Christians who have translated the bible have changed the text to make it say what they want it to say. This is dishonest. If we think of DNA in Jesus, then he must have been a woman. Parthenogenesis, or a virgin birth, is impossible in humans but if it were possible, the child would be female, with no DNA from the father. If people are honest, it is not possible to be a Christian and accept science. I am an atheist and I think Jesus was a real man but not the son of God. I hope I have answered your questions.

[@Thesius-q3o]

​​@@raza3001We translate because we are bored and are evil.

[@txikitofandango]

It's fascinating that a meaning can be created simply in a translation. Like how panini means just sandwiches in Italian, but in English it refers to a particular kind of sandwich. And so Son of Man has an ordinary meaning in Semitic languages, but attains a particularity once it enters Greek

[@sanguillotine]

Chai tea refers to a specific type of tea in English, but Chai just means tea in multiple Indian languages

[@txikitofandango]

@@sanguillotine Great example

[@raza3001]

Do you really want to know who son of man is ? ?

[@bskec2177]

"A son of Adam" is also used frequently as simply meaning "human" in the "Chronicles of Narnia", because C.S. Lewis was leaning heavily into Christian imagery.

[@dragonreborn56789]

This was my first thought! "Sons of Adam, Daughters of Eve".

[@NWPaul72]

I had trouble with Aslan being a god because he seemed to be a Christian. I now recognize that discomfort as cognitive dissonance and that's been very helpful in other settings.

[@Goodguy507]

Did C.S. Lewis have any interest in Arabic? I’m a native Arabic speaker and the terms “son of Adam” and “eve” are used interchangeably with “man” and “woman”, and people actually use these terms a lot in everyday speech, like if you’re frustrated with someone you might say “son of Adam listen to me” I know it sounds weird but at least in my dialect this is a very common way of showing frustration with someone, it can also be used for sarcasm or jokes

[@A_Stereotypical_Heretic]

Son of man is the Hebrews way of saying "hero", like the heroes that we would find in Greek literature. Great men that do great things to achieve an end.

[@timothymalone7067]

Thanks for addressing this issue.!

[@camillatriana6084]

DR. DAN MCCLELLAN 💯💯💯 Major fan here and I’m so pumped you were on the Danny Jones podcast 👏🏽💯👏🏽💯👏🏽💯

[@scripturalcontexts]

Excellent stuff, Dan. You're absolutely correct that the Greek rendering of the son of man coming as the Ancient of Days did influence the New Testament conceptions of jesus, particularly the depiction of Jesus in Revelation 1 which describes him or the angel as looking very similar to the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7 but also combining angelic motifs from ezekiel's depiction of the cherubim. However, I was slightly disappointed by the fact that you forgot to mention 1 Enoch in your presentation as this presents a way in which the term son of man came to be represented as something more than a mere human being. The son of man figure in 1 Enoch is an exalted being who has similar functions to the one like a son of man in daniel, but has undergone a sort of evolution from a mere symbol of the righteous to an individual who is both a symbol of the righteous and is a being who is separate from them, a being who is pre-existent and serves as an eschatological figure of judgment (like Melchizedek in the Melchizedek Scroll found at Qumran) who has taken on qualities of the idealized king of Isaiah 11. So at some time between the second century BCE and the first century CE there was apparently a shift in what the son of man was supposed to represent, as 1 Enoch presumably preserves a either secondary tradition from Daniel that understood the one like a son of man as a corporate symbol and an individual who executes judgment on the wicked or a reworking of the Danielic apocalypse. But at any rate it was a great video. Love your work

[@ConsideringPhlebas]

The 'one like a son of man' in Daniel 7:13-14 isn't a symbol of the righteous or people of God. He's a heavenly being, just like the 'son of man' figure in 1 Enoch. This is why other heavenly beings, angels, are described in Daniel with the same kind of language: Dan. 8:15, Dan. 10:16, Dan. 10:18, also, Ezekiel 1:26 where the same kind of language is applied even to a vision of God.

[@lnsflare1]

It means that the power to be strong and the wisdom to be wise will come to you in time.

[@DoloresLehmann]

"Son of man, look to the sky Lift your spirit, set it free Some day you'll walk tall with pride Son of man, a man, in time, you'll be."

[@BramptonAnglican]

Thank you for the informative info Dan.

