Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Synoptic-L] THE SON OF MAN

Expand Messages
  • Richard Godwin
    A good case for Paul s use of christos is from understanding his Greek thinking and background, that the word refers back to Greek sources, derived from
    Message 1 of 45 , May 28, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      A good case for Paul's use of "christos" is from understanding his Greek thinking and background, that the word refers back to Greek sources, derived from chrio, chriso, "anointed with scented unguents or oil." But this word is used by Homer as applied to the rubbing with oil of the body after bathing. The word Chrestes means priest and prophet, a term which on the surface may appears to be far more applicable to Jesus, than that of the "Anointed," since, he never was anointed, either as king or priest. In the Erythrean Sybil. (IESOUS CHREISTOS THEOU HUIOS SOTER STAUROS), the prophecy relates to the coming down upon the Earth of the Spirit of Truth (Christos), after which advent will begin the Golden Age, requiring first to pass through the crucifixion of flesh or matter. The words meaning literally "Iesus, Christos, God, Son, Savior, Cross," could apply to Christian prophecy, but they are pagan, not Christian. In 470, it refers to the "oracles delivered by a Pythian God" by Aeschylus, and in 460 by Pindar to mean "the oracle proclaimed him the colonizer," that the man so proclaimed should be called Chrestos. In 420 it is used by Euripides, later by Herodotus, and in 264 BCE by Plato in Phaedrus, as "chrestos ei hoti hegei": "you are an excellent fellow to think...." In 10 CE, Philo Judaeus speaks of theochrestos "God-declared," or one who is declared by god, and of logia theochresta "sayings delivered by God"; he wrote at a time when neither Christians nor Chrestians were yet known by these names, but still called themselves the Nazarenes. Later, "Christos" was the Gnostic form of Christ, and it was so understood by the Romans in the times after Jesus died. There is some literature you can find on the internet to show the pagan use of the word "Christos." Paul preached to the Greeks (Gentiles) from Greek background.






      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Ronald Price
      To: Synoptic-L
      Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 6:28 AM
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] THE SON OF MAN



      David Cavanagh wrote:

      > I would suggest that Paul does not use "Son of Man" because his mission
      > is to Gentiles, and the term is Jewish and would have made sense only to
      > a Jewish audience....

      David,

      Your explanation would appear to be inadequate because given your reasoning,
      Paul would not have used the term "Messiah" either, yet he never tires of
      referring to Jesus as "Christ" (i.e. Messiah).

      > The idea that the disciples imagined "the Son of Man" coming on the
      > clouds to claim his Kingdom is interesting in two points (at least!).
      > First, in Daniel the Son of Man come to God, not to earth.

      Well, the disciples may not have stuck to the letter of Dan 7:13. In any
      case some who are "standing here" will see the kingdom of God come with
      power [which certainly means to earth], and "thy kingdom come" also surely
      means to earth.

      > ....... I'm left wondering whether an
      > expectation that the Son of Man will return to claim his Kingdom does
      > not run counter to the assertion that the title is not Messianic.

      Interesting point. However my position is that the original apostles seem to
      have dropped the label "messiah" after the crucifixion. If this is the case,
      there would have been nothing to stop them from proclaiming the coming of
      the Son of Man together with the establishment of the kingdom. Thus I
      reconstruct the original of Mt 19:28 // Lk 22:28-30 as:

      "Truly I tell you, when God's kingdom comes,
      and the Son of Man is seated on his glorious throne,
      you who have followed me will likewise sit on twelve thrones,
      judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

      For an explanation of this reconstruction, see the note on saying C21 on the
      web page below.

      Ron Price,

      Derbyshire, UK

      http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_ntsQ.html


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Dennis Goffin
      David, Luke does. Compare Lk 21:32 written after the fall of Jerusalem, with Mk 9:1 & 13:30 which speaks of a generation over 30 years earlier. For an analysis
      Message 45 of 45 , Jun 11, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        David,
        Luke does. Compare Lk 21:32 written after the fall of Jerusalem, with Mk 9:1 & 13:30 which speaks of a generation over 30 years earlier. For an analysis in depth of this question, I recommend Casey's book " The Solution to the Son of Man Problem" (2009)
        Dennis
        ---------------------

        Dennis Goffin

        Chorleywood UK


        To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
        From: ron-price@...
        Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 18:11:08 +0100
        Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] The coming kingdom


























        Apologies for the late reply. I've been on holiday in the English Lake

        District.



        David Cavanagh wrote:



        > If, as you suggest below, the original statement was thought to refer to

        > a return of Jesus, and the evangelists increasingly saw this as a

        > problem because it was not happening, and attempted to adapt the

        > materials, why do they not drop the reference to the present generation

        > of "some who are standing here"



        David,



        Each synoptic evangelist had a problem when dealing with an embarrassing

        text. Such a text could be repeated in full, abbreviated, altered, and/or

        put in a context which essentially changed its meaning. Thus the dropping of

        a reference would depend on how the particular evangelist felt at the time

        about the degree of embarrassment the reference caused.



        > ..... But Mark is the earliest gospel, and I very much doubt that Jesus

        > "failure to return" would actually be a problem as early as AD65-70.



        Mark, the earliest gospel, was probably written in 71 CE, shortly after the

        fall of Jerusalem. This was fully 40 years after the crucifixion, and plenty

        of time to be worried about the absence of a 'return' which had been

        expected to be imminent. Certainly Paul had expected it to be within his

        lifetime when he wrote to the Thessalonians: " ... we who are alive, who are

        left until the coming of the Lord ..." (1 Thess 4:15). But by the time he

        wrote the Philippian 'Joyful Letter', he seems to have changed his mind.

        (Php 1:21-26).



        Ron Price,



        Derbyshire, UK



        http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



















        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.