01-19-2010, 08:02 PM
Peers,
Why does Jesus refer to himself as ?????? ?????????? or "the son of the man" although the original Aramaic term for ???man??? is ( ??)????(??) (resh)(bet)? The former term was first employed by Tatian in his Diatessaron, which is a direct translation of the Greek christological title ??? ????????? ??????? ????????????????. Philoxenus of Mabbug comments on this Christological title, saying
???for this reason, then, he was called ???the son of the man??? because he became the son of the new man who preceded the transgression of the commandment.??? Needless to say, Philoxenus did not say that Jesus called himself "the son of the man." Instead, he says that Jesus "was called," which implies that "the son of the man" title surfaced after Jesus' time. Yet we find that Jesus is referring to himself as "the son of the man" in the Aramaic Gospels! Philoxenus identifies the ???man??? as Adam, which makes Jesus ???the son of Adam.??? How do we explain this inconsistency?
It is best illustrated that the "son of Adam" title is doctrinal by the words:
???? ?????? ?????? ???????? ???????????? ?????????? ??????
It is not (a/the) son of man that the virgin was carrying
This passage implies that the virgin was not carrying a normal man, but one with two qnoma: fully divine and fully human---classic theology from Babai the Great.
The existence of this Christological title in the Aramaic Gospels weakens the argument that the Peshitta came down to us unaltered.
Why does Jesus refer to himself as ?????? ?????????? or "the son of the man" although the original Aramaic term for ???man??? is ( ??)????(??) (resh)(bet)? The former term was first employed by Tatian in his Diatessaron, which is a direct translation of the Greek christological title ??? ????????? ??????? ????????????????. Philoxenus of Mabbug comments on this Christological title, saying
???for this reason, then, he was called ???the son of the man??? because he became the son of the new man who preceded the transgression of the commandment.??? Needless to say, Philoxenus did not say that Jesus called himself "the son of the man." Instead, he says that Jesus "was called," which implies that "the son of the man" title surfaced after Jesus' time. Yet we find that Jesus is referring to himself as "the son of the man" in the Aramaic Gospels! Philoxenus identifies the ???man??? as Adam, which makes Jesus ???the son of Adam.??? How do we explain this inconsistency?
It is best illustrated that the "son of Adam" title is doctrinal by the words:
???? ?????? ?????? ???????? ???????????? ?????????? ??????
It is not (a/the) son of man that the virgin was carrying
This passage implies that the virgin was not carrying a normal man, but one with two qnoma: fully divine and fully human---classic theology from Babai the Great.
The existence of this Christological title in the Aramaic Gospels weakens the argument that the Peshitta came down to us unaltered.