The Scott Hahn Conversion Story

The coming Home Network ^ | 1991 | Scott Hahn

[Salvation]

No thanks. Someone has to call you (or your associates) on the dime.) Today it just happened to be me.

Didn't Christ say as much?

God bless.

[agrace]

Darn. I guess we have to remove Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 2nd Kings, 1st and 2nd Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah. I guess it will be a lot easier to memorize the books of the OT (I always stumble on Nahum).

Sounds like a strawman to me. The issue was the Apocrypha, not the other books of the OT.

Umm, yeah. And once they Christians stopped associating with their former brothers because of obvious differences with the Jews who did not accept Christ, they stopped allowing them to define doctrine or Scripture. That is, until fifteen hundred or so years later when some schismatic Christians decide (I guess) that the Jews were more reliable than the people who had canonized the rest of Scripture.

My point is, the reason Christians consider those 39 books to be canonical is because God had already given those scriptures to the Jews. Nobody said that nonbelieving Jews should define doctrine for Christians (another strawman?); what was said was that the Apocryphal books - contemporary writings to the rest of the OT - were never considered inspired by the Jews. Why did the RCC decide that they were?

Really? There's no evidence that I've seen supporting that.

Which part - the fact that they didn't consider it inspired or that the canon officially closed at around the end of the first century?

Previously "stated" perhaps, but not previously "demonstrated". It's a convenient denial on the part of some revisionist historians, but there haven't been any copies of scripture from prior to that point demonstrating a canon without those books.

Do a google search for Jewish canon. It seems pretty clear to me that there's a general consensus on what they considered inspired and how their canon has been established.

Interesting. Paul was certainly the best OT scholar credited with writing our NT Scriptures. Did you know that better than 94% of Paul's OT quotations come from the Septuagint? That every quotation in Acts does (thus is was the version the Apostles evangelized with)?

Did Paul quote from the Apocrypha? If not, what's your point? I'm not denying the validity of the Septuagint translation, just the consideration that the Apocrypha is inspired of God.

Interesting that you put such weight on Isaiah ...

I only used it as an example because you brought it up.

I don't happen to agree that any particular doctrine rests soley on verses found in the Apocrypha, but most protestants see support there for purgatory and prayers for the dead (among others) in there.

Hmm, I thought Catholics found support for those there as well. I believe that prayers for the dead are found in - correct me if I am wrong - 2 Maccabees 12?, and I think that verses from Corinthians, IIRC, are cited for purgatory. Don't know that I brought either of those issues up. But then again, I don't even remember what got us started on this... :)

[IMRight]

Really? Where is this Septuagint Christ referred to? What is the date of the earliest version available?

I'm sorry. What are we arguing here? Is it your position that there was not such version during Christ's time? Or that the bulk of NT quotations of the OT come from this version?

I'm pretty sure that with the exception of a recent (small( find, our Greek manuscripts actually predate the oldest Hebrew versions. The manuscripts we DO have don't separate them as some "pseudo Scripture" - that didn't happen until 1520.

[P-Marlowe]

Admit it. That's powerful Poetry.

[HarleyD]

The post here was on the conversion of Scott Hahn from Protestant to Catholic. In researching the validity of this claim I found an article on a Catholic website by a Catholic questioning Scott Hahn theology and posted it to present a balance picture. In my mind presenting other positions does not qualify as a personal attack.

I would suggest Salvation, that if you think this inflamatory and you are unhappy about it you send an email to the Catholic mention above who wrote the opposing argument.

[NeoCaveman]

Which Septuagint? There is no such thing as a complete Septuagint in existance. The earliest version available is dated after 300 A.D.

Available today, you mean. This may be true as the library in Alexandria was burned t to the ground.

Which came first, the Gospels or the Septuagint?

The Septuagint was first, since it was written before Christ's birth and was well known by the Jewish diaspora.

[HarleyD]

You're probably puzzled. I saw it in my in basket and thought it was directed to me. I see that this was NOT directed at me but someone else. My apologies.

