Is Jesus the son of man or?

Prince · Post by **Prince** » Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:05 pm

In scripture the servant of God is described as eating and drinking but sinners do not eat and drink.
Jesus says the Son of man came eating and drinking. In stating that He is saying that the Son of man is the Servant of God. So when He speaks of the Son of man he is not speaking of only Himself.
Let us not forget that He said that there would be a time when the Son of man would be revealed.

Re;

Isaiah 65:13 NRS

" Therefore thus says the Lord God: My servants shall eat, but you shall be hungry; my servants shall drink, but you shall be thirsty; my servants shall rejoice, but you shall be put to shame; "

Matthew 11:19
" the Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, "Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds."

Luke 17:30 NRS

30 â€”it will be like that on the day that the Son of Man is revealed.

alwayson · Post by **alwayson** » Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:05 pm

Prince wrote: He was showing that a tree that does not bear good fruit is no good. In other words a follower that does not bear good fruit might as well be dead. It was symbolic.

It is symbolic, but it has to do with God's abandonment of the temple.

Remember the Gospels were composed after the destruction of the temple.

marco · Post by **marco** » Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:26 pm

alwayson wrote:

We know exactly what it means, because the chiastic structure tells us.

Chiasmus is a literary device; it indicates, if anything, some structural style and it tells us some exegetes are commendably observant.

marco wrote:

I don't know why Jesus would deny his own family. Perhaps he had something to hide.

alwayson wrote: If you are talking about Mark 3, the whole point is that when you become new Christian you get new brothers and sisters.

This goes back to Paul's letters.

That's the positive aspect; the negative one is his rudeness to his family. I wonder what chiasmus has to say about that.

Prince · Post by **Prince** » Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:37 pm

alwayson wrote:
Prince wrote: He was showing that a tree that does not bear good fruit is no good. In other words a follower that does not bear good fruit might as well be dead. It was symbolic.
It is symbolic, but it has to do with God's abandonment of the temple.

Remember the Gospels were composed after the destruction of the temple.

They were composed after but does not mean it was believed after. Could have been believed long before.

In any case Jesus was referring to the lack of fruit by God's people and what happens because of it. Remember Jesus also stated in the book of John what happens to a branch that does not bear fruit.

John 15:2
"He removes every branch in me that bears no fruit. Every branch that bears fruit he prunes to make it bear more fruit".