Is the "Son of Man" of Old Testament and of New Testament same?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Justice2006
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Justice2006

Guest
  1. Who is “Son of Man” in Biblical terminology?
  2. How many times the term “Son of Man” (with capital “S”) and “son of man” (with small “s”) is mentioned in the Old and New Testament of the Douay Rheims, the New American Bible and in the New International Version?
  3. Is the “Son of Man” of the Old Testament and of the New Testament same?
.
 
Justice2006 said:
1. Who is “Son of Man” in Biblical terminology?
Click to expand...

The terms in the OT and NT are different.

Justice2006 said:
2. How many times the term “Son of Man” (with capital “S”) and “son of man” (with small “s”) is mentioned in the Old and New Testament of the Douay Rheims, the New American Bible and in the New International Version?
Click to expand...

Don’t know about the capitals but SOM is mentioned about 100 times in the OT and 81 times in the NT.
newadvent.org/cathen/14144a.htm

Justice2006 said:
3. Is the “Son of Man” of the Old Testament and of the New Testament same?
Click to expand...

Evidently not.
 
Mr. Rodrigo Bivar,
I need answers from Catholics or other denominations of Christiandom, since you are not a Catholic nor Jew. Are you a Hindu?
 
40.png
Justice2006:
Mr. Rodrigo Bivar,
I need answers from Catholics or other denominations of Christiandom, since you are not a Catholic nor Jew. Are you a Hindu?
Click to expand...
Afraid of Rodrigo? I see… 👍
 
Cyber Knight:
Afraid of Rodrigo? I see… 👍
Click to expand...
Mr. Cyber Knight,

With God’s Grace, I am not afraid of Mr. Rodrigo. I **don’t trust ** his knowledge of Bibles nor of Islam because it appears to me that the “whole universe” of his knowledge is based on google(ing) anti-Islam propaganda and deceptive missionary books/sites such as FF or anwering-islam etc., which are actually designed to deceive those ignorants who either love to remain in their IGNORANCE or have no time/courage/guts to investigate the truth.

.
 
Dear Mr Justice2006,
I don’t think you should place too much emphasis on someone’s religion, but on what they say. I sure do quote from FFI and answering-islam, just as I quote from many other sources. But the sources are merely repository of information. I quote not for claims of authority but to avoid having to copy-paste, or write something from memory. If you have a problem with the information provided then it is up to you to disprove.

Think of it as an opportunity: to show that I have provided false information. Instead of just turning your nose at my sources - why don’t you just rip it to shreds with evidence of your own? That is the normal way of discussion. We discuss by providing evidence and counter-evidence, arguments and counter-arguments. If you insist on ad hominem attacks it pretty much stalls the discussion, if not stopping it in its tracks.

By the way, I’m not a Catholic doesn’t mean I’m devoid of knowledge of Catholicism. It’s just that I defer to the superior knowledge of Catholics. I do know the basics having almost married a Catholic girl when I was but a boy of 18.

Chau,
Rodrigo
 
BTW: If you think my knowledge of Islam is deficient you are more than welcome to show my errors. I’m always willing to learn from knowledgeable Muslims.

Hasta la vista,
Rodrigo
 
40.png
Justice2006:
Mr. Cyber Knight,

With God’s Grace, I am not afraid of Mr. Rodrigo. I **don’t trust ** his knowledge of Bibles nor of Islam because it appears to me that the “whole universe” of his knowledge is based on google(ing) anti-Islam propaganda and deceptive missionary books/sites such as FF or anwering-islam etc., which are actually designed to deceive those ignorants who either love to remain in their IGNORANCE or have no time/courage/guts to investigate the truth.

.
Click to expand...
Ignorant of what?
 
