geoff@uunet.uu.net (Geoff Allen) (09/18/90)
sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) writes (with an introductory comment from clh): >[This discussion seems to have wandered from its original subject. >Mark made a reference to the Son of Man "who is to come" that >suggested he might think it is someone other than Jesus. >Geoff Allen quoted Act 1:11 to suggest that the one who would come >is the same as Jesus. --clh] And Mark replied with several verses in which Jesus referred to the coming Comforter whom He would send: >By the designations: `Spirit of Truth', `Comforter', and `Holy Ghost', >Jesus meant the Son of Man, Who will come to continue His Mission shortly >before the setting in of the Last Judgment. Whoa! Where do you get that? As far as I'm aware, it is universally understood (and has been throughought church history) that the Comforter Jesus spoke of is the Holy Spirit, who came to the believers at Pentecost. Especially the direct reference to ``Holy Ghost'' seems hard to explain away under your theory. The Son of Man is Jesus, and He used the term often in reference to Himself, and does not use the term to refer to the Comforter whom He would send. -- Geoff Allen \ Since we live by the Spirit, uunet!pmafire!geoff \ let us keep in step with the Spirit. bigtex!pmafire!geoff \ -- Gal. 5:25 (NIV)
sandrock@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) (09/23/90)
> Whoa! Where do you get that? As far as I'm aware, it is universally > understood (and has been throughought church history) that the Comforter > Jesus spoke of is the Holy Spirit, who came to the believers at > Pentecost. Especially the direct reference to ``Holy Ghost'' seems hard > to explain away under your theory. > The Son of Man is Jesus, and He used the term often in reference to > Himself, and does not use the term to refer to the Comforter whom He > would send. > Geoff Allen The truth of the matter is that Jesus did not refer to Himself as the Son of Man, but this point was misunderstood by those around Him, and was thus also incorrectly recorded in the New Testament. This question concerning the true identity of the Son of Man is not the only mistake made by those who wished to pass along Christ's Message for posterity, for instance, the Evangelist Matthew confused Imanuel with Jesus (Matt. 1,22-23), Whom Micah prophesied (Micah 5,2). Jesus never called Himself Imanuel, nor was He ever called so by others. There are, however, passages which do correctly express the distinction between Jesus and the Son of Man, such as: "Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words..., of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." (Mark 8,38) The distinction between the two Sons can be set forth simply as follows: Jesus Imanuel Son of God Son of Man Inborn Son Outborn Son Divine Love Divine Justice Therefore, the time of Imanuel, the Son of Man, shall also be the time of the World Judgement, as was foretold by the Prophet Isaiah with the words: "Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for God is with us." (Isaiah 8,10) As for the disciples' experience at Pentecost, this was the *power* of the Holy Spirit they then received, and *not* the Holy Spirit Himself. This fact can be verified once again from the words of Jesus: "And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high." (Luke 24,49) The outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, actually means: the outpouring *by* the Holy Spirit, or the outpouring of the power of the Holy Spirit, an event which recurs *each* year at a definite time. The prophesied mission of the "Spirit of truth", however, must necessarily be a *personal* one, and this idea has been also suspected in the past. In the explanatory notes on the New Testament, published by Otto v. Gerlach, Professor of Divinity and Court Chaplain (Berlin 1863), for example, it is stated: "These words, `He shall not speak of himself', (John 16, 12-15), make sense only in regard to a person, not to an impersonal power or manifestation of God." By the all the designations "Spirit of Truth", "Comforter" and "Holy Ghost", Jesus meant the Son of Man, Who will come to continue His Mission. Each individual might do well therefore to keep in mind the words of Christ: "Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh." (Matt. 25,13) I am happy to state that the source of my knowledge is the work: "In the Light of Truth", the Grail Message, by Abd-ru-shin which is available to all serious seekers from the non-profit organization: Grail Foundation of America 2081 Partridge Lane Binghamton, NY 13903 Best Wishes! Mark Sandrock -- Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Bitnet: sandrock@uiucscs School of Chemical Sciences Comp. Ctr. Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mattews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801 [Scholars have noted tendencies in the Gospels for "the Son of Man" to be used as a synonym for "I", and also to be used as if it is referring to someone else who is coming. Mark cites an example of the second tendency. Scholarly work on the "Son of Man" is surprisingly varied. Some points to note: the term is used only in the Gospels, Acts, and Rev. In the Gospels it occurs only on the lips of Jesus (except possibly Mark 2:10 and par.). It is commonly connected with Daniel and Ezekiel, and I Enoch is cited as an example of Jewish apocalyptic turning it into the title of a coming apocalyptic figure. There are problems with all of these citations, including at least some possibility that I Enoch is dependent on the NT usage. Son of Man tends to be used in Mark and more particularly Luke in contexts that emphasize Jesus' humanity. In Mat. it tends to be more of an apocalyptic title. Fitzmeyer's commentary on Luke (Anchor Bible) deemphasizes the OT and intertestamental background, and claims that Jesus used the term simply to mean a human being or mortal, and that the gospel tradition developed it into a messianic title. Albright and Mann's commentary on Matthew (Anchor Bible) takes the opposite approach, citing Dan., Ezek, and I Enoch uncritically, and assuming that it was an apocalyptic title. There are certainly critics who say what Mark is saying above, that it was originally a separate figure which the Church later identified with Jesus. My own view is that Jesus himself used the title for himself in some way, and that the gospel writers preserved this fact but were in some confusion about what exactly he meant by it. This explains its somewhat different emphasis in Mat. from Mark and Luke, and the fact that there are parallel passages with "I" in one and "Son of Man" in another Gospel. It is consistent with the fact that it appears almost exclusively on Jesus' lips, and is not used by Paul or other letters, nor generally even in editorial comments in the gospels. I am not aware of any scholarly opinion that identifies the Comforter with the Son of Man. --clh]