The good seed

[Bobcat]

In the book of Matthew Jesus states that the one who sows the good seed is the son of man. So In sending His followers as He was sent Jesus is saying His followers are the son of man because they are to do just as He did.

Matthew 13:37
37 He answered, "The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man;

Where else does Jesus indicate He is not alone as the son of man?

[Bobcat]

Scripture says the son of man is actually a mighty army.

13 As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him.
14 To him was given dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed.
15 As for me, Daniel, my spirit was troubled within me, and the visions of my head terrified me.
16 I approached one of the attendants to ask him the truth concerning all this. So he said that he would disclose to me the interpretation of the matter:
17 "As for these four great beasts, four kings shall arise out of the earth.
18 But the holy ones of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever—forever and ever."

No where in this scripture does it say the Son of Man.
Holy ones are not the same as the Son of Man.
The title Son of Man in the Greek Scriptures is unique to Jesus only.

"But Jesus said to him: “Foxes have dens and birds of heaven have nests, but the Son of man has nowhere to lay down his head.” Matt 8:20
'His head'. Singular not plural.

It says one like a human being. This is indicating a man who is given the kingdom and all people shall serve him but Daniel was given the meaning that it is the holy ones of the Most High. So there you have it, the son of man is a multitude of people as Jesus indicated. Christianity is wrong!

There is no scriptural bases for this claim. This claim is adding words to scripture that are not there and making connections where there are none. The only mention of 'son of man' is when Daniel himself is being addressed. (Dan 8:17) Yet again it is singular and not plural.

"I saw one like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him."
The use of the words ONE and HE meaning a single person and not many. Again, singular and not plural.

Still no evidence that many people are the Son of Man. Everything points to a singular person. That person is Jesus Christ only.

Are you even reading the verses. It says the kingdom is given to one individual whom most Christians would agree is Jesus but the meaning of the vision is given to Daniel as the holy ones of the Most High. So the vision is of one but he is actually a multitude.

Just as Israel is spoken of as the son of God but is a nation of people it is the same for the son of man who is the son of God. So the son of man is actually Israel as well.

“Israel is my son, my firstborn, let my son go so he can serve me.”

[2timothy316]

Anyone who has a father can be called the son [or daughter] of man.

But not every son of man is the Christ.

The meaning of the expression is controversial. Interpretation of the use of "the Son of man" in the New Testament has remained challenging and after 150 years of debate no consensus on the issue has emerged among scholars.{SOURCE}

Better then to refer to biblical Jesus as "The Christ" then.

Yet Son of Man is correct too because Jesus was a man. Not God or an angel. Yet not just any man, a perfect man to pay for the perfect life Adam gave up to sin and death.

[2timothy316]

Scripture says the son of man is actually a mighty army.

13 As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him.
14 To him was given dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed.
15 As for me, Daniel, my spirit was troubled within me, and the visions of my head terrified me.
16 I approached one of the attendants to ask him the truth concerning all this. So he said that he would disclose to me the interpretation of the matter:
17 "As for these four great beasts, four kings shall arise out of the earth.
18 But the holy ones of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever—forever and ever."

No where in this scripture does it say the Son of Man.
Holy ones are not the same as the Son of Man.
The title Son of Man in the Greek Scriptures is unique to Jesus only.

"But Jesus said to him: “Foxes have dens and birds of heaven have nests, but the Son of man has nowhere to lay down his head.” Matt 8:20
'His head'. Singular not plural.

It says one like a human being. This is indicating a man who is given the kingdom and all people shall serve him but Daniel was given the meaning that it is the holy ones of the Most High. So there you have it, the son of man is a multitude of people as Jesus indicated. Christianity is wrong!

There is no scriptural bases for this claim. This claim is adding words to scripture that are not there and making connections where there are none. The only mention of 'son of man' is when Daniel himself is being addressed. (Dan 8:17) Yet again it is singular and not plural.

"I saw one like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him."
The use of the words ONE and HE meaning a single person and not many. Again, singular and not plural.

Still no evidence that many people are the Son of Man. Everything points to a singular person. That person is Jesus Christ only.

Are you even reading the verses.

Back at ya.

It says the kingdom is given to one individual whom most Christians would agree is Jesus but the meaning of the vision is given to Daniel as the holy ones of the Most High. So the vision is of one but he is actually a multitude.

Anytime a person says words like, 'but this actually means' is a personal interpretation and opinion. I have no reason to accept your interpretation. The kingdom is given to Jesus, period.

You like to read scripture right? At John 18:36 Jesus says, "MY Kingdom is not of this world." Not our not your. MY, singular. Is the Bible right or wrong?

[William]

Anyone who has a father can be called the son [or daughter] of man.

But not every son of man is the Christ.

The meaning of the expression is controversial. Interpretation of the use of "the Son of man" in the New Testament has remained challenging and after 150 years of debate no consensus on the issue has emerged among scholars.{SOURCE}

Better then to refer to biblical Jesus as "The Christ" then.

Yet Son of Man is correct too because Jesus was a man. Not God or an angel. Yet not just any man, a perfect man to pay for the perfect life Adam gave up to sin and death.

Infatuation noted.

When you say "was a man" are you saying that Jesus is no longer a man?

[2timothy316]

Anyone who has a father can be called the son [or daughter] of man.

But not every son of man is the Christ.

The meaning of the expression is controversial. Interpretation of the use of "the Son of man" in the New Testament has remained challenging and after 150 years of debate no consensus on the issue has emerged among scholars.{SOURCE}

Better then to refer to biblical Jesus as "The Christ" then.

