The “Son of Man” and “Son of G-d” According to Judaism: Countering Christian Attempts to Use the Tanakh or Judaism to Support a Trinitarian View

August 16, 2023

The “Son of Man” and “Son of G-d” According to Judaism: Countering Christian Attempts to Use the Tanakh or Judaism to Support a Trinitarian View

Judaism does not believe in the Trinity, or the idea that there are two or more powers in heaven, which is considered heretical. This is because Judaism teaches that there is only one God, and that God is not divisible. Judaism does not believe in a “two powers in heaven” or a “holy ghost.” The term “son of God” in Judaism refers to humans who have a special relationship with God, and not to a divine being. The term “son of man” in Judaism refers to mankind generally, and not to a messianic figure. The two powers in heaven are still considered heretical according to the Talmud and rabbinic Judaism. The Talmud, the foundational text of Rabbinic Judaism, teaches that God is one and that there is no other god besides him. This belief is also shared by Conservative and Reform Judaism. According to the Jewish Virtual Library, The concept of two powers in heaven is heretical in Judaism. The Talmud, the foundational text of Rabbinic Judaism, teaches that God is one and that there is no other god besides him. This belief is also shared by Conservative and Reform Judaism.

The term “holy ghost” is not used in Judaism. The closest equivalent is the Shekinah, which is the divine presence of God. The Shekinah is not seen as a separate entity from God, but rather as a part of God’s presence in the world. In Judaism, the belief in a “holy ghost” as a separate entity within a trinity is considered heretical. Instead, the Shekinah is understood to be the divine aspect or “presence” of God, similar to how wisdom is seen as an aspect of God. It is not considered an individual person but rather an integral part of God’s presence in the world. A helpful analogy is to think of the hand as part of a person—the Bible often refers to the hand or presence of God. The term “Ruah ha’Kodesh” can mean “the Holy wind” or “the Holy breath” in Judaism is not a distinct individual but merely represents the presence of God.

In Judaism, the term “son of God” is not used to refer to a divine being. Instead, it refers to humans who have a special relationship with God. This relationship can be based on a number of factors, such as prophecy, leadership, or piety. Judaism firmly rejects the concept of God having a son in the sense of a divine being. In Judaism, the term “son of God” can refer to any human who has a special relationship with God, not as a deity themselves. For example, in the Bible, the nation of Israel is called God’s “firstborn son” (Exodus 4:22), and King David is called “God’s anointed” (Psalm 89:26). In Psalm 89:26–28, David calls God his father, but this is metaphorical language emphasizing a close relationship, not a literal divine parentage. God in turn tells David that he will make David his first-born and highest king of the earth. In Exodus, the nation of Israel is called God’s firstborn son. Solomon is also called “son of God.” Throughout the Hebrew Bible, the phrase “son of God” is used for various individuals like angels, judges, pious men, and kings of Israel, indicating their special connection with God. In Judaism that never meant “god the son.”

Lets look at the various uses of the term “son of man” in Judaism. The phrase “son of man” (בן–אדם) appears frequently in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) and is used in different contexts with distinct connotations. The most common usage of “son of man” in the Hebrew Bible is as a generic term referring to humanity as a whole. It emphasizes the human condition, frailty, and mortality. This usage is found in passages such as Job 25:6, Psalms 8:4, Psalms 144:3, and Psalms 146:3, where “son of man” contrasts with deity or godhead. The term “son of man” is also used in specific instances to refer to individual prophets, particularly in the Book of Ezekiel. In this context, it serves as a formal substitute for the personal pronoun and emphasizes the human nature of the prophet, reminding them of their human weakness and humility before God. For example, in the Bible, the prophet Ezekiel is called “son of man” (Ezekiel 2:1), and the psalmist writes that “all men are like grass” (Psalm 103:15).

The Talmud and the Dead Sea Scrolls both use the term “son of man” to refer to a human being. In the Talmud, the term is used in a literal sense, in Yerushalmi Berachot Chapter 5, Page 9a, Line 1/26 it states that: “When it bites the son of man (בר נשא: [bar nasha’]), if the son of man (בר נשא [bar nasha’]) reaches the water first, then snake dies; and if the snake reaches the water first, the son of man (בר נשא [bar nasha’]) dies.” This passage is simply saying that if a human being is bitten by a snake, they will die if they do not reach water first. Similarly, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the term “son of man” is used in a more figurative sense. For example, in the passage 1QapGen. XXI Line 13: Masoretic Text, Genesis Apocryphon (Gen. 13.16) it states, “And I will multiply your seed like the dirt of the earth which no son of man (בר אנוש [bar ‘anowsh]) can count,” the term “son of man” is used to refer to a human being who is chosen by God to be his agent on earth. This passage is simply saying that the person’s descendants will be so numerous that they cannot be counted.

