gospel’s "son of man" fulfillment

8/12/2019 Gospels "Son of Man" Fulfillment

1/13

Gospels son of man Fulfillment

By: D. Hunter

Son of man means a product of a man. See more below.

What is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you

care for them? (Psalms 8:4).

"God is not as a man, that he should lie nor as a son of man, that he

should be changed" (Numbers 23:19).

"Blessed is the man that doth this and the son of man that shall lay holdon this" (Isaiah 56:2).

I've been thinking about Stevens trial. Steven never mentions Jesus

resurrection or any mention of a missing body. They (Romans and

Sanhedrin) never accuse him or any one of the missing body, nor was

there any search for this doubtful resurrection. This would have been a

major issue and evidence of a resurrecting Jesus. The absence of this

concern sheds light that Paul was discussing something else other thana historical figuregiven the fact that he supposedly meet with the

disciples of Jesus. According to Galatians 1:11-12 and 1 Corinthians

15:3-5, his experience was one of enlightenment of mankind and

resembles works of prior authors: the books of Philo of Alexandria

(enlightenment of man by combining Greek and Jewish philosophy 20

BCE), Polonius of Tyana (3 BCE),and The Assentation of Isaiah of the

1stcenturycelestial being/star sacrificed by Satan before descending

to earth. Given the fact that Jesus said he will return on the clouds and

everyone will see him is a clear indication that he is in heaven(according to Mathew 24; Acts 1:11; the book of Revelations). Thus,

Pauls experience could not have been with Jesus, but resembles the

experience of Constantine and Mohammadit enlightenment, or a

celestial being that Paul is referring to, or a celestial being as

enlightenment.


2/13

But more concerning is the Acts narrative elements of omnipresence

as it was written much later. Especially, as Paul was there and he

condemns Steven to death and holds the cloaks of the stoners, but laterthe book of Acts by Luke/Paul describes his vision and experience in

great detailof his vision.This is clearly a fictional elaboration.This

juxtaposition is not rational in the least bit.

A greater concern is the concept of "son of man", refers to humanity

(traditionally known to all Jews according to the TNK; cf. belowexplanation). As Steven gives his testimony, the audience was listening

and not reactingeven to his accusations of being sinners, which was

the cause of their teeth on edge. The catalyst was his reference to the

son of man sitting at the right hand of G-d. This phrase reflects the

idea that it was man kind or his intellect/enlightenment that is at G-d's

right hand; that of which he was stoned for. He never references a

missing body and the texts never reflect that the Jewish leaders knew

of a missing body. This brings a great concern to the New Testament

theology, even more so its logic.

Penultimately, the contradictory teachings of the Gospels and of Paul

leads to the understanding that there were two different ideologies

hereone was historical and one was not. Here is examples of

different teachings between Jesus and Paul: Luke 21:8 vs. Romans

13:12 ; 1 Cor 2:13, Gal 1:12 vs. John 17:14,17; Rom 14:9 vs. Luke

20:38; Rom 13:9 vs. Matt 22:37-40; 1 Cor. 4:15 and Philm 1:10 Paul

tells him that he is their father while Jesus says in Matt. 23:9 to call

no man your father on earthAgain, Puals writings were that ofprevious philosophy combined by Philo. It is even speculated that

Apollonius is Paul.

I speculate that it is enlightenment of man that was being

taught/conveyed as Stevens message, which Paul later preachedthe


3/13

combination of Greek and Jewish philosophy as mentioned. What was

Steven killed for? Not teaching the death and resurrection of Jesus, but

Steven was immediately drug out after stating that humanity (mans

intellect/enlightenmentphilosophy taught by Philo) that is at the right

hand of G-d in conjunction with the concept that man is created in Hisimage! His statement was that the sinfulness of the priesthood was the

death of Jesus as Josephus points out (see below). Not once was the

argument taught that Jesus died and resurrected and his missing body

was evidence. He was accused of preaching against the Law. This was

initiated by his healings.

Essentially, Christians and Messianic are worshiping the Flavians

as messiah of the Jewish people! See below of evidence of claims

and definition of son of man!

