You are working here with online reseach of the mistranslated text, that papyrus is not the original Codex nor have you looked up in your Companion Bible appendix 14 that gives the details which shows how Christ was called Son of Adam. Like many other things about the origins and errors in the Scriptures and censorship, you won't find that online because it changes the entire narrative of the story. You will only learn of this from a Theological Seminary that teaches advanced Biblical Studies where you have to learn old Greek, Aramaic/Chaldee, Syriac and study all of the Apocryphal books from the Christian Coptic Church. The Judaists love to call Jesus Christ the Son of man rather than the Son of Adam. Their Tradition of the Elders (Babylonian Talmud) which Christ condemned, says that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier which supports their narrative that Jesus was only the Son of a man, and we keep on maintaining this lie with our modern Bibles.

The Greek Codex was tranlated from the much older Chaldee texts. I should have explained this to avoid all the nit-pik. The Greek versions of the New Testament were translated from the Chaldee manuscripts which used the article attached to the word Adam which meant "The Adam" not the lower form of adam without the article, being the word ENOSH for flesh being, or man, from the Chaldee as is found throughout Genesis. As such, in these texts where we see Son of man in our modern Bibles, the Chaldee version always had the article before the word Adam, showing that it was always "The Adam" of Genesis, hence, Son of Adam. Even the Syriac versions of the text in Matthew and Revelations use the term Son of Adam. In either case Christ should always be referred to as the Son of God or Son of the Adam from Genesis and never the blasphemous term of Son of a lowly man as the anti-Christian Judaic texts indicate. To persist in saying that Jesus Christ is the Son of man only supports the lie. When the Holy Spirit descended upon Yahshua/Jesus after His baptism, the Lord God in a voice from heaven did say; "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." Matt. 3:17. Can you still say that Christ is the Son of man? If you can teach someone to believe two opposites you can make them believe anything. Thus endeth the discussion. Best wishes.

You are working here with online reseach of the mistranslated text, that papyrus is not the original Codex nor have you looked up in your Companion Bible appendix 14 that gives the details which shows how Christ was called Son of Adam. Like many other things about the origins and errors in the Scriptures and censorship, you won't find that online because it changes the entire narrative of the story. You will only learn of this from a Theological Seminary that teaches advanced Biblical Studies where you have to learn old Greek, Aramaic/Chaldee, Syriac and study all of the Apocryphal books from the Christian Coptic Church. The Judaists love to call Jesus Christ the Son of man rather than the Son of Adam. Their Tradition of the Elders (Babylonian Talmud) which Christ condemned, says that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier which supports their narrative that Jesus was only the Son of a man, and we keep on maintaining this lie with our modern Bibles.

The Greek Codex was tranlated from the much older Chaldee texts. I should have explained this to avoid all the nit-pik. The Greek versions of the New Testament were translated from the Chaldee manuscripts which used the article attached to the word Adam which meant "The Adam" not the lower form of adam being the word ENOSH for flesh being, or man, from the Chaldee as is found throughout Genesis. As such, in these texts where we see Son of man in our modern Bibles, the Chaldee version always had the article before the word Adam, showing that it was always "The Adam" of Genesis, hence, Son of Adam. Even the Syriac versions of the text in Matthew and Revelations use the term Son of Adam. In either case Christ should always be referred to as the Son of God or Son of the Adam from Genesis and never the blasphemous term of Son of a lowly man as the anti-Christian Judaic texts indicate. To persist in saying that Jesus Christ is the Son of man only supports the lie. When the Holy Spirit descended upon Yahshua/Jesus after His baptism, the Lord God in a voice from heaven did say; "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." Matt. 3:17. Can you still say that Christ is the Son of man? If you can teach someone to believe two opposites you can make them believe anything. Thus endeth the discussion. Best wishes.