[bdeaner]

Biography for Scott Hahn



Dr. Scott Hahn was born in 1957, has been married to Kimberly since 1979, and has six children. An exceptionally popular speaker and teacher, Dr. Hahn has delivered numerous talks nationally and internationally on a wide variety of topics talks related to Scripture and the Catholic faith. Hundreds of these talks have been produced on audio and videotapes by St. Joseph Communications. His talks have been effective in helping thousands of Protestants and fallen away Catholics to (re)embrace the Catholic faith.

He is currently a Professor of Theology and Scripture at Franciscan University of Steubenville, where he has taught since 1990, and is the founder and director of the Saint Paul Center for Biblical Theology. In 2005, he was appointed as the Pope Benedict XVI Chair of Biblical Theology and Liturgical Proclamation at St. Vincent Seminary in Latrobe, Pennsylvania.

Reasons to Believe: How to Understand, Explain, and Defend the Catholic Faith (Doubleday: New York, 2007) and Ordinary Work, Extraordinary Grace (Doubleday: New York, 2006) are the titles of his newest books. He is also the author of Understanding the Scriptures (Midwest Theological Forum: Chicago, 2005), Letter and Spirit (Doubleday: New York, 2005), Swear to God (Doubleday: New York, 2004), Scripture Matters (Emmaus Road: Steubenville, 2003), Lord Have Mercy (Doubleday: New York, 2003), Understanding Our Father (Emmaus Road: Steubenville, OH, 2002); First Comes Love (Doubleday: New York, 2002); Hail Holy Queen (Doubleday: New York, 2001), The Lamb’s Supper (Doubleday: New York, 1999); A Father Who Keeps His Promises (Servant Publications: Ann Arbor, MI 1998), co-author (along with his wife, Kimberly) of Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism (Ignatius Press: San Francisco, 1993), and co-editor of Catholic for a Reason I, II, III and IV (Emmaus Road: Steubenville, OH 1998). Dr. Hahn has also written numerous articles in lay and academic publications.

Scott received his Bachelor of Arts degree with a triple-major in Theology, Philosophy and Economics from Grove City College, Pennsylvania, in 1979, his Masters of Divinity from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in 1982, and his Ph.D. in Biblical Theology from Marquette University in 1995. Scott has ten years of youth and pastoral ministry experience in Protestant congregations (in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Massachusetts, Kansas and Virginia) and is a former Professor of Theology at Chesapeake Theological Seminary. He was ordained in 1982 at Trinity Presbyterian Church in Fairfax, Virginia. He entered the Catholic Church at the Easter Vigil, 1986.

[Laur]

How can I be removed from a thread that I didn’t sign on for in the first place? I’d like to be removed from the Catholic thread and the general religion thread, if possible.

[Salvation]

The Mother of God [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
The Mother of God calls us to be 'Bearers of God'
HE INCREASES AND SHE DECREASES [Mary, Mother of God]

Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God - Mary, Full of Grace
Happy Mother's Day to Mary - the Mother of God
Catholic beliefs about Mary, the Mother of God
Mary, Mother of God
The Early Church Fathers on The Mother of God - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus

Mary, Mother of God
Mary in Feminist Theology: Mother of God or Domesticated Goddess?
Mary: True Mother of God
Feast of Mary, Mother of God (not a Holy Day of Obligation this year)
MARIAN DEVOTION - Akathist Hymn to the Mother of God

Mother of God
Virgin Mother of God
A Homily on the Dormition of Our Supremely Pure Lady Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary
The Mother of the Son: The Case for Marian Devotion
Mary: True Mother of God

[WKB]

Baptist ping

This entire thread could have been summed up in a few little
verses:

John 14 6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me (and my mother)

AND
John 10:30
I and the Father and our mother are one.”

AND
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

[vladimir998]

“In 2005, he was appointed as the Pope Benedict XVI Chair of Biblical Theology and Liturgical Proclamation at St. Vincent Seminary in Latrobe, Pennsylvania.”