In both the Talmud and the Dead Sea Scrolls, “son of man” carries no connotation of divinity or special divine status. Instead, it consistently denotes the human condition, underscoring human frailty, mortality, and the role of humans as God’s creations or agents on Earth. It serves to emphasize the humble nature of humanity in contrast to the exalted divine realm. In Judaism, “son of man” remains firmly grounded in its representation of the human aspect of individuals, affirming the human connection to God while upholding the unique nature of the divine.

Jesus, speaking Aramaic, could never have designated himself as the “son of man” in a Messianic, mystic sense. The Aramaic term “bar nasha” never implied this meaning. Among Jews the term “son of man” was not used as the specific title of the Messiah. The New Testament expression ὅ ὑιὸς τοῦ ἀνθρόπου 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. Notably, the term “son of man” does not appear in any of the epistles ascribed to Paul in the Christian context, which is significant in understanding its meaning and significance within the New Testament. This suggests that Paul not understand or use the term “son of man” in the same way that the Gospels do.

In the Christian Gospels, the term “son of man” appears eighty-one times. Some scholars have concluded that when Jesus spoke Aramaic, he likely used the term as a substitute for a personal pronoun or to emphasize the human qualities of those to whom it is applied. The earliest Jewish followers of Jesus, known as the Ebionites, also did not believe Jesus was “god the son,” further supporting the interpretation of “son of man” in a human and non-divine sense, consistent with the Tanakh, the Book of Daniel, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Ebionites believed that he was a human being who was inspired by God. This suggests that they also understood the term “son of man” in a different way than the Gospels do.

Overall, the rejection of the Trinity, the understanding of the Shekinah, and the interpretation of the terms “son of God” and “son of man” in Judaism all align with the belief in the oneness and indivisibility of God. These concepts are firmly rooted in Jewish theology and have been upheld by various branches of Judaism, including Conservative and Reform Judaism. The Talmud, as a foundational text of Rabbinic Judaism, teaches the core principle of the oneness of God, further solidifying Judaism’s rejection of any form of polytheism or multiple divine powers.

In conclusion, the concept of two powers in heaven, the term “holy ghost,” and the term “son of God” as used in Christianity are all considered heretical in Judaism. The term “son of God” in Judaism refers to humans who have a special relationship with God, and not to a divine being. The term “son of man” in Judaism refers to mankind generally, and not to a messianic figure. These terms are used differently in Judaism than they are in Christianity, and they do not have the same meaning.

Blogging

Posted by:

That Kick Ass Dad

I’m “That Kick Ass Dad!” I’m a Single Dad, Martial Artist (JKD/Kali/Silat/JuJitsu Instructor) @CaliCombatSystems, Actor, Rapper @ Podcaster

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Podcast available on Spotify, Stitcher, Pandora, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Amazon Music, Audible, TuneIn, iHeartRadio, Deezer, Radio Public, Cast Box, and many more…

About The Pulling the Thread Podcast

Pulling the Thread is a captivating podcast that delves into a plethora of thought-provoking topics. With its engaging episodes and insightful discussions, it offers a fresh perspective on various subjects, serving as a valuable source of inspiration and knowledge. Whether you’re a seasoned podcast enthusiast or a curious newcomer, Pulling the Thread guarantees to captivate your mind and keep you coming back for more. So, gear up and embark on an intellectual journey with this exceptional podcast!

The Pulling the Threads Podcast’s primary objective is to study and analyze Jesus within his Jewish context through the lens of Judaism before Christianity. Our primary objective is to study and analyze Jesus within his Jewish context, specifically from a pre-Christianity perspective. Seeking a Jewish Reclamation of Jesus, relying on Jewish and secular biblical scholars who specialize in Second Temple Judaism, the Qumran community, the Parting of Ways around 90 CE, the Historical Jesus, and Textual Criticism. Some notable scholars mentioned include Geza Vermes, Hyam Maccoby, Alan Segal, Carol Harris-Shapiro, Lawrence Kushner, Samuel Sandmel, Bart Ehrman, James Tabor, Robert Eisenman, Paula Frederiksen, and Hugh Schonfield.