Further research of the son of man (DEFINITION IN

EVIDENCE OF CLAIM)

Interestingly, Christians have pointed out imaginative symbolism of

how Joana resembles Jesus: berried for three days with wreath around

his head like a crown thons; however, they will exclude explicit texts

that conflict with their desire of belief. They pick and choose which outJosephus work to validate a historical Jesus, but exclude others that

show the multiple Jesus existed. This is not academic and bares no

intellectual integrity. In textual comparison of genres in literature, it is

clear that the Gospels were allegories of significant events and of a

person(s) that were punished and combined into a fictitious character.

These allegories were used many Jesus characteristics that was

detailed in Josephus writings. Jesus did exist, many of them did, but

not the Jesus of the Gospels (see below for evidence). Many people

have come to the understanding that the Synoptic Gospels were writtenabout Titus (born 30 AD) riding on clouds and destroying the temple

(evidence see below). Comparing these text alongside the history of

Josephus shows the exact sequence of Titus military campaign in

sequential order. These Gospels were to change the Messianic Age

doctrine of the first century to a more submissive one vs. the warrior


4/13

messiah doctrine that would deliver Israel out of the occupying hands.

This aggressive doctrine was a greatest threat to Rome, which they

changed through literature by having people submit themselves to

Roman rule, give to Caesar what is Caesar. This became the doctrine

to get the people to submit. Why is the Christian cannon as it is? Whatwere the qualifiers? There were no qualifiers except to include books

that fit the image of Constantine (also baring the name Neo-

Flavian) family name and decided to use his familys religion and

make it Roman religion. Suetonius records Romans controlling history

by crucifying slaves of other historians that did not follow the Roman

formula (Domitian10). This is why the other Gnostic Gospels and texts

did not make itinterestingly the book of John and Revelation made it.

The Book of Revelations has already been fulfilled during Titus

campaign. One simply did not interfere with the histories of this periodwithout risking dire consequences. A case can be made that the

Christians and Gospels were actually a product of the Flavians.

According to Suetonius, Vespasians son, Titus, was a master forger

and propagandist who installed a select group of exceptional men who

served the succeeding emperors as invaluable servants for both their

private and public needs: It often amused Titus to compete with his

secretaries at shorthand dictation, or so I have heard; and he claimed

that he could imitate any handwriting in existence and might, in

different circumstances, have been the most celebrated forger of alltime. He chose as his friends men whom succeeding emperors also

retained as indispensable alike to themselves and to the State, and of

whose services they made special use (Suetonius, Titus, 3 & 7).

Why is there a book of Titus? Titus was the son of Vespasian and

Apollounius crowned him as king in 79 AD at Tarsus. Apollonius was

the teacher of Titus. There is ample evidence to connect Paul of Tarsus

to Apollonius. Titus was his epistle of the Rome, Rome was the church.

Creatively concluded, we never hear of Paul dying in Acts but assume

he did during the revolt in Rome. As we know, Titus Josephus Flavius

was supposable adopted into the family and wrote the history that

deified the Flavians as god ordained saviors to the world and the

Jews. Immediately after his coronation, Titus destroyed Jerusalem as

prophesied by Josephus. The Gospels and texts were written with Titus


5/13

in mind. What you are reading are allegorical texts of Flavian history.

See below for evidence. It is by tradition that the books of Paul were

written before the destruction of the temple and not by any linguistic

standards.

Not only are the journeys of Paul and Apollonius very similar, their

names are as well. While Paul is "Paulos" in Greek, Thayer's Lexicon

states that "Apollos" is, according to some ancient authorities,

contracted from "Apollonios." Interestingly, "Apollos" is mentioned in

five places in Paul's 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, in such a way -

juxtapositioned with the names of Paul, "Cephas" and Christ; Paul and

Christ; or Paul alone - as to attribute great significance to him. It has

further been asserted that this contraction of the name Apollonius,

Apollos, was found uncontracted in the Codex Bezae of the NewTestament.

