I have read portions of those threads. It occurs to me that "son of man" essentially means "nobody". Jesus calls himself the son of man, but he isn't the first person in the Bible to be called that -- in Ezekiel, angels refer to Ezekiel as "son of man". And I think it's used elsewhere in the old testament to refer to the masses.

In Israel, as in other ancient civilizations, the name of your father was essentially your title. Judah Ben-Hur was Judah, son of Hur. "Man" here is a placeholder. If you are the son of man, you are the some of someone. But we don't know who, or don't care to name him. The bearer of that surname gets no distinction from his father's name, from his station of birth. He is essentially a nobody.

So in Ezekiel, the angels were essentially calling Ezekiel a peasant, a lowly human, a nobody. Ezekiel would have gladly accepted that title from them. And in the New Testament, Jesus was referring to himself as a nobody. That's how the Romans would have seen him too.

So all you people going on about "the nobody" -- have you thought of this? Do you care?