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

[Justice2006]

Archbishop:

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!!.

Respected Archbishop,

Well, then from your logic any person can read any thought in the text of the Bibles and make a new denomination out of it. And this is what has happened before and and is happening now because the Biblical text is verily unreliable and contains so many contradictions and inconsistencies.

As to the verse you are specifically referring to, is **Matthew 20:28 ** which says:

Matthew 20:28
**Just so, the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many." **

Well, here the word ransom which occurs in the New Testament only here and in Mark 10:45, does necessarily express the idea of liberation by payment of some price?

By the way the reason this verse is also mentioned in Mark because Matthew plagerised Mark’s gospel freely.

And please also remember the corruption in the following verse (verse 30):

29 **As they left Jericho, a great crowd followed him. **
30 **Two blind men were sitting by the roadside, and when they heard that Jesus was passing by, they cried out, “[Lord,] Son of David, have pity on us!” **

The word "[Lord,] is not found in some important textual witnesses.

Since the text of the Bibles is definitely tampered with, you cannot just take few verses from here and there and mould them to “prove” a pre-conceived dogma/view which has no firm roots in the teachings of any Prophet of God.

Think about the Trinity verse-- 1 John 5:7 also which is recently proved to be an interpolation. So instead of what you used to read in Douay Rheims Bible as:

7 And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.

you read only this part in your another Catholic fresh Bible-New American Bible:

"So there are three that testify,"

Half very “important” part of it is officially now omitted and many Catholics have no idea what is going on with the text of their Bibles.

---

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Dear Mr Justice2006,
Apparently you can’t keep on track even in your own thread. What has the Pope’s infallibility to do with the Son of Man?

Justice2006:

Rodrigo:

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

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.

The Pope is a devil or anti-Christ? Hahaha. And someone here accused me of being hateful for claiming the moniker Mata Moro, which is a name found at least a thousand times across the Latino world, either as names of towns or even surnames.

I think you’ll have a hard time proving your claim, bud. But keep trying. I’ll be really interested.

Justice2006:

1. 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.

Oh… I was thinking you were talking about the Pope’s explanation of the Bible, not the concept of infallibility itself.

But what is your point? That the Catholic Church has not right to lay down its doctrine? Are you saying that the Pope’s infallibility means he’s worshipped as a god? Methinks you are misunderstanding the concept of infallibility.

Justice2006:

Rodrigo:

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.

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.

Actually you’re much mistaken. The role of the Pope is essentially little different from that of the Caliphs. All you’ve said above can be said against the Caliphate.

As you know, even the Quran itself was compiled under the aegis of Caliph Uthman and he caused the destruction of variant copies. So… isn’t that the ultimate infallibility?

What you fail to understand, and its because you’re only looking through very thick Islamist eyeglasses, is the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Rightly or wrongly, the Catholic Church has a hierarchy and the Papal infallibility is not lightly exercised. Considerable debate within Church circles occurs before infallibility is issued. It’s just the final say in matters, and only in matters of faith and morals.

cont

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Just like the Caliphs used to have, particularly the four Righteous Caliphs and the Ottoman Sultans who, as Caliphs, claimed spiritual leadership of Muslims on a par with the Pope.

And your assertion that Imam’s explanation is worthless if not backed by scripture is also true of the Catholic Church.

Justice2006:

Rodrigo:

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.

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.

True. It is admittedly a loose analogy as the religious systems are very different.

Justice2006:

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

Not any less so than under the Caliphate.

Justice2006:

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.

So is that why Christianity underwent the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Enlightenment, and Islam didn’t?

Justice2006:

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

As opposed to the Caliph’s favorite method of beheading?

Justice2006:

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.

This is untrue. A fatwa may be a big thing. One is liable to be accused of apostacy and beheaded.

Justice2006:

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.

And who do you think is a better authority on Catholic teaching than the Pope? I think you’re arguing that the church is dictatorial. From the outside, I would agree with you to some degree. However, times have changed and Popes no longer have the power they once held.