The earliest Gospel fragment dates back to the second century. Why is

acclaimed Jewish literature, the Gospels, all in Greek while the Qumran

writings were in Hebrew during the same period; additionally, why are

so many text missing during this period? Rome destroyed all texts that

may usurp their authority, even ethnic identity writings and infused

their Hellenistic Greek-Roman religion through their literature andmilitary power. The Roman church sprang from the Therapeutae

religion. Paul continued being a Therapeutae as he by healing thesick

physically (Philo: On the Essenes of Egypt, p. 1) and spiritually. He

continued Philos doctrine that mans ingeniousness and enlightenment

was the right hand of G-d (Praem 39-43). Evidence of this

understanding and occurance was documented byPhilostratus' or

Lucius Flavius Philostratus. Intentionally, the church uses such terms

as the physition and other Therapeutaetitles. Therapeutae were

simple spiritual people that focused on healing the soul and bodytheyused herbal remedies to do so. In the 3rdcentury Eusebius later

identifies Philos Therapeutae as the first Christian monks in his

Ecclesiastical History. Thus continuing this new Christian religion with

the hybreeding Greco-Roman philosophy and medicine with Jewish

religion/philosophy. Connect the dots of the Hellenistic history and one

can see that this is Rome establishing a Roman religion with self-


6/13

fulfilled prophecies.

Suetoniusdiscusses Josephus prophecy of the Flavians being

Christ.

EVIDENCE:

EVIDENCE: Summary of Apollonius of Tyana

http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/apollonius/apollonius_life.html

Chapters 29-34 focus on Apollonius' contacts with Vespasian's son and

crown prince Titus. Apollonius writes a letter of eulogy of Titus for

having refused to be crowned after the fall of Jerusalem (6.29). Titus

invites Apollonius for a discussion in Tarsus before returning to Rome.

The sage praises the harmony existing between Vespasian and Titus

(6.30) and assigns Demetrius to the heir apparent as his philosophical

advisor (6.31). He issues a cryptic prophecy of Titus' death (6.32) andbrings about the immediate granting of a request made by the people of

Tarsus.

Publius Cornelius Tacitus Writes in Book Five verse 13:There had

been seen hosts joining battle in the skies, the fiery gleam of arms, the

temple illuminated by a sudden radiance from the clouds. The doors of

the inner shrine were suddenly thrown open, and a voice of more than

mortal tone was heard to cry that the Gods were departing. At the same

instant there was a mighty stir as of departure. Some few put a fearfulmeaning on these events, but in most there was a firm persuasion, that

in the ancient records of their priests was contained a prediction of how

at this very time the East was to grow powerful, and rulers, coming

from Judaea, were to acquire universal empire. These mysterious

prophecies had pointed to Vespasian and Titus, but the common


7/13


8/13

where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet did he not

make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his

voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip

his answer was , "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" And when Albinus (for he

was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence hecame? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to

what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till

Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him. Now, during all

the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any

of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day

uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow,

"Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" Nor did he give ill words to any of those that

beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but

this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholypresage of what was to come. This cry of his was the loudest at the

festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months,

without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time

that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased;

for, as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost

force, "Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy

house!" And just as he added at the last - "Woe, woe to myself also!"

there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed

him immediately: and as he was uttering the very same presages, hegave up the ghost.

Definition of the son of man

You made a good observation about Ezekiel's use of "son of man." This

term is used by God to address Ezekiel over 90 times in the book, but

"son of man" is rarely used anywhere else in the Old Testament.

In Hebrew, to say "son of ..." is a way of saying it belongs to something

or to emphasize its association with something. For example, Isaiah 5

describes a fertile hill literally in the Hebrew as "a hill, the son of

fatness." The phrase "son of fatness" is a Hebrew idiom for "very fat"

or very fertile. So when God calls Ezekiel "son of man," it is a way of


9/13

saying he is completely a man, a mere human creature in contrast to the

Creator. So the term "son of man" in Ezekiel stresses Ezekiel's humility

in contrast to God's glory.

