Changes

{{cquote|υἱὸς means "Son of God" in this context (and in John's usage in his Epistle), while ἀνθρώπου means "human being." So, translated literally, the phrase "υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου" means "Son of God, His human being." I'll update the Son of Man entry accordingly now.|||--Andy Schlafly 16:36, 22 June 2014 (EDT)}}

{{cquote|υἱὸς means "Son of God" in this context (and in John's usage in his Epistle), while ἀνθρώπου means "human being." So, translated literally, the phrase "υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου" means "Son of God, His human being." I'll update the Son of Man entry accordingly now.|||--Andy Schlafly 16:36, 22 June 2014 (EDT)}}

{{cquote|"human being" (ἀνθρώπου) does modify "son" (υἱὸς), but that does not mean it should be translated as "son of a human being" or "son of man." Instead, it means that the "son" is of God, but that son is a human being. Hence "Son of God, a human being" is the English that is closest to the original meaning.|||--Andy Schlafly 19:47, 22 June 2014 (EDT)}}

{{cquote|"human being" (ἀνθρώπου) does modify "son" (υἱὸς), but that does not mean it should be translated as "son of a human being" or "son of man." Instead, it means that the "son" is of God, but that son is a human being. Hence "Son of God, a human being" is the English that is closest to the original meaning.|||--Andy Schlafly 19:47, 22 June 2014 (EDT)}}

Nothing in our discussion over there indicates that you was persuaded by my argument:

Nothing in our discussion over there indicates that you were persuaded by my argument:

{{cquote|''But "the Son" means "Son of God."'' No, it just implies "Son of God". It does so in the Greek, and therefore it should do so in the translation. A commentary is the right place to stress this implication, but editorializing "of God" into the "translation" shifts the whole narrative: Jesus Christ isn't declaring proudly time and time again that he is the "Son of God" - an announcement which would have let to drastic reactions by the religious elites of the time. So, a reader of the CBP gets a totally wrong idea of what has happened.|||--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:09, 23 June 2014 (EDT)}}

{{cquote|''But "the Son" means "Son of God."'' No, it just implies "Son of God". It does so in the Greek, and therefore it should do so in the translation. A commentary is the right place to stress this implication, but editorializing "of God" into the "translation" shifts the whole narrative: Jesus Christ isn't declaring proudly time and time again that he is the "Son of God" - an announcement which would have let to drastic reactions by the religious elites of the time. So, a reader of the CBP gets a totally wrong idea of what has happened.|||--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:09, 23 June 2014 (EDT)}}

In fact, you even write later:

In fact, you even write later:

{{cquote|No one would have crucified Jesus if he merely called himself the "Son of Man."  He was crucified for call himself "'''the''' Son [of God], a human being."|||--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:53, 23 June 2014 (EDT)}}

{{cquote|No one would have crucified Jesus if he merely called himself the "Son of Man."  He was crucified for call himself "'''the''' Son [of God], a human being."|||--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:53, 23 June 2014 (EDT)}}

It is nice to see that you now adopt my argument: my actions are not totally futile after all! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:55, 30 June 2014 (EDT)

It is nice to see that you now adopt my argument: my actions are not totally futile after all! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:55, 30 June 2014 (EDT)