"You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you." (John 9:37)

Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?" "Who is he, sir?" the man asked. "Tell me so that I may believe in him." Jesus said, "You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you." (John 9:35-37)

Why is 'believing' in the 'Son of Man' important?

We have discussed the more appropriate translation of  the Greek phrase, υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, translated here to "Son of Man." As documented there, the more appropriate translation is "Servant of Humanity."

Summarizing, the "son" portion "son of God" or "Son of Man" is being translated from the Greek word υiός (huios). υiός can indicate a relationship of offspring in the context of a physical family, but it can also indicate a relationship of servitude. The Greek lexicon's second definition for υiός is "used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower." So in the case of God or humanity, "son" would not be the correct translation of this word - especially in the case of humanity (ἄνθρωπος in Greek - which can mean "man" or "mankind" or "humanity"): There is no practical relationship of "son" when we consider humanity.

It should be noted that the English translation of this verse makes it sound as if Jesus is making a big deal out of the fact that the man is seeing Jesus. However, the Greek phrase καὶ ἑώρακας αὐτὸν καὶ ὁ λαλῶν simply means that Jesus was saying that the man was seeing and talking with the person Jesus was referring to in the previous statement (e.g., "I am that person.").

It is not as if Jesus is implying that the man is having some sort of supernatural vision or something. Jesus was physically standing in front of him and was referring to himself as the servant of humanity.

Is this an esteemed role?

Being a servant is typically not considered an esteemed role. But in this case, it is.

The reference invokes the servant of humanity as one who enlightens mankind: He is God's representative. The representative of God is God’s servant and the servant of all humanity because he has come to the earth to deliver God’s message. God’s message saves people, so the servant of humanity is also referred to as “Messiah” or "savior."

Yet at the same time, the role of servant of humanity is a humble, yet esteemed role. It is the role of serving God.

This is why David also referred to himself in the same way (servant of humanity mistranslated to Son of Man) (Psalm 144:3), why God referred to Ezekial in the same way as God was sending Ezekial to teach to the Israelites (Ezekial 2:1 etc.), and why Job also humbly referred to himself in the same way in Job 25:6.

All of these references were mistranslated to "Son of Man," but we can nevertheless understand that none of these, including Jesus, was identifying themselves as the exclusive servant of humanity. As we saw repeatedly in Jesus' teachings - as he quoted scripture, and even his "first and foremost" instruction (to love God) quoted from Moses - Jesus was not creating a new teaching as is often proclaimed by many teachers. He was following in the footsteps of those former teachers (prophets) whom he (and the rest of Jewish society at the time) considered God's representatives.

Jesus confirms the need for humility in spiritual life as he taught his disciples:
"Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant." (Mark 10:43)

What is the distinction of being a servant?

This statement by Jesus indicates that Jesus taught that he was not the only representative of God (or savior). Is the Supreme Being so impotent that He could only have one devoted servant (or "son") who can represent Him? Is God's power so tiny that He could only create one son? 

Is God’s kindness and omnipotence so weak that He could only have one person devoted enough to sacrifice his life for Him?

We can simply look around us and see that God’s ability to create is vast – beyond our wildest imagination. As we can see around us, God created so many living beings, who are occupying the physical bodies of humans, animals, plants, insects, fish and other organisms. In other words, God has many many children.

We can simply look at the beauty of nature to understand God's unlimited potency. How could God be limited to one "son" or representative?

As Jesus, David and other Prophets have repeatedly said, each of us is one of God’s children, and we all have the ability to become God’s “son” (servant).

However, when "servant" is utilized instead, the essence of the relationship that Jesus was describing between himself and humanity becomes clear. Jesus saw himself as serving all humankind because he was delivering God's message. This is why God also gave this same title to Ezekial, and Job and David described themselves as such. It is also why Jesus washed his disciples' feet - to illustrate his mission (and hopefully theirs) as a servant of God and all of humanity.

We must remember that those who translate scripture have significant power over nuance. They can create concepts and ideas that may not have been there in the original text. This can especially be the case if there is a political agenda amongst those translators.

Was there an agenda?

In the case of the New Testament, we find significant evidence of a political agenda: The Roman government wanted to use Christianity to control their empire. This is why Constantine organized the synod of Nicene, why this politically organized group wrote the Nicene Creed, and why Constantine and Eusebius selected certain texts to include in the Bible, and certain scribes to translate those texts. And why the Bible was assembled in a certain order - and not in chronological order. There was a political agenda.