I wonder what that job really entails. He’s in Steubenville, Ohio. Latrobe close, but not just a 20 minute drive away! I know he gives talks there: http://www.saintvincentseminary.edu/video/scotthahn2008.lasso

[chesley]

Well, that was interesting. Unconvincing, but interesting. I prefer the plain words of Scripture to complex interpretations, any day.

Feel the same way about the Constitution

[Artemis Webb]

This should have been a Catholic Caucus thread. Now it's threatening to turn into a Merry-Go-Round of “my doctrine is better than your doctrine” arguments.

[Sensei Ern]

No offense, but I stopped reading after these paragraphs: (By permission of the author)
“Total misreading, I believe. This is my own hypothesis. This is my own interpretation. You don't have to abide by it, but my view is that the nahash, the serpent is deliberately depicted as a kind of, I'd say mythical figure but I don't want to deny the historicity of this text. It's just that Hebrew historical narrative can often use mythical imagery to communicate historical truth. In Daniel 7, I mentioned four gentile kingdoms are described as being “four beasts.” So, I believe, here we have the serpent as a kind of dragon. The word is used and used and used in Hebrew to connote or denotes a dragon figure like Leviathan or Banmuth or Rehab, the monster later than Isaiah and elsewhere in the Old Testament. In Revelation 12:9 in the New Testament confirms this translation of nahash, not as serpent/snake, but as serpent/dragon, because there Satan is described as the “ancient serpent” and then it goes on to describe a seven-headed dragon.

So she is being confronted and brutally intimidated by a dragon who is intent upon producing disobedience, come hell or high water. So in the cross-examination, in the interrogation that goes back and forth, Satan uses the truth in a clever, deceptive, but intimidating way to kind of force this woman to see, in effect, that if she doesn't eat that fruit, she will die, at least in the biological, physical sense because Satan will see to it.

The question, then, as you read through this narrative is not based upon anything that is explicitly stated, but rather that which is so conspicuously unstated, and that is, where the heck is Adam in all this? By the end of the narrative you discover that he's right by the woman because she just turns and gives him the fruit to eat; but the question is, where was he all along? This loving covenant head, this loving covenant partner who is to show the great love that he's willing to lay down his life for his beloved? Well, he was probably rationalizing his silence by saying, “Well, if I oppose such a serpentile monster as this, I stand no chance.” “

The author uses an example of a prophet's envisioned allegory, to show how one could change the meaning of what a direct relation of Eve's action. This point can be allowed because one hopes it matters that one accept his alteration. In fact the only thing alteration allows is for further alteration of additional verses.

As for brutal intimidation, nothing is implied. Unless one read, "You will not surely die," as to mean, "If you eat it, I won't kill you."

But, the fact is, until sin affected the bodies of Adam and Eve, they did not know corruption, nor did they know death. They were in effect, immortal and would not die, nor suffer injury. These only entered after sin and the cursing of creation for that sin. A threat of death would mean nothing, and besides, Adam had dominion over all the animals.

Further, it is not apparent that Adam was immediately beside Eve when she was decieved.By the immediacy of the wording, it appears to be implied. However, reading that into the story is similar to people reading the narrative of the Book of Acts and believing it happened in a matter of weeks rather than years.

Adam's choice was not because he feared the serpent, but because he saw a seperation between God and Eve. He chose fellowship of Eve over God. This is a common decision, wrongly made by nearly the entire human population since that moment.

Because of the extent of misapplication, anything said either pro or against my current understanding, I deemed not worth my pursuit. If it agreed with my understanding, it is still a weak argument given the weak initial basis. If it disagreed with my theology, it still does not matter due to the same weak ness.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“...to see where in scripture do we see, not necessarily logical demonstrations that are brought forth from proof texts...”

OK THEN!

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment

Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”