[Salvation]

Harley, you only presented the other side of the picture. That's totally OK.

I objected to the little satire that Marlowe penned.

[IMRight]

Sounds like a strawman to me. The issue was the Apocrypha, not the other books of the OT.

Lol! It was YOUR argument! I pointed out that the Apocypha were part of the standard Greek Sciptures used by Christ and the Apostles and YOU said that since they didn't quote them they must not have considered the canonical. I merely pointed out what your argument implied. If "quoted in the NT" is the gold standard you've got a problem. If it isn't (and it isn't) then you had no point at all.

what was said was that the Apocryphal books - contemporary writings to the rest of the OT - were never considered inspired by the Jews.

They obviously were by the first century Jews who were using them. And "contemporary" is a very interesting statement. When did you think they were written? Why did the RCC decide that they were?

Again, you assume they were never there and the Church just decided to pop them in. They were part of the Scriptures we received - taking them out would be a mistake. On the other hand, the reformers who DID remove them (along with a few other books they didn't like) admitted that it was doctrinal disagreements that caused it.

Which part - the fact that they didn't consider it inspired or that the canon officially closed at around the end of the first century?

The first part. Though the Jews who did not recognize the Messiah would surely have lost the "oracles of God" such that they could determine a canon fifty years after Christ.

Don't know that I brought either of those issues up.

I was just answering what doctrinal issues there might have been dispute with. Luther and other reformers came right out and said (essentially) "we don't agree with this doctrine and any book that supports it so clearly must not be Scripture"

Do a google search for Jewish canon. It seems pretty clear to me that there's a general consensus on what they considered inspired and how their canon has been established.

Ok. I added the word "Septuagint" and the first hit gave me:

The Septuagint Greek translation spread throughout the Hellenistic (Greek) world, supplanting several rival Greek translations.

It is of great interest to scholars because:
1. it contains books later excluded from the canon by the Council of Jamnia
2. it is the basis for the traditional or Catholic Christian canon.

I'm not denying the validity of the Septuagint translation, just the consideration that the Apocrypha is inspired of God.

That's a very interesting statement. If I quote exclusively from the KJV throughout a life of writing but never get around to quoting Romans can you assume I think Romans is not in the canon? Or knowing that I consider the KJV to be "Scripture" and knowing that the KJV included Romans can you not conclude the opposite?

The stats were cited to show that the bulk of scholars assume that the "Scriptures" used by Christ and the Apostles and NT authors was the very same collection that included the Apocrypha. You may assume that Christ walked around thinking "those silly guys going around messing up Scripture... well... we'll fix it in a few decades". Me? I'd rather assume he would have said something about it if they were using the wrong Scriptures.

And while our oldest "semi-complete" manuscripts date from a non-orthodox Jewish source, the DSS support the Septuagint as well (including the books in question).

[IMRight]

Which Septuagint? There is no such thing as a complete Septuagint in existence. The earliest version available is dated after 300 A.D.

That's interesting. The Dead Sea Scrolls date to between 170BC and 70AD. They include the Apocrypha in the LXX translation. Or are you "spinning" (in the correct definition of course) looking only for a complete LXX?

[IMRight]

Which part - the fact that they didn't consider it inspired or that the canon officially closed at around the end of the first century?

Second reply to clarify a point I hadn't made.

I'll take issue with the second half as well. The Jews didn't (and don't) have the kind of hierarchy/authority that would allow a "closing of the canon". The Ethiopian Jews (for example) include the Apocrypha to this day because they weren't around the Jamnia council to hear there had been a change. Unless you assume that they coincidentally added those books around the time the Catholics did?

Debate continued for at least a couple hundred more years among Jews as to which books belonged in or out (in the third century there was great controversy about Proverbs, for instance. Good thing for you guys they didn't get around to changing it again, right? - You would be taking it out today.)