The site aims to approach the New Testament using the historical-critical method and textual criticism within the realm of secular Jewish scholarship, reflecting the perspectives of mainstream Judaism today. Engaging in scholarly and polemical discussions, the group seeks to question and challenge established Christian doctrines. The main goal is to establish an independent Jewish understanding of Jesus, emphasizing his significance within a Jewish context and distancing him from centuries of Christian interpretations. Furthermore, the group aims to conduct a comprehensive historical examination of Jesus, employing textual criticism to counter Christianity’s claims regarding the New Testament. The focus is on understanding Jesus within Judaism based on the Torah and Talmud.

This is about Jewish and Secular Scholarship into the New Testament using the Historical Critical method and Textual Criticism within Jewish scholarship. For us Jews, the Tanakh and Talmud inform our view of scripture. In the modern age, as Jews, we struggle with texts with an academic approach. The site is pro-Tanakh and will explore history, archaeology, and textual criticism to comprehend the development of the Jesus movement before the parting of ways with Judaism. It aims to emphasize that Jesus and his followers were seen as Jewish and part of Judaism, and that the conversion of Gentiles to Judaism by the community of James and Peter continued, with some Jewish followers remaining distinctly Jewish for centuries. It is important to note that this is not a study of Jewish-Christians, but rather an examination of Jews who followed Jesus within Judaism before the emergence of Christianity. Anti-Judaism is not welcome in this group, which focuses on Jewish perspectives within an academic framework.

This is an attempt to work out the Jewish Reclamation of Jesus, trying to understand him within Judaism before Christianity existed. The group’s objective is to understand Jesus within Judaism before the influence of Christian perspectives during the historical Jesus movement. It seeks to reclaim Jesus within Judaism, separate from Christianity, Messianic, or Hebrew Roots movements. The study incorporates textual criticism, historical Jesus research, and Jewish scholarship into the New Testament to assert the following beliefs:

The New Testament lacks historical accuracy.
The New Testament is not divinely inspired.
The New Testament has not been divinely preserved.
The New Testament was written by individuals decades and even millennia after the events it portrays.
Original autographs of the New Testament do not exist.
Consequently, the New Testament is not the most reliable source for understanding the historical Jesus as a Jewish figure.
To ascertain historical accuracy, we rely on modern Jewish and secular scholarship and engage in historical reconstruction.
Through textual criticism, we strive to identify the potentially most authentic sayings of Jesus, following the Q hypothesis in relation to the synoptic gospels.
The New Testament bears the influence of Roman culture and language, making it a non-Jewish text with glimpses of Jewish source material.
Greco-Roman influences, including Hellenistic, Stoic, Gnostic, and paganistic elements (e.g., Zoroastrianism) and the Roman imperial cult, have shaped New Testament ideas of salvation and hell in a manner contrary to Jewish tradition, resulting in a narrative distinct from the Jewish religion.
Both Jewish and secular scholarship acknowledge approximately 500,000 textual errors among the 5,800 New Testament manuscripts. These variations include theological revisions that were added by later editors and were not believed by the original followers.
The seven most authentic epistles of Paul were written prior to the gospels, with the gospels reflecting the addition of Pauline theology.
Jesus might have been an actual person, with the only point of agreement among Jewish scholars being that he was baptized by John for the repentance of sins and was crucified.
Jewish scholars concur that Jesus was not born of a virgin, was not resurrected, is not a savior, may be considered a false prophet, and failed as the Messiah.
Judaism represents the religion of Jesus, while Christianity is a religion centered around Jesus.
The term “Jewish-Christian,” used to describe the early understanding of Jesus in Judaism, is a misnomer.

Understanding Jesus within Judaism can aid us in grappling with a culture in which Christianity has altered the Jewish message. Given the history of crusades, pogroms, the Holocaust, and inquisitions that have harmed the Jewish people, recognizing Jesus within a Jewish context becomes crucial.

The Catholic Church, in Nostra Aetate, ceased evangelizing Jews and acknowledged them as a covenant people within Judaism. In response, Jewish scholars released Dibre Emet, recognizing the place of Righteous Gentiles, including the offspring of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, in Olam HaBa (the world to come). While agreement may not be necessary, it is important to foster understanding and coexistence.

The Pulling the Thread Podcast