The recent pertinent post appeared here —

http://messiahtruth.yuku.com/reply/48762/Saved-from-what-#reply-48762

— and the pertinent portion is this:

Years ago, the phrase "son of man" was the topic of one of my first exchanges with Sophiee and Gideon.  Now, someone loves to quote Psalm 146:3 as a warning against Jesus.  However, (1) TaNaKh has no reason to anticipate Jesus; (2) especially so if one insists that Jesus never lived.  (3) "Son of man," both by use and by etymology, proves to be a title of humility, a reference to the common man, in effect "Joe Lunchbox."  The verse in Psalms warns against reliance upon any human being, whether of high estate (princes) or low (son of man).  If the epithet referred specifically to Jesus, why do God and angels use it to address Ezekiel?  (Ezekiel 2:1, 2:3, 2:6, 2:8, 3:1, 3:3, 3:4, 3:10, 3:17, 3:25, 4:1, 4:16, 5:1; 6:2; 7:2; 8:5, 8:6, 8:8, 8:12, 8:15, 8:17; 12:2, 12:3, 12:9, 12:18, 12:22, 12:27, 13:2, 13:17, 14:3, 14:13, 15:2, 16:2, 17:2, 20:3, 20:4, 20:27, 20:46, 21:2, 21:6, 21:9, 21:12, 21:14, 21:19, 21:28, 22:2, 22:18, 22:24, 23:2, 23:36, 24:2, 24:16, 24:25, 25:2, 26:2, 27:2, 28:2, 28:12, 28:21, etc.)

P.

“What I admire is honesty and truth, no matter who, or what, the sources are.”
— Uri Yosef