[AlguyA]

"As I explained in an earlier post, according to the scripture and the early church fathers, all concurred that the Holy Spirit is God and 1/3 part of the Trinity. So far I have found nothing in Thomas Aquinas' writings that disagree with scripture and the early church (albeit I just started looking through his many works)."

No disagreement from any Catholic on this.

I'm just puzzled where this "Holy Spirit is love" started from. This is a very humanistic view like saying "God is Love". God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is so much more than just love and if people think they can boil God down into this one attribute they should read Revelations.

The best I can tell from studying church history this theology began to affected the Catholic Church in the 1400-1600 timeframe during the time of the Renaissance, was a primary reason for the Reformation, and then affected the Protestant denominations through Arminianism.

Ephesians 3 -17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; 19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God.

1 John 4:7-8 7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. 8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

[sfRummygirl]

This Catholic-Protestant set up to fight is sad. I thought The Passion could start working to bring us all together.;-(

[sfRummygirl]

You HAM!;-)

[Cronos]

To: Salvation I think the best point was there might be millions of people who hate what they mistakenly believe the Catholic Church to be and to teach Many Protestants are brainwashed in the same way asMuslims -- with the same false rumours potrayed as facts. posted on 03/12/2004 5:23:02 AM EST by Cronos (W2K4!) No complaints from you here. I must assume you agree with this blatant "Protestant bashing".

PRotestant bashing? Now, let's investigate? Did I insinuate that Protestant teaching was incorrect or evil? No. Did I say a blanket statement condemning all Protestants? I said Many are brainwashed. And that is evidenced over and over again as the same litany of supposed crimes by the Church are paraded and the things Catholics are supposed to do -- all of which are false. Oh, and I don't blame the people who believe this -- most just repeat what was taught to them -- as the author of this article pointed out.

So, how is it Protestant bashing? Muslims too are brainwashed. They believe that Christians worship 3 Gods, because that's what their leaders tell them we do. Are they correct? No. Are they evil because they've been mislead? No. Similarly, some Protestants believe that Catholics too, worship Mary and hold her as God because that's what they've been taught. Are they correct? No. Are these Protestants evil becuase they've been mislead? No.

So, on what basis do you call this Protestant bashing?

[Cronos]

Because he's changed his mind you now consider him suspect? After all, the two greatest heretics of all time, Luther and Calvin, changed their minds. posted on 03/12/2004 9:25:25 AM EST by autopsy Personal attacks against Luther and Calvin and no complaints from you.

hmmm... what is a heretic? let's check Dictionary.com

her·e·tic
n

A person who holds controversial opinions, especially one who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.

So, did Luther and Calvin publicly dissent from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church? YES.

Were they the most famous, the greatest of these dissenters? YES.

Now, what is wrong with that statement? It's NOT a personal attack against Luther and Calvin, smatterofact, it seems a right compliment -- the greatest Dissenters.

[Cronos]

BTW, just where did your "protestant" Bible come from anyway? From the Catholic version preserved through the ages. (But changed by Luther.)

Where DID the KJV come from? Since it was written in the 1600s, it derived from earlier sources -- and all the earlier sources available to it at that time were the Roman Catholic, Latin Vulgate versions. So, it WAS from what was the whole Christian church's bible. Did Luther change it? Yes, at least in one way -- he chucked out the book of Maccabbeees etc. So, again, HOW IS IT PROTESTANT BASHING?

btw. thanks for keeping us in the loop.

[Cronos]

As for the Protestants famous heretics-I would argue that Luther and Calvin just corrected errors that had crepted into the church

I agree about some of Luther's teachings and lesser of Calvin's -- but that's a theological debate. I do agree that the Protest Reformation did help clean some of the corruption of the Catholic church and I do believe that if Luther was aroudn now, he would find that most of his objections no longer exist in the current church. But then again, reformers have been popping up in the church again and again -- St. francis cleaned it up in the 12th century -- the difference being that these early reformers prefered to keep the church whole and purfiy it from the inside instead of breaking it up.

[Cronos]

I think God, the angels etc are above being male/female etc.