In Contrast to Deity

The rendering for the Hebrew "ben adam," applied to mankind in

general, as opposed to and distinct from non-human relationship;

expressing also the larger, unlimited implications of humanity as

differentiated from limited (e.g., national) forms and aspects of human

life. Thus, contrasted with the "sons of God" ("bene Elohim") are the

"daughters of man" ("benot ha-adam"), women taken by the former,

non-human or super-human, beings as wives (Gen. vi. 2 et seq.). As

expressing difference from God, the term occurs in the blessing of

Balaam: "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man,

that he should repent" (Num. xxiii. 19). Similarly, David appealing to

Saul puts Yhwh over and against the children of men (I Sam. xxvi. 19).

The punishment of God, also, is contrasted with that of the "children of

men," the former being much more severe, as appears from the promise

solemnly given to David (II Sam. vii. 14). God alone knows the heart

of the "children of man" (II Chron. vi. 29 et seq.). In the prayer in

which this thought is expressed, "man" is used in distinction to the"people of Israel"; indeed, "children of men" appears to mark a contrast

to "children of Israel" in the Song of Moses (Deut. xxxii. 8, R. V.).

"Son of man" is a common term in the Psalms, used to accentuate the

difference between God and human beings. As in Ps. viii. 4 (A. V. 5),

the phrase implies "mortality," "impotence," "transientness,"as against

the omnipotence and eternality of God. Yhwh looks down from His

throne in heaven upon the "children," or "sons," of "man" (Ps. xi. 4,

xxxiii. 13). The faithful fail among them (Ps. xii. 2 [A. V. 1]); the seedof Yhwh's enemies will not abide among the "children of men" (Ps. xxi.

10). "Children of men" is thus equivalent to "mankind" (Ps. xxxvi. 8

[A. V. 7], lxvi. 5).

"Sons of men," or "children of men," designates also the slanderers and


10/13

evil-doers in contrast to the righteous, that is, Israel (Ps. lvii. 5 [A. V.

4], lviii. 2 [A. V. 1]). It occurs most frequently, however, as a synonym

for "mankind," "the human race" (Ps. xc. 3, cvii. 8, cxv. 16, cxlv. 12); it

has this sense also in the passage in which wisdom is said to delight

with the "sons of men" (Prov. viii. 31). Job(xvi. 21) employs theexpression in the passionate plea for his rights while he is contending

against God and against his neighbors. But Bildad insists that the "son

of man," who is a mere worm, can not be justified with God (Job xxv.

4-6). In the same spirit the prophet (Isa. li. 12) censures Israel for being

afraid of "the son of man which shall be made as grass" when Yhwh is

their Comforter; but in Isa. lvi. 2-3 the Sabbath is extolled as making

the "son of man" (i.e., any man, regardless of birth) blessed; indeed,

God has His eyes "open upon all the ways of the sons of men: to give

every one according to his ways" (Jer. xxxii. 19).

In Ezekiel the term occurs in Yhwh's communications as the prevailing

form of address to the prophet (ii. 1; iii. 1, 4, 10, 17; iv. 1 et al.; in all

about 90 times). It has been held that it conveyed the special idea that a

wide chasm stood between God, the speaker, and the prophet so

addressed, but that it implied at the same time that Ezekiel was

considered to be the ideal man. This view must be abandoned as

unwarranted. The term "ben adam" is merely a cumbersome but solemn

and formal substitute for the personal pronoun, such substitution being

due, perhaps, to the influence of Assyro-Babylonian usage (see

Delitzsch, "Wrterbuch,"s.v."Amelu"; comp. "zir amiluti" in the

Babylonian myth concerning Adapa).

Similarly, in Aramaic, "son of man" is the usual designation for "man,"

and occurs in the inscriptions in Syriac, Mandaic, Talmudic, and other

dialects (see Nathanael Schmidt in Cheyne and Black, "Encyc. Bibl."

iv. 4707-4708). In Dan. vii. 13, the passage in which it occurs inBiblical Aramaic, it certainly connotes a "human being." Many see a

Messianic significance in this verse, but in all probability the reference

is to an angel with a human appearance, perhaps Michael.