Rodrigo Bivar:
By the way, I’m not a Catholic doesn’t mean I’m devoid of knowledge of Catholicism. It’s just that I defer to the superior knowledge of Catholics. I do know the basics having almost married a Catholic girl when I was but a boy of 18.
Click to expand...
Mr. Rodrigo Bivar,

I did not ask/or expect from you to answer my OP’s questions because they were meant for either Catholics or other Christians who believe in their versions of the Bible and BTW this site belongs to the Catholics.

You are neither Catholic nor a Jew. So your answers are worthless/useless for my puropose of asking to discuss. You are just wasting the server-space of this site.

Let those learned Catholics/Christians who believe wholeheartedly in their various Churches and in their various versions of the Bibles answer my questions.

If I have to know what people like you has to say, I would go to the forums of your people and ask/indulge there with them.

I did not come here to discuss with people like you who hang-around here to spread deceptive material which is already available on the Internet. As much as you have access to your anti-Islam/deceptive missionary sites/books, others too. You don’t have to blacken unncessary your face with their coal and dirt on someone else’ behalf when you don’t even believe what you are qouting/uttering/spreading the garbage.

If you are really in that much love with your deceptive propaganda sites/sources then atleast act like that specific **Rented Razor ** of Assyrians (Isaiah 7:20) and do some “shaving” job on those anti-Islam/full of hatred people, on your Lord’s behalf before it is too late and your Lord Himself is called the Assyrians to hire their specific Razor.

You call your “efforts”, defensive to Christian’s faith?!!..but I think you are clearly **a disgrace ** to this Catholic site because you are actually **not doing any favour ** to Catholicism/Christiandom but damaging the very purpose/main objective of this religious site.

.
 
Mr Justice2006,
I’m really disappointed in your statements. First of all, I’m here to learn as well and you’re not helping me learn about Catholicism with your attitude.

Secondly, I am shocked, yes utterly shocked, that you would resort to maligning the integrity of my sources. I don’t share your views of those sites, but to placate you, how about I abstain from referring to either FFI or answering-islam? Would that satisfy you?

Ciubate,
Rodrigo
 
Rodrigo indeed gives something to this site and the readers. We finally know what Islam is all about. Why do you not like him to answer you Justice2006? Dont you see catholics are tired to respond you due to your irrensponsible attitude in a discussion, you never stay on track, jump from one topic to another, ignoring what we explain, never refute it. Only Rodrigo that has good intention to respond you and treat you as human being by trying to start a discussion with you. YET you boastfully saying he is not doing any favor for this site? I think he is just wanted to educate you on how to have a good discussion that you never have so far.
 
Cyber Knight:
Rodrigo indeed gives something to this site and the readers…
Click to expand...
Mr. Knight,
Since you are a Catholic, do you agree with Rodrigo’s answers to my OP’s questions,. Are they according to Catholic’s view?

.
 
Dear Justice2006,
I guess you didn’t read my reference, which wasn’t FFI nor was it answering-islam. I used a CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA from New Advent.

newadvent.org/cathen/14144a.htm

That means it’s the Catholic view. Hope this helps.

Chau,
Rodrigo
 
Just a reminder.

This is the non-Catholic religions forum. As such, it is an area where ALL are welcome, regardless of religious background.

Please continue the discussion.

Rachel
 
Rodrigo Bivar:
Dear Justice2006,
I guess you didn’t read my reference, which wasn’t FFI nor was it answering-islam. I used a CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA from New Advent.

newadvent.org/cathen/14144a.htm

That means it’s the Catholic view. Hope this helps.

Chau,
Rodrigo
Click to expand...
You mean everything that is mentioned in a **Catholic Encyclopedia ** such as The New Advent, must be Catholics’ official infallible view?

How about the ideas/views/dogmas that are mentioned right in the Catholics’ Bible such as The New American Bible, commisioned by His Holiness Pope Pius XII, “to explain the “original text” which was written by the “inspired author” himself and has more authority and greater weight than any, even the very best, translation whether ancient or modern”?
Is it not more official Catholic view than the ideas/speculations mentioned in the Catholic Encyclopedia-The New Advent?