Yet Son of Man is correct too because Jesus was a man. Not God or an angel. Yet not just any man, a perfect man to pay for the perfect life Adam gave up to sin and death.

Infatuation noted.

When you say "was a man" are you saying that Jesus is no longer a man?

Jesus ascended to heaven. (Acts 1:9-12)
Flesh and blood cannot go to heaven. (1 Corinthians 15:50)
According to those scriptures, Jesus cannot be in heaven and be a man.

[2ndpillar2]

Scripture says the son of man is actually a mighty army.

13 As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him.
14 To him was given dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed.
15 As for me, Daniel, my spirit was troubled within me, and the visions of my head terrified me.
16 I approached one of the attendants to ask him the truth concerning all this. So he said that he would disclose to me the interpretation of the matter:
17 "As for these four great beasts, four kings shall arise out of the earth.
18 But the holy ones of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever—forever and ever."

No where in this scripture does it say the Son of Man.
Holy ones are not the same as the Son of Man.
The title Son of Man in the Greek Scriptures is unique to Jesus only.

"But Jesus said to him: “Foxes have dens and birds of heaven have nests, but the Son of man has nowhere to lay down his head.” Matt 8:20
'His head'. Singular not plural.

It says one like a human being. This is indicating a man who is given the kingdom and all people shall serve him but Daniel was given the meaning that it is the holy ones of the Most High. So there you have it, the son of man is a multitude of people as Jesus indicated. Christianity is wrong!

There is no scriptural bases for this claim. This claim is adding words to scripture that are not there and making connections where there are none. The only mention of 'son of man' is when Daniel himself is being addressed. (Dan 8:17) Yet again it is singular and not plural.

"I saw one like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him."
The use of the words ONE and HE meaning a single person and not many. Again, singular and not plural.

Still no evidence that many people are the Son of Man. Everything points to a singular person. That person is Jesus Christ only.

Yeshua was anointed as a prophet of God in fulfillment of what Moses said about God sending a prophet that Isreal was to listen too. All the prophets of God are anointed, and as shown in Ezekiel, such as in Ezekiel 28:2, whereas the LORD addressed Ezekiel "son of man".

These are still instances of a single person being called 'son of man'. None of these texts are referring to several or groups of people. Ezekiel is being called the 'son of man' in the Bible, God's angel is addressing one person. Not a group. Ezekiel is not the Son of Man being refereed to in the New Testament. The Son of Man in the New Testament is referring to Jesus.

Matthew 24 is referring to one "one son of man", the "seed" of "Davd" (Psalms 89:3), and Ezekiel is referring to another. One plus one is two, and two is no longer one, but would be deemed as brothers, and children of God. One being considered "first born" (Psalms 89:27). On the other hand, both of them are prophets, and anointed, and are listed among many other prophets in the bible, which can be referred to as a group of people, or at least "several". All the "anointed" children of 1 John 2;27 could be included in the group as children of God, and individual males as a "son of man", while at the same time "born of Him" (1 John 2:29), a son of God, who "practices righteousness", opposed by the sons of the devil, who practice wickedness/lawlessness (1 John 3:8).

[William]

Anyone who has a father can be called the son [or daughter] of man.

But not every son of man is the Christ.

The meaning of the expression is controversial. Interpretation of the use of "the Son of man" in the New Testament has remained challenging and after 150 years of debate no consensus on the issue has emerged among scholars.{SOURCE}

Better then to refer to biblical Jesus as "The Christ" then.

Yet Son of Man is correct too because Jesus was a man. Not God or an angel. Yet not just any man, a perfect man to pay for the perfect life Adam gave up to sin and death.

Infatuation noted.

When you say "was a man" are you saying that Jesus is no longer a man?

Jesus ascended to heaven. (Acts 1:9-12)
Flesh and blood cannot go to heaven. (1 Corinthians 15:50)
According to those scriptures, Jesus cannot be in heaven and be a man.

Then any reference of being a son of man is past tense - meant for the listeners when biblical Jesus was living among them. In that context, it is not the appropriate title for us readers today, to call he who ascended.
Therefore, the more appropriate title would have to be The Christ.

[2timothy316]

Anyone who has a father can be called the son [or daughter] of man.

But not every son of man is the Christ.

The meaning of the expression is controversial. Interpretation of the use of "the Son of man" in the New Testament has remained challenging and after 150 years of debate no consensus on the issue has emerged among scholars.{SOURCE}

Better then to refer to biblical Jesus as "The Christ" then.

Yet Son of Man is correct too because Jesus was a man. Not God or an angel. Yet not just any man, a perfect man to pay for the perfect life Adam gave up to sin and death.

Infatuation noted.

When you say "was a man" are you saying that Jesus is no longer a man?

Jesus ascended to heaven. (Acts 1:9-12)
Flesh and blood cannot go to heaven. (1 Corinthians 15:50)
According to those scriptures, Jesus cannot be in heaven and be a man.

Then any reference of being a son of man is past tense - meant for the listeners when biblical Jesus was living among them. In that context, it is not the appropriate title for us readers today, to call he who ascended.
Therefore, the more appropriate title would have to be The Christ.

It still is important for us today to know that it was a man that died for our sins. Not an angel or God. Adam forfeited his perfect human body to sin, Jesus gave his perfect body to erase that crime. "For since death came through a man, resurrection of the dead also comes through a man." - 1 Cor 15:21