> > I also feel that I should note that Christ referd to himself as the Son of Man far more often than the Son of God.
> >

> As for Jesus saying he were the Son of Man more often than the Son of God... all I have to say about that is to ask you if it would have made it any less true if he had only said it once? He *was* the Son of Man per the virgin birth, so this is definately true, and a whole lot easier to fathom than the Son of God. I suspect this is one reason why he referred to himself as such on more occassions. He was talking to the sons of men. If he had not talked to people on their level he would have been defeating himself.
>

Since there is frequent confusion on the topic of Jesus referring to himself as "Son of Man", let me quote at length from William Lane Craig's study titled _The Son Rises_, p.140:

" "Son of Man" is often thought to indicate the humanity of Jesus, just as the reflex expression "Son of God" indicates his divinity. In fact, just the opposite is true. The Son of Man was a divine figure in the Old Testament book of Daniel who would come at the end of the world to judge mankind and rule forever. Thus, the claim to be the Son of Man would be in effect a claim to divinity."

The prophecy which Jesus claims to fulfill in calling himself the Son of Man is found in Daniel 7:13-14. This Messianic prophecy would have been well-known to Jesus' Jewish listeners, and they would have understood him as claiming to be the promised Messiah.

Iss "son of a pun" achar