But logically speaking, I should think that any organization, be it spiritual or secular, has the right to conduct its business according to the hierarchy it decides for itself. For instance, in a democratic secular government – who speaks for the people? The executive head of state. It’s no different to the Church.

The authority invested in the Papacy allows him to set Church direction and interpret teachings in the matters of faith and morals. All Catholics agree to that, or implicitly accept that even if they disagree. Otherwise, they are not Catholics. It doesn’t mean they worship the Pope as a god. It merely means they have agreed with the organization of the Catholic Church.

[qutoe=Justice2006]One way to approach Papacy is to read her Bibles (approved by her Magisterium/official office).
Thanks I will.

Justice2006:

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).

At least St Peter is being honest, as opposed to the Quran claiming to be ‘clear’ and ‘easy to understand’.

cont

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Justice2006:

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

As opposed to some Imam? Most Muslims don’t even understand Arabic because Muhammad, I mean Allah, didn’t choose to make his message Universal but Arab-centric.

Because Christians read scripture in their native language they have more ability to understand and form judgments of their faith. In contrast, most Muslims do not speak Arabic but rely on the Uztaadh or Imam to tell them what Islam means. At the end of the day, interpretation of scripture is abrogated to the priesthood, Muslim or Catholic. The fact that in Islam any self-styled Imam can make fatwas does not mean the Catholic’s superior organization is less valid.

Justice2006:

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!

There is a slight difference between a secular constitution made by man and the Bible supposedly inspired by God.

Justice2006:

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

And what is wrong with that?

Justice2006:

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

And is that any different from Islam?

Justice2006:

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.

And what is wrong with that?

Justice2006:

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

And what is wrong with that? Don’t tell me Islam is without schisms, and that each sect believes it is the right one and all others are heretics.

I think you make much ado over nothing about the Pope’s infallibility. It is the Catholic’s right to believe in a ‘caliph-like’ power. That is their business. Not yours or mine to question, but theirs. The fact that they believe the Pope can issue infallible edicts does not mean he’s a god. It just means as long as he or his successors do not overturn those edicts it is ‘end of story’ as far as the discussion goes.

This is in contrast to Muslims who just accuse each other of apostacy. The role of the Pope is little different from that of the Caliphs. Just because the Caliphate no longer exists, for reasons of its own, is no reason to claim the Pope is being worshipped as a god.

In many little Muslim villages the local imam is for all intents and purposes as infallible as the Pope.

Chau,
Rodrigo

 

[Justice2006]

Mr. Rodrigo,

I told you, my questions are directed towards Catholics and not you. I am not interested in knowing what you say on their behalf, as you are not a Catholic and after seeing your misrepresentation. While answering you are even putting your own words in others mouth.
You are just wasting your time. I would appreciate if you let learned catholics defend their own faith.

.

 

[Archbishop]

Justice2006:

Well, then from your logic any person can read any thought in the text of the Bibles and make a new denomination out of it.

That is quite true and that is what has unfortunately happened because too many people have departed from the faith once delivered to the saints in order to suit themselves. While it is true that what you say can be and is done, it does not make it right or pleasing to God the Father.

I fail to see how explaining Matthew 20:28 to you, which is what I thought you were asking in your OP (about what the “Son of Man” meant in the NT), suddenly got into a discussion about so-called inconsistencies and corrupt texts.

If you are student of textual criticism you will certainly realize that there are differences of opinions among Bible scholars as to what path should be taken when deciding upon the proper translation of a text, ie, the majority manuscript method or the oldest manuscript method for example. When people speak of the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures, one should always be referring to the original manuscripts as penned by the authors under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, not the work of translators.

Even with the textual variants, the Bible still remains true to its central theme of redemption through Jesus Christ and God’s love for his creation but particularly for his his elect, whether the nation of Israel in the Old Covenant or the Church in the New Covenant.

What did you disagree about with respect to the Son of Man explantion?