[@johnvanmanen3149]

It is as if Israel was chosen to bring misunderstanding to this world that can be judged..

[@88fingerspro]

Very fascinating. However, I would add that it seems like there was discussion about the passage in the Talmud that talked about the title of "Son of Man" specifically in Daniel 7:13 referring to the actual figure in Daniel 7:13. The convo seemed to talk about why they considered both of the divine figures in the passage as 1 figure, YHWH, instead of 2 separate figures. I don't recall them even mentioning the Greek translation at all contributing to the misunderstanding of the exaltation of the "son of man" figure there. This seems to explain why the High Priest "rent his clothes" in Mark 14:63 in response to Jesus's claim in vs. 62. The title, at least how it was used in the Gospels, seemed to play more on that visual than it did a misunderstanding that they may have had of the Aramaic translation into Greek. Not casting doubt on this explanation, but maybe adding some more to it as it pertains to particular passages in the New Testament (particularly Mark 8:38, 13:26, 14:62, Matt 16:27, 24:37, 26:64, Luke 21:27, and a few more in the gospels).

[@angelonzuji2457]

Hey, son of man, I prefer when you presents your shirt in the beginning of the video 😁

[@mrq6270]

Maybe he’ll throw it in there randomly to keep you on your toes

[@OldMotherLogo]

Two hours ago I was wishing you would do a video on this and now here I just found it. Thank you.

[@gritch66]

I am fine with your univocality Dan 😂

[@munbruk]

It just means descendant of Adam ie a human. It was the preferred title to Jesus since he knew that they would made him God or son of God. A little corruption between the gospels, when Peter said you are the Messaiah , in Mark it ended there. Mathew added the son of the living God. he was addressing the gentile pagans.

[@stevewhite8178]

Yes, that will forever be the best Wolverine costume and color scheme.

[@James-y6g6e]

Thank you for your video!

[@zemorph42]

I came to ask you to correct the title("Some" showed up on the notification) but saw that you are way ahead of me. Good job.

[@LarryGarfieldCrell]

So wait, the idea of Jesus as divine started as someone who didn't know how to translate Hebrew or Aramaic idioms into Greek? That... Would fit, really.

[@incredulouschordate]

No, he is called "son of man" in the Greek gospel manuscripts. Dan is saying that the TERM comes about from an older mistranslation of the Hebrew Bible. Jesus being a divine figure is definitely something that the gospels advocate for. The question of HOW divine is where it gets complex. It's not until hundreds of years later that the church agreed that he was equivalent to Yahweh

[@JopJio]

​@@incredulouschordate the gospels and other books of the Nt view Jesus with different christologies. Low and high. But yeah, I agree, Jesus is still not "the God", not even in GJohn or Paul's letters

[@NWPaul72]

The point of Jesus, as I understand it, was that even a bastard whose parents can't craft a convincing lie is divine. So are you and me and we ought to be nice to each other. But I only read it the one time.

[@incredulouschordate]

@@JopJio Yes there is diversity of opinion in the new testament about Jesus's status, but none of them seem to say he's equivalent with Yahweh. Most of them seem to think he's more than a mere human, however.

[@matthewnitz8367]

​@incredulouschordate From my understanding it seems like all of them thought of Jesus as more than a "mere man", even if for some it seems like this may have happened as an elevation/adoption that caused him to BECOME more than a mere man.

[@josefpollard6271]

Thank you! Terrific exposition! #SilverSurfer84

[@BillyR1968]

Dang, Dan. Gatekeepers R still trying to control the narrative this late in the game ? EO 13818 , dan. Dan, executive order 13818 ....

[@scottmaddow7879]

I believe and always will, the Fang costume he "borrowed" for a short time was the best Wolverine costume ever. It gave Logan the Kraven the Hunter flair while keeping it in X-man land.

[@danielmalinen6337]

What do you think about the Dead Sea Scrolls, when they speak about the "Son of Man"? Does that refer to some kind of spiritual cosmic judge (for example, Erhman uses this kind of definition for "the Son of Man") or has it evolved into a messianic epithet and the declaration during that time (i.e. Second Temple era Messianic Judaism) as some scholars suggest?

