English is not my native language (duh!) and while i have read the bible a couple of times over the years, it's the Danish translation of the text. Never read a English version..
Excerpt from Mattæus Evangeliet (the Matthew Gospel):
"Så spurgte han dem: »Men I, hvem siger I, at jeg er?« Simon Peter svarede: »Du er Kristus, den levende Guds søn.« Og Jesus sagde til ham: »Salig er du, Simon, Jonas' søn, for det har kød og blod ikke åbenbaret dig, men min Fader i himlene."
Translated:
"Then he asked them: "But you, who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered: "You are Christ, Son of the living God." And Jesus said to him: "Blessed are you, Simon, Jonas' son, for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven."
I always interpreted this as Christs 'admission' of being THE Son of God and while his earthly body might have been of flesh and blood, the gestalt was a Deity.. which makes the question of race not significant in my book..
The messiah was expected to be divine by the Jews. They also expected him to undertake a military campaign. Even after his resurrection, Jesus's disciples asked when he was going to restore the (earthly) kingdom (Acts 1:6).
In Mark 14, Jesus says, "I AM, and you will see the Son of Man..." (referring to himself). He calls himself Son of Man more than anything.
In the early church, 'Son of Man' was understood as a designation for Jesus' human nature, i.e. as a counterpart to the title 'Son of God'..
The modern day bible is based off numerous translations of predominantly ancient Greek and Hebraic texts, by numerous sources and the meaning has been debated among scolars of Christianity for centuries.
I do believe that no final verdict will ever be passed on the subject.. whatever 'verdict' is passed in this thread on poal, will have little consequences for Christianity..
It's a matter of belief, lamb of God..
In the early church...
I doubt that very much. Might even go as far as to prove the contrary. Standby.
(post is archived)