.
 
Dear Mr Justice2006,
I think you’ve mistook me for a little German man wearing a red cap, a big ring on his finger, and a white frock. I’m not the Pope so what I say can never be official infallable Catholic Church views.

What I was trying to tell you is that regardless of my personal religious outlook I did provide Catholic responses to your questions.

And also to let you know I didn’t quote from FFI or answering-islam.

As for the Pope’s explanations, why do you even bring that up? Don’t you remember the tafsirs?

For the Catholic readers: tafsirs are scholarly explanations of the Quran by eminent imams. Note how Mr Justice2006 is having a go at the Pope explaining the Bible while ignoring the fact that the Muslims themselves see the need for something similar with respect to their ‘clear’ and ‘easy to understand’ Quran.

So if Christians need explanation for their Bible it’s wrong?

But if Muslims need explanation for their Quran it’s not wrong?

Please explain.

Hasta luego,
Rodrigo
 
Rodrigo Bivar:
As for the Pope’s explanations, why do you even bring that up? Don’t you remember the tafsirs?
Click to expand...
Mr. Rodrigo Bivar,

Because:
  1. This site is Catholic Christian and I opened this thread in order to discuss with Catholic Christians and not with 7th Day Adventists or Jehovas Witnessses about how/why Pope is actually a devil or anti-Christ.
  2. The “tafisr” analogy is irrelevant here because Muslims do not beleive in infalliblity of any one single scholar. As per Islam only Prophets of God were infallible. All others including every scholar of Islam, who knows what Islam is, is allowed to give his/her opinion but by backing up with the evidence either from the the Koran or Authentic Hadith/ or Authentic Aathaar of the Companions of the Prophet or Qiyaas. Without this particular evidence, oponion of any eminent imaam or scholar of Islam or any Muslim is worthless because:
    Muslims do not worship people nor their opinions nor they beleive in infallibility of any Muslim other than the Prophets of God. They worship ONLY ONE GOD and all Prophets are considered as human beings.
Rodrigo Bivar:
For the Catholic readers: tafsirs are scholarly explanations of the Quran by eminent imams. Note how Mr Justice2006 is having a go at the Pope explaining the Bible while ignoring the fact that the Muslims themselves see the need for something similar with respect to their ‘clear’ and ‘easy to understand’ Quran.
Click to expand...
Again as I said above, opinion of any Muslim eminent imaam/scholar is worthless if it is not backed up with the evidence either from the Koran or Authentic Hadith/ or Authentic Aathaar of the Companions of the Prophet or Qiyaas. Even then no eminent imaam/scholar of Islam is infallible. They all subject to make pious/deliberate mistakes. Thus in Islam there are four major schools of thoughts who mostly rely on the interpretations of imaams of early period and an another school of thought who rely/contemplate on the sources of Islam (The Koran and the Authentic Ahadeeth) without imaams. They all are valid because they all adopt the principles which are within the framework of Islamic shari’ah. And those who follow the interpretations of the early imaams, do not consider them infallible.

Whereas in the case of Catholic Popes, it is a totally different matter because:
  1. first, the Catholic Bible does not contain the full deposit of their Catholic Christian faith. Thus:
  2. Catholics must look to their Church for other stuff/teachings/dogma to “complete” their faith.
  3. No other religious Christian authority is allowed to issue a verdict on Catholic church/Pope/magisterium’s behalf. Because:
  4. Papacy is considered infallible.
  5. No other than papacy is allowed to interpret her Bible.
  6. Not even the Protestant Bibles and their scholars’ logic, interpretations and reasoning is acceptable to Papacy/Catholics because:
  7. Protestants’ Bibles are corrupted in Catholics’ eyes and because Protestants like to interpret their Bibles freely.
So Protestants are actually closer to Islamic concept of TAFSIR. Whereas Papacy’s exclusive “infallible” authority over Bible/her traditions, is more like a dictatorship thus it is totally opposit of Islamic concept of TAFSIR.

cont.
 
