Daniel 9:1-3
“In the first year of Darius son of Ahasuerus (a Mede by descent), who was made ruler over the Babylonian kingdom- in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of the LORD given to Jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years. So I turned to the Lord God and pleaded with him in prayer and petition, in fasting, and in sackcloth and ashes.”
These verses interest me for a few reasons:
1) How did Daniel know that the book of Jeremiah was Scripture without the Roman Catholic Church telling him so?
2) Did Daniel use “private interpretation” when he read the book of Jeremiah? Isn’t doing such the “blueprint for anarchy”?
3) Are we to assume that Jeremiah was understandable without an infallible interpreter present?
I can only imagine the Roman Catholic response to these questions is that “Daniel was a prophet”- thus, he was given this information directly from God. The follow up questions then become:
1)How did those people during Daniel’s life know he was a prophet without the Roman Catholic Church pronouncing him authentic?
2)How could Daniel himself know with certainty he was a prophet without the Roman Catholic Church telling him so?
3)Was Daniel simply to trust his feelings that he was a prophet and that the information he was getting was from God?
This is one of the problems I have with the Roman Catholic paradigm of authority. It may sound as if it gives “certainty”- but when applied to history and the Bible, it fails to deliver. It can’t explain why the Old Testament was known to be Scripture previous to the Council of Trent. It can’t explain how people living in Old Testament times knew with certainty what Scripture was. It can’t even explain how people in New Testament times knew with certainty which Old Testament books were authentic “Scripture”. It can’t explain how people living during Old Testament times were able to read and understand Scripture without an infallible interpreter. It can’t explain how the early Christian church was able to read the Old Testament and understand it as well.
Posts
4 comments:
Complete silliness here. Daniel is in the OLD testement. Think about that. The new covenant began at Pentecost. Before that the old covenenat applied. Scripture was determined by the tradition of that day. There were priests in Isreal and there was a hierarchy that could resolve disputes.
Reading scripture can be done privately. It is good to discuss your insights with other christians and if they are quite significant run it by your pastor. There is no indication Daniel never did that. I did that same thing as a protestant. It was just a differant tradition.
The only differance is I asked myself how I could know which tradition was right. The fact that I agreed with the one I was raised in was not good evidence because most people agreed with the tradition they were raised in. I looked for something objective and found it. The only thing was it point to the Catholic church as being the right one.
Hello anonymous,
Complete silliness here.
We shall see.
Daniel is in the OLD testement. Think about that. The new covenant began at Pentecost. Before that the old covenenat applied. Scripture was determined by the tradition of that day. There were priests in Isreal and there was a hierarchy that could resolve disputes.
Ok, are you saying these priests in Israel (the Old Testament Church) were infallible? They must have been to determine canonicity according to RCC paradigms. But- they can’t be infallible, because these are the same people who taught the Korban rule. These same people who rejected the Apocryphal books. Your answer is that which qualifies as “silliness”. According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, the canon was not dogmatically pronounced until Trent. You are required to believe Trent as a Roman Catholic. You are thus stuck with some very serious problems- there was no certainty until Trent. Yet Daniel was certain.
Reading scripture can be done privately. It is good to discuss your insights with other christians and if they are quite significant run it by your pastor. There is no indication Daniel never did that. I did that same thing as a protestant. It was just a differant tradition.
You miss the obvious- Daniel undersood the Scriptures without an infallible interpreter. The Scriptures were sufficient and clear.
The only differance is I asked myself how I could know which tradition was right. The fact that I agreed with the one I was raised in was not good evidence because most people agreed with the tradition they were raised in. I looked for something objective and found it. The only thing was it point to the Catholic church as being the right one.
quite the contrary- I don’t think you really thought through these type of issues. It’s not too late for you to do so now.
James,
I can see your point perfectly here. For if we are to assume the there was some Jewish magesterium, then why did Jesus condemn them for using their tradition of the Corban rule? Obviously, this Jewish leadership was not infallible.
There's no question that a Jewish child in the Old Testament days would grow up and learn from his father and leaders about God's Word. But that's not the point your making. The point your making is that the leadership itself is fallible! Yet all the while that they are fallible, like all of us, God can still guide people into knowing what His Word is, whether you're a church leader, or a layperson.
The Roman Catholic can't avoid the problem that the Jewish leadership was fallible. And if so, you must rely on Scripture for your ultimate authority, not on a fallible magesterium.
As a Catholic, my understanding of our position on scripture vs. tradition is that you cannot only use scripture, you must also use tradition. This is not to say you need to use scripture and tradition simultaneously at every instance but that there are some things that need scripture, some that need tradition, and some that need both...
In 2 Thesselonians 2:15 it states "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" ...
I am also unaware of where in the Bible it says "only read the Bible for truth from God no other source could possibly be correct, this is all you need" ... i didn't state that very well but my point is clear i think?
I am not a biblical scholar, but I have immersed myself in arguments about this because its such a hot topic issue and I have yet to find a plausible Protestant teaching that can be corroborated on this issue ... this website seems to be Protestant leaning ... maybe you can?
Also question for thought ... when Jesus sent the Apostles to make followers of all nations right after he died and he sealed them with the Holy Spirit ... what did they do without the Bible yet and why send Jesus and not just the Bible in general?
Post a Comment