This was why many scriptural texts, such as many of the later-found scriptures that contained more information on Jesus' teachings and other disciples, were burned.

That political agenda became obvious through the history of the Roman Catholic Church, as they sought to squelch any and every translation or opinion that differed from theirs. They murdered people - many by burning at the stake. They burned books, houses and villages down. They overthrew kings. 

They discredited devoted saints and teachers that differed in any respect - and jailed many of them. The goal of the Romans was to dominate their empire, and the Roman Catholic Church was their proxy.

How did this affect Biblical translations over the centuries? The Nicene Creed became the standard interpretation of Jesus' role and identity, and this was enforced as the standard. Any interpretations or translations that conflicted with the Creed were considered heretical, and the author or speaker was subsequently jailed or burned at the stake.

And what does the Nicene Creed claim about Jesus? It claims that Jesus was "God the Son," and the only Son of God. This meant that Jesus was ex facto God and no one can reach God without going through Jesus.

Well isn't that convenient? The Roman government took over the Christian religion and then twisted the interpretation and translations to not only indicate that no other teacher but Jesus could save people, but that Jesus was in fact, God. 

So it's either join the Roman government-sponsored religion or go to hell. So convenient. A perfect strategy to control the people. And this is how the Roman government and/or its proxy - the Church - dominated Europe for over a thousand years.

Furthermore, their strategy was so resounding, and their removal of any competing interpretation so complete that those sects that split off from the Roman Catholic Church to this day uphold the Nicene Creed. 

This brainwashing by the Roman Catholic institution was so complete, that even Martin Luther and other "radicals" that broke off from the church still felt they had to abide by the Nicene Creed, simply because this interpretation was so solidly entrenched and implanted in all the available scholarly texts (as differing scholars had been murdered and their texts burned) along with the minds of the populace.

The beginning of the split-offs from the Church began in the fifteenth century after over one thousand years - that's ten centuries - of dominance over Christianity by the Roman Catholic church. So their interpretation of Jesus' role and position was so cemented that anyone straying too far from the Creed would quickly be discredited.

Are there holes in this interpretation?

Even so, there are so many holes in the Roman Catholic interpretation that survives amongst nearly every sect today. Consider just a few:

-If Jesus was God, who was he praying to when he prayed: "Abba, Father, everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will. Let the cup pass from me." (Mark 14:36)

-If Jesus was the only person who could save people, why did God command Moses, Abraham, David, Job, Joshua, Noah, Ezekial, Jeremiah and others to teach people and bring them back to Him?

-Why did Jesus receive baptism from John the Baptist (representing that he became a student of John and accepted John's teachings)?

-Why did Jesus send his disciples out to teach others?

-If Jesus is the only son of God (assuming the translation to "son"), why did Jesus say: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.” (Matthew 5:9)?

-Why did one of Jesus' early followers say, “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:26)?

-What about Genesis where it states. Adam, the son of God. (Luke 3:38)?

-"And what about...because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God." (Romans 8:12-17)?

-And why does Genesis make several references to "sons of God"?
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. (Genesis 6:4)
When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. (Genesis 6:1-2)
Could all of these verses in scripture be wrong while the interpretations of the Roman Catholic church - sponsored by the Roman government that sought to control Europe - be right?

Could all of the prophets including Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Eli, Samuel, David, Solomon, Job, Jeremiah, Noah, Ezekial and others have no other purpose in their existence other than to foretell of Jesus' coming thousands of years later, as the Roman Catholic church interpretation would have us believe?

And the big hole in the Nicene Creed interpretation is a simple one: Why, if only Jesus can save people, are there so many priests, reverends, preachers, popes, bishops and cardinals - all taking on the role of teacher? Why are there so many teachers in these sects if Jesus is the only person who can save us? Why are all these others teaching if all we need is Jesus? Many of them teach, in fact: "You don't need any other teacher other than Jesus." Yet they are teaching this? Are they not assuming the position of teacher as they teach this? This is the epitome of hypocrisy.

Certainly, there is reason to doubt the Roman Catholic's Nicene Creed, given the history of conduct by the Roman Catholic church - not just because of the centuries of persecution of anyone who disagreed with them: But even in recent years, as Roman Catholic priests have been found sexually abusing those who sought spiritual guidance from them.

Are these the "fruits" of a good tree or a bad tree? And if we admit that they are bad fruits, do we still want to blindly accept the teachings and interpretations from such a tree that bore such fruits?

The true teachings of Jesus and all God's representatives are evident:
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment." (Matt. 22:36-38)