[@elkeism]

There's a verse that makes me think son of man refers to a human who has some supernatural connection to god such as a prophet, and they don't even have to be hebrews, like the seer who was hired to curse the Israelites during the exodus. I suppose they are a once in a generation occurrence, and when Jesus called himself that he was reflecting on him being the one of his generation.IMO

[@tsemayekekema2918]

The translators of the Septuagint were clearly binitarian

[@joshuab1046]

So wait Dan, is the Greek wording for “Son of Man” mis-interpreted as a divine title? Was initially considered “Human” then, because written in Greek was mis-interpreted as a divine title rather than a category?

[@joshuab1046]

Never mind I think you answered this in the end of the video.

[@janvanhouwelingen4721]

It also means a pretty dope song from Phil Collins.

[@jasonsmall5602]

In modern Hebrew, בן אדם besides Human/man, also means someone who acts properly, or to translate to Yiddish, a mensch.

[@theatlantaatheist]

When I was Mormon, the "Ancient of Days" was a title for the first man, Adam. Is that correct Biblically, or does Ancient of Days refer to someone or something else?

[@JopJio]

The ancient of days in Daniel 7 is God.

[@satariel777]

I have wondered about this my entire life and now I know. Thanks

[@SilentRiot21]

I used to have a lot of respect for this channel, but there was no reference to Tarzan. That is a cardinal sin

[@kirstencorby8465]

I've also seen it translated as Child of Humanity.

[@THUNDERSTUD]

I wonder how Dans gunna feel watching a multiverse wolverine and seeing only the true yellow and blue

[@soarel325]

Any comments on the idea (going back to Schweitzer, I believe) that Jesus believed the Son of Man was a separate person from himself?

[@MrVeryfrost]

I still missed the point. What was the reason for calling Jesus "son of man" in the NT?

[@celsus7979]

By that point it meant something like 'divine messager' or 'mouthpiece/image of God'. Echoing the old testament's angel who had the authority to speak for God. (Also Jesus' authority to forgive sin and heal, Godly powers given to him as a representative of God on earth) This probably is the origin of the later view that Jesus IS God.

[@Utah_Spice]

That'd be Aquarius. The Son of Man.

[@ChKyle222]

Curious on your thoughts about the CEB's translation "Human One" instead of "Son of Man" in the NT. Accurate or not?

[@meej33]

I propose the translation "Finn the Human"

[@apachewraith]

Is this what triggered the Pharisees or Sadducees at the time that started the ball rolling to the cross?

[@SitRepful]

Interesting when you consider how the Common English Bible translates "Son of Man" as "human one".

[@Patriot218S]

Judgment is executed on behalf of the elect family of God by Jesus as the Son of man. Jesus is both the Son of God and the Son of man. As the Son of man, Jesus is the representative of the elective family of God and suffered the execution of God’s judgment for them on the cross.

[@ritawing1064]

Does no-one ever refer to Dr.Morna Hooker's work on "Son of Man"? She was flavour of the theological day in the 70's. Sic transit gloria mundi 😢

[@samfranck2119]

Wolverine: The Son of Steel

[@2023-better-research]

Yeah, you forgot to start with shirt fit.

[@NWPaul72]

So the Sons of Anarchy have roots in biblical Hebrew, got it.

[@tramberg1972]

How can the Son of Man be Jesus? He is the Vine, we are the Branches The Son of Man is the Christ that is born within us that is quote. "notion of some kind of intermediary figure who is divine and who in some sense Bears God's Authority and manifests God's presence." Galatians 4:19 “My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,”

[@rimmersbryggeri]

Son of Dad.

[@DamoonShineth]