Rodrigo Bivar:
So if Christians need explanation for their Bible it’s wrong?

But if Muslims need explanation for their Quran it’s not wrong?

Please explain.
Click to expand...
You are using a wrong analogy.

As I said there is a world of difference between:

Papacy’s explanation
and
Tafaaseer (explanations) of various eminent A’immaa of Islam.

Papacy is like a dictatorship of one infallible man thus it is basically a ONE MAN SHOW.

On the other hand Islamic Community of Eminent A’immaa/Mufassireen is like a Mainstream Scientific Community where the opinions of Eminent A’immaa/Mufassireen get scrutinised and re-examined all the time and in every period thus Islam becomes dynamic and uptodate in every period without compromising any slight change in the main sources of Islam.

Going against Papacy’s view can cause extermination/excommunication from the papacy’s Catholic church.

Going against a specific Imaam’s Tafsir openly or internally can cause nothing as long as a Muslim believes in the basic tenets of Islam and his imaan/Faith is valued/determined only by Allah (God) alone. So-called casting a verdict/fatwa of Kufr, means nothing because a Muslim is a Muslim only in the eyes of Allah and not in the eyes of any Eminent Imaam of Muslims or Muslim community.

Thus since Papacy/Magesterium reserved the right to interpret her Bible and does not allow others to interpret it for her, it is incumbant to ask the Papacy directly in order to know the actual Catholic Church’s view.

One way to approach Papacy is to read her Bibles (approved by her Magisterium/official office).

Now please read the following part of Catholic catechism very carefully:

Lesson 14:
Interpreting The Bible
Question 1. Is the meaning of the Bible so clear that anyone reading it, can readily understand it?
**The Bible is by no means so easily understood: St. Peter himself tells us that it contains many things: “… hard to be understood …” (II Pet. III,16). **

Question 2. Whom do we have to interpret the Bible for us?
**The Catholic Church interprets the Bible for us. **

Question 3. Is it natural that we should have a guide in interpreting the Bible?
Quite natural, just as in America, we have the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution of the United States. The difference is that the Church is infallible and the Supreme Court is not!

Question 4. So the Church cannot make mistakes in interpreting the Bible?
No, for she is under the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

Question 5. How does that guidance manifest itself?
**Through Tradition, the teachings of the Fathers, the Doctors of the Church, and of learned men. **

Question 6. Do Protestants acknowledge the interpretation of the Church or of any other authority?
**No; Protestants hold that anyone who reads the Bible in the proper spirit will be guided by the Holy Ghost in interpretation. **

Question 7. Is this belief of Protestants a sensible one?
**No; it is against the Bible, against Tradition, against reason. **

[* A Catechism Of The Bible]](* A Catechism Of The Bible])
.
 
40.png
Justice2006:
You are using a wrong analogy.

As I said there is a world of difference between:

Papacy’s explanation
and
Tafaaseer (explanations) of various eminent A’immaa of Islam.

Papacy is like a dictatorship of one infallible man thus it is basically a ONE MAN SHOW.

On the other hand Islamic Community of Eminent A’immaa/Mufassireen is like a Mainstream Scientific Community where the opinions of Eminent A’immaa/Mufassireen get scrutinised and re-examined all the time and in every period thus Islam becomes dynamic and upto date in every period without compromising any slight change in the main sources of Islam.

Going against Papacy’s view can cause extermination/excommunication from the papacy’s Catholic church.

Going against a specific Imaam’s Tafsir openly or internally can cause nothing as long as a Muslim believes in the basic tenets of Islam and his imaan/Faith is valued/determined only by Allah (God) alone. So-called casting a verdict/fatwa of Kufr, means nothing because a Muslim is a Muslim only in the eyes of Allah and not in the eyes of any Eminent Imaam of Muslims or Muslim community.

