If Jesus is the 'son of man', what about Psalm 146:3

[sk0rpi0n]

Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
-Psalm 146:3 (King James Version)

So there is no help in Jesus?

 

[Free]

Jesus is the Son of Man (a title) whereas Psalm 146:3 "son of man" isn't a title, it is a reference to men in general--don't put your trust in princes or men.

 

[sk0rpi0n]

According to Biblegateway.com, newer translations have changed "son of man" to just "men".

Why is that? If it simply meant 'regular' men, then didnt translators leave the word 'son of man' in that particular verse?

I always thought Jesus' title, 'son of man' mean a regular normal human being. Am I wrong?

 

[bodhitharta]

According to Biblegateway.com, newer translations have changed "son of man" to just "men".

Why is that? If it simply meant 'regular' men, then didnt translators leave the word 'son of man' in that particular verse?

I always thought Jesus' title, 'son of man' mean a regular normal human being. Am I wrong?

No, you are right, but no one wants Jesus to be any part regular.

 

[Free]

According to Biblegateway.com, newer translations have changed "son of man" to just "men".

Why is that? If it simply meant 'regular' men, then didnt translators leave the word 'son of man' in that particular verse?

I always thought Jesus' title, 'son of man' mean a regular normal human being. Am I wrong?

One must always be careful when terms are applied to Jesus, they often take on a different, much more substantial meaning. I have already shown bodhitharta the error in his understanding of "the Son of God" when it is applied to Jesus. The title "Son of Man" when applied to Jesus has two different meanings. One comes from the book of Daniel where it is used of the Messiah; it is a Messianic title applied to Jesus. The other meaning is that he truly was a human being.

Jesus was both the Son of God and the Son of Man--truly God and truly man. Bodhitharta would have you believe that "Son of Man" means that Jesus was truly man but that Son of God doesn't mean he was also truly God.

 

[bodhitharta]

According to Biblegateway.com, newer translations have changed "son of man" to just "men".

Why is that? If it simply meant 'regular' men, then didnt translators leave the word 'son of man' in that particular verse?

I always thought Jesus' title, 'son of man' mean a regular normal human being. Am I wrong?

One must always be careful when terms are applied to Jesus, they often take on a different, much more substantial meaning. I have already shown bodhitharta the error in his understanding of "the Son of God" when it is applied to Jesus. The title "Son of Man" when applied to Jesus has two different meanings. One comes from the book of Daniel where it is used of the Messiah; it is a Messianic title applied to Jesus. The other meaning is that he truly was a human being.

Jesus was both the Son of God and the Son of Man--truly God and truly man. Bodhitharta would have you believe that "Son of Man" means that Jesus was truly man but that Son of God doesn't mean he was also truly God.

I believe that either phase is an expression of relationship and not physicality. Jesus did not have a father so if I was thinking in physical terms wouldn't he be the son of Woman? But I agree with the term of being a son of Mankind and him being a son of God but as I said before Adam was also called a son of God and Adam was never a son of Mankind, Adam is the Father of mankind but God is The Creator of all flesh and by our relationship we are His children.

 

[sk0rpi0n]

The title "Son of Man" when applied to Jesus has two different meanings. One comes from the book of Daniel where it is used of the Messiah; it is a Messianic title applied to Jesus. The other meaning is that he truly was a human being.

Ok, but can you please demonstrate how your statement (underlined) is backed by solid biblical doctrine, or is it a personal interpretation?

Because the way I see it...

a) Jesus is called the son of man (whatever it is supposed to mean)
b) The Psalms warn us saying that "there is no help in the son of man"

 

[Adullam]

The verse in question in the Hebrew reads "Ben Adam" which is "son of Adam." Jesus Christ is not of the old Adamic nature...so He is not a son of Adam per se....but a "bar enosh" which is stated in Daniel 7:13 that He will come in the clouds of heaven. The Daniel title is in Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke. So Jesus would have called Himself "bar enosh" to signify that He is the "son of Man." There are at least 3 different words that I know that are used for man in the bible....enosh, adam and gever.

While Jesus Christ is fully man, He is not under the curse of Adam although He came in the flesh as an "enosh." So a ben adam is an everyman. Bar enosh becomes a specific title for the messiah. Since this title is also in Aramaic, it gives perhaps a clue as to the culture from which the Messiah springs up.

 

[unclejed]

The term "son of man" as referring to Jesus is both physical and metaphorical. More at metaphorical in regard to His very nature. As Rabbi Paul refers to Jesus as the second Adam. Adam was the first man, he was perfect until he fell. God then came down to earth as the second Adam or metaphorically as the "son of man". Jesus fulfilled the desire of the Father and "sinned not" and thus was acceptable as a perfect man and sacrifice for sin.