Among Jews the term "son of man" was not used as the specific title of


11/13

the Messiah. The New Testament expression !"#$%&'()*+,-.'/is a

translation of the Aramaic "bar nasha," and as such could have been

understood only as the substitute for a personal pronoun, or as

emphasizing the human qualities of those to whom it is applied. That

the term does not appear in any of the epistles ascribed to Paul issignificant. Psalm viii. 5-7 is quoted in 0eb. ii. 6 as referring to Jesus,

but outside the Gospels, Acts vii. 56 is the only verse in the New

Testament in which the title is employed; and here it may be a free

translation of the Aramaic for "a man," or it may have been adopted

from Luke xxii. 69.

IN THE GOSPELS

In the Gospels the title occurs eighty-one times. Most of the recent

writers (among them being II. Lietzmann) have come to the conclusion

that Jesus, speaking Aramaic, could never have designated himself as

the "son of man" in a Messianic, mystic sense, because the Aramaic

term never implied this meaning. Greek translators coined the phrase,

which then led, under the influence of Dan. vii. 13 and the Logos

gospel, to the theological construction of the title which is basic to the

Christology of the Church. To this construction reference is made in

Abbahu's controversial saying in Ta'an. 65b. Indeed, examination ofmany of the passages shows that in the mouth of Jesus the term was an

equivalent for the personal pronoun "I."

Philos reasoning

For God gave man such a perception as should prove to him that God

exists, and not to show him what God is. Philo believes that even the

existence of God cannot possibly be contemplated by any other being;

because, in fact, it is not possible for God to be comprehended by anybeing but himself (Praem.39-40). Philo adds, Only men who have

raised themselves upward from below, so as, through the contemplation

of his works, to form a conjectural conception of the Creator by a

probable train of reasoning (Praem. 43) are holy, and are his servants.


12/13

Multiple Jesus

Jesus ben Sirach.This Jesus was reputedly the author of theBook of Sirach (aka 'Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus

the Son of Sirach'), part of Old Testament Apocrypha. BenSirach, writing in Greek about 180 BC, brought togetherJewish 'wisdom' and Homeric-style heroes.

Jesus benPandira.A wonder-worker during the reign of AlexanderJannaeus (106-79 BC), one of the most ruthless of theMaccabean kings. Imprudently, this Jesus launched into acareer of end-time prophesy and agitation which upset theking. He met his own premature end-time by being hung ona tree and on the eve of a Passover. Scholars havespeculated this Jesus founded the Essene sect.

Jesus benAnanias.Beginning in 62AD, this Jesus had caused disquietin Jerusalem with a non-stop doom-laden mantra of 'Woe tothe city'. He prophesied rather vaguely: "A voice from theeast, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, avoice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice againstthe bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against thewhole people." Josephus, Wars 6.3.Arrested and flogged by

the Romans, he was released as nothing more dangerousthan a mad man. He died during the siege of Jerusalem froma rock hurled by a Roman catapult. Jesus ben Saphat.In theinsurrection of 68AD that wrought havoc in Galilee, thisJesus had led the rebels in Tiberias. When the city was aboutto fall to Vespasian's legionaries he fled north to Tarichea onthe Sea of Galilee. Jesus ben Gamala.During 68/69 AD thisJesus was a leader of the 'peace party' in the civil warwrecking Judaea. From the walls of Jerusalem he had

remonstrated with the besieging Idumeans (led by 'Jamesand John, sons of Susa'). It did him no good. When theIdumeans breached the walls he was put to death and hisbody thrown to the dogs and carrion birds.

Jesus ben Stadawas a Judean agitator who gave the Romans a headache inthe early years of the second century. He met his end in the


13/13

town of Lydda (twenty five miles from Jerusalem) at thehands of a Roman crucifixion crew. Jesus ben Thebuth.Apriest who, in the final capitulation of the upper city in69AD, saved his own skin by surrendering the treasures of

the Temple, which included two holy candlesticks, goblets ofpure gold, sacred curtains and robes of the high priests. Thebooty figured prominently in the Triumph held forVespasian and his son Titus.*

gospel’s "son of man" fulfillment

Documents