Thus since Papacy/Magesterium reserved the right to interpret her Bible and does not allow others to interpret it for her, it is incumbant to ask the Papacy directly in order to know the actual Catholic Church’s view.

One way to approach Papacy is to read her Bibles (approved by her Magisterium/official office).

Now please read the following part of Catholic catechism very carefully:

Lesson 14:
Interpreting The Bible
Question 1. Is the meaning of the Bible so clear that anyone reading it, can readily understand it?
**The Bible is by no means so easily understood: St. Peter himself tells us that it contains many things: “… hard to be understood …” (II Pet. III,16). **

Question 2. Whom do we have to interpret the Bible for us?
**The Catholic Church interprets the Bible for us. **

Question 3. Is it natural that we should have a guide in interpreting the Bible?
Quite natural, just as in America, we have the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution of the United States. The difference is that the Church is infallible and the Supreme Court is not!

Question 4. So the Church cannot make mistakes in interpreting the Bible?
No, for she is under the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

Question 5. How does that guidance manifest itself?
**Through Tradition, the teachings of the Fathers, the Doctors of the Church, and of learned men. **

Question 6. Do Protestants acknowledge the interpretation of the Church or of any other authority?
**No; Protestants hold that anyone who reads the Bible in the proper spirit will be guided by the Holy Ghost in interpretation. **

Question 7. Is this belief of Protestants a sensible one?
**No; it is against the Bible, against Tradition, against reason. **

[* A Catechism Of The Bible]](* A Catechism Of The Bible])
.
Click to expand...
You’re making me laugh Justice2006. Did you see the elections being held last year when Pope John Paul II died? How many candidates where there eligible to be elected to replace him? I think it was at least 80. Americans voted the year before, they had I think three candidates to choose from.

The three top favoured candidates for Pope were from Germany, Argentina (I think) and Nigeria - do you think they had uniform ideas about how to run the Church? Of course not!

John Paul II reigned for 25 years - I think there were only one or two other Popes who have been in power longer. Here in Australia we have had two elected political leaders who each held power for in excess of 20 years as well, so there’s nothing unusual in that. The Church (which does not consist, as you seem to think, of just the pope - all Cardinals and Bishops have great degrees of teaching power and authority) has every right to insist that its members obey the guidelines it has set down, just as if I travel to Saudi Arabia I am expected to obey the Islam-inspired laws which are in place there.

Tell me, how are your Islamic clerics and the heads of your various Sunni, Shi’ite and other groups chosen? Where do they gain their authority from? If the way Khomeini gained political power in Iran is any indication of the way he gained religious power, I suspect the process is not nearly as transparently open or democratic as the Catholic Church’s.

And I would suggest you talk to Salman Rushdie who has been in hiding for years because of a fatwa against and ask him how little notice is taken of fatwas.
 
In the New Testament, the phrase “Son of Man” refers to Jesus as being the “representative man of all men.” In the Old Testament, Adam was our “federal head.” In other words, Adam was the representative man. Thus, we inherit original sin and death because of Adam’s actions.

In the New Testament, Jesus becomes our representative who brings life.

John chapter two is a good example of Jesus representing us as the Son of Man. You will recall that in John chapter one Jesus is referred to as the Logos, the divine teaching or thought or Word that holds everything in the universe together. That Logos was on an equal face-to-face footing with God and indeed was God.

But in chapter two, the scene shifts from pre-creation to a human wedding, the wedding at Cana. There, Jesus participates in the joys of human life, because he is after all not only fully divine but fully human. And it is there that he performs his first miracle. So Jesus shows by his actions that the divine has entered into time-space history and sanctified it by his very presence.

When Jesus says in the Gospel, “The Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many,” you can read this verse as saying, “The Representative Man of all men did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” What no other man could do for all of humanity, the God-Man, the Son of God and Son of Man could do!!

Hope this helps a bit to bring the thread back on target.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top