This was very difficult to listen to smh. The immaterial Soul is the actual Hu(e)man Being The Original 1Cor. 15:45 Colossians 1:15 John 16:13 The immaterial Soul is The Hu(e) and a Spirit John 4:24 The CREATURE CALLED MAN (or named Adam) is an animal by direct definition of the Word (Creature means Animal) This is why we are to decrease so He can increase in us He is the Shepard (Human) We are the animal (sheep) The mind of Christ is the Creator and the Soul is the Human or His body The temple not made by mortal hands The physical Ersatz is the Son of man because He is adopted in (as scriptures say in 1John) Being the son of man and the son of God is the same thing because the man is a Spirit (Soul/Spirit of Truth) a quickening Spirit to let us know He is Gxd! A physical creature is not a Spirit this not Gxd After the lynching of the Bridegroom from a tree (Acts 5:30 sounds awfully familiar) the son of Mary came to his students and assured them that he has flesh and bones AND THAT THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH (A.k.a the soul of the creature called man) does not and is the only Gxd Gxd referenced Himself as the son of man because the Soul and the body are one The son of man identifes with the bones within in that had the Spirit in them as recognized in the book of Ezekiel explaining why Satan wasn't allowed to touch the bones The Spirit is in the bones not the flesh God and flesh were never one! We can see Soul with someone with soul materializing infact that very thing would make Him not a soul any more! The Spirit and the bones have one Mind of Christ the bones and Soul have not their own identity but the one The Mind gives them One mind means one person btw not three! To lose yourself is to find yourself because Gxd is the only reality this he is "the self" On our own we have no identity....Satan tried that it didn't work out well! A Human or a Man is a Spirit the physical man is a animal named Human Gxd is Savior So he named the Human His body the temple Savior (Yeshua) The Savior is human so he named the creature Adam meaning Human This is so there's no confusion Gxd is not the author of confusion if it is confusing it is unwritten Satan is unwritten and not a creation of Gxd btw neither are the Goats on the left hand side of the Son of man that preach the physical man is the actual Human therefore saying the animal is the actual Gxd Blasphemy. You are a scholar but not to me.

[@ccv1984]

Jesus is not The son of man.Jesus distinguishes between himself and the son of man

[@elshuku1]

So, Jesus is God?

[@randolfmacdonaldstudies]

You are splinting hairs here. And to imply Daniel's use of the term being literal or not literal while ignoring all of the rest of Daniel's story smells a little deceptive.

[@IAM-77-w4b]

IAM

[@JopJio]

Jeusa is the son of man, God is not the son of man

[@JopJio]

​@@TonyJack74 it literally says God is no man or the Son of man.

[@NWPaul72]

Therefore by the transitive property, Jesus is not God.

[@denisemaxwell51]

Dantichrist..

[@Filthyheartz]

What’s interesting about all these guys claiming to be scholars of the Bible all have a different perspective of what the Bible says. At the end of the day it’s perspective. You can interpret it how ever you choose to. Which I’m a fan of different perspectives if they make sense

[@miguelthealpaca8971]

Who are you referring to when you say "all these guys claiming to be scholars of the Bible"?

[@JopJio]

He IS a scholar and basically represents the consensus of scholarly opinions. 😂

[@Kate-bf9xt]

@@TonyJack74 yes, there is some truth to your comment but remember we all have a personal bias and have lived our own experiences. It’s like prime time cable news shows. Although there are facts and legitimate news presented, the anchor and guests still present their opinions as truth.

[@Kate-bf9xt]

@@TonyJack74 not downgrading his work or credentials. Just a friendly reminder that we ALL have personal bias when it comes to sensitive topics like religion and politics.

[@getasimbe]

@@Kate-bf9xt everyone has biases yes, but that's the whole point of scholarship, to minimize bias. unless you're arguing that scholarship is equivalent to lay people just having opinions? (in which case you'd be wrong)

[@TeamAbbaFather]

There is a distinct difference between Son of God and Son of man. Esp when Jesus is warning us of the coming of the son of man who is actually the false Christ aka Yahweh/Lucifer who is a cloud rider and impersonates our true Jesus/Father. Tell them the truth, don’t be a gatekeeper.

[@zemorph42]

Those are interesting claims. Can you please tell me what sources you have to support them? Or did you combine several different conjectures together into what you feel is a coherent interpretation of the ancient texts? I might be projecting a bit because I have done a similar thing many times before, but I don't assume my conjectures are fact. I hope that's not what you are doing here and you have evidence to support you.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

Your ignorance is outstanding: Jesus took This Cloud Rider as his definitive statement to Divinity and the High Priest understood that and said Jesus Blasphemed. Matthew 26: 62-65.

[@welcometonebalia]

Cloud riding is cool. Son Goku was an expert in this.

[@Kate-bf9xt]

The imagery presented in Matthew 26:64 is taken from Psalm 110 and Daniel 7:13. These passages help it connect together.

[@zemorph42]

@@Kate-bf9xt How? They're separated by centuries and in different contexts. They're not even the same genre. You're inferring connections that don't exist.