Did Jesus ever call himself Son of God, or Son of David?

[Provoker]

Considering the fact that Solomon is the only person in scripture who was both the son of David and the son of God, why would both Ezekiel and Jesus refer to themselves as son of man?

[Provoker]

In regard to this question, an interesting passage appears in all three of the Synoptics:

Then Jesus said to them, “Why is it said that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself declares in the Book of Psalms:

“‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.�’

David calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?�

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?�

“The son of David,� they replied.

He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says,

“‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet.�’

If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?� 46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.

While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, “Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:

“‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet.�

David himself calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?�

The large crowd listened to him with delight.

Hi cnorman19:
Of course that is a rhetorical question, because it is clearly recorded several places in pre-first century scripture, that God made David's son, His son.
God also told David that his kingdom will be established forever, so we could also ask how come it fell. The answer to that is obvious...David's kingdom of covenant Israel will be resurrected from the dead, so that God can make a new covenant with Israel, which will give Israel everlasting life because Israel will not break the 10 commandments. And so that it can fulfill God's everlasting, unconditional, gospel promise, commonly known as the Abrahamic Covenant. It should be called the Abrahamic gospel. Gal. 3:8.

We never talked much about these passages in seminary. I've often wondered what Christians make of them.

It is not surprising that you never talked much about these passages in seminary, because the 4th century Universal church of Constantine came into existence specifically to cover up the Abrahamic gospel, because it was a threat to the national security of the Roman Empire. That is also the reason Jesus was killed...John 11:45-55.
When government gets involved with religion there is always a political reason:-)
What do you think?

[1213]

Notice in the post by another gentleman above, that the subject was never brought up in Seminary. Doesn't that smack of a coverup?
What do you think?

Personally I don’t see any problem in this. That is why I really can’t see any cover-up in this, if the matter is not brought up in Seminary.

[Provoker]

Notice in the post by another gentleman above, that the subject was never brought up in Seminary. Doesn't that smack of a coverup?
What do you think?

Personally I don’t see any problem in this. That is why I really can’t see any cover-up in this, if the matter is not brought up in Seminary.

Can you imagine the questions which churchmen would have if it was preached in the church, that God begat Solomon as His son a thousand years before Jesus?
There is a very clear and logical explanation, but it is contrary to church doctrine. That is why I say that it's lack of mention at Seminary smacks of a coverup.
You have to understand the things the church does not tell you, in order to see the coverup:-)

[JLB32168]

‘Son of man’ simply means a human being.

That’s not always the case. The Books of Enoch, while only canonical in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, are Jewish works and evince an ancient belief that the Son of Man was much more than a mere human being. The book describes the SoM as being preexistent:

• And at that hour that Son of Man was named in the presence of the Lord of the spirits, and his name before the One to Whom belongs the time before time. Yes, before the sun and the signs were created, before the stars of the heaven were made, his name was named before the Lord of the spirits.
  'This is the son of man who has righteousness, with whom dwells righteousness, and who reveals all the treasures of that which is hidden, because the Lord of the spirits has chosen him, and whose lot has the pre-eminence before the Lord of the spirits in uprightness forever.
  All who dwell on earth shall fall down and worship before him, and will praise and bless and celebrate with song the Lord of the spirits. For this reason has he been chosen and hidden before Him, before the creation of the world and for ever more. The wisdom of the Lord of the spirits has revealed him to the holy and righteous; for he has preserved the lot of the righteous . . .

Ezekiel has the Lord refer to him (Ezekiel) as son of man, in the original meaning of a human being. Nothing to do with Jesus.

The Hebrew canon was fluid in Christ’s time as evidenced by the fact that the Books of Enoch were widespread; they were found among the collections of the DSS. This is one of the reasons that early Christians regarded the term “Son of Man� with such gravity and significance.

[polonius]

JLB posted

Ancient of Years wrote:
‘Son of man’ simply means a human being.

That’s not always the case. The Books of Enoch, while only canonical in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, are Jewish works and evince an ancient belief that the Son of Man was much more than a mere human being. The book describes the SoM as being preexistent:

RESPONSE: Perhaps that's why the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church don't consider the Books of Enoch to be canonical

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Provoker]

Yes, he admitted he has said so at John 10:36 " I said, 'I am the Son of God '"

He was often called "son of David" and never once corrected those that did it.

JW

[Student]

[Replying to post 1 by Provoker]
He was often called "son of David" and never once corrected those that did it.

Except of course Jesus did. At Mark 12:35 - 37 Jesus maintains that the Messiah could not be a son of David:

Mk 12:35 . And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David?

36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

37 David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he [then] his son? And the common people heard him gladly.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Provoker]
He was often called "son of David" and never once corrected those that did it.

Except of course Jesus did.

No he did not.

He was not reprimanding being called "son of David", nor was he in any way implying that the expression did not apply to him, ( indeed he cured and blessed those that used that very expression), Jesus was teaching what that expression MEANT in relation to his messiahship.

Mark 12:35-37 (NIV)

35 While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, “Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? 36 David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:

“‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet.�’[a]
37 David himself calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?�

The large crowd listened to him with delight.

[Provoker]

[Replying to post 18 by JehovahsWitness]Hello JW:
So what is the point behind the people calling Jesus the son of David? I would think that "son of God" is a great enough accolade that no reference to David would be necessary. If anything, calling Jesus "the son of David", as well as calling him "the son of God", tends to raise David to the level of God, or reduce God to the level of David.
Was it disrespectful to God, to call Jesus the son of David?

[Student]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]
At Mark 12:35-37, Jesus appears to be defending his Messianic credentials against Jewish critics. If he was not defending or defining his own messianic role, he must have been carrying on a merely verbal exchange about a purely speculative question, and that, seems extremely unlikely.

Therefore, taken in its natural sense, Jesus' argument implies, not that the Messiah was not merely a son of David, but that he was not a son of David at all.

If we suppose that Jesus, was not in fact of Davidic descent, it would be necessary for early Christians to search the scriptures for evidence that the Messiah would not be of David's line.

Consequently, verses 35-37 are regarded by some critics, as an early Christian production, either of a group which sought to show that the Messiah was Son of man rather than son of David (perhaps as a means of countering a Jewish objection that Jesus was not of Davidic descent), or possibly of some Hellenistic group which sought to show that Jesus was more than son of David, namely Son of God.

Psalm 110, as found in the LXX, appeared to provide them with the necessary "proof" text.

Later Christians took a different tack and endeavoured to provide evidence that Jesus was of David's line hence Matthew's and Luke's inventive yet contradictory nativity fictions.