Scott hahn and the final cup

[raymond_king]

This from your link is interesting, as Hahn came to his conclusion without knowing the Catholic position, but found the Catholic position was identical to his own conclusion.

Perhaps the OP misunderstood Hahn’s exegesis? Or he disagrees with it (which then would be disagreeing with Catholic teaching)?

Anywho, after checking the Flame Warriors site posted by jwinch2, I think we may be dealing with this one, since the OP gave his credentials from the get-go (“oh, yes i do have credentials, Iisten to the Voice of God. HE teaches me what is false and what is True. Judgment is given to me to discern. Ray”)

If I eat any more ,I think I will explode. I think I need some
Anybody want a cup? Sugar? Cream?

Jerome81 and Randy, thanks for some serious replies.

This is not a catholic position it is stated in scripture. any denomination or any person reading those works can see this clearly. Ray

 

[Little_One0307]

This is not a catholic position it is stated in scripture. any denomination or any person reading those works can see this clearly. Ray

Ray,

I really hate to question your religion that you put as Catholic, but you sound more Evangelical Protestant to me. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church and Sacred Tradition you are constantly throwing out the window, and claiming to Hear the Voice of God and Scripture. This just is not sound Catholic practice.

Also, I really do not think you are open to discussion or debate as you still have not answered post #9. I know why you have not answered it, because there is really no answer to it. I kinda figured there would be no reply, but I posted it nonetheless to see what would happen. I really do not think you are pretty much open to what others are saying. It’s one thing to honestly and openly ask a question and to question the responses one gets to their questions, but it’s entirely another thing to just randomly post Scripture or saying such comments above to posters who are willing and are even generous to try to answer your question. It’s just not good debating rules, it’s just not good etiquette, and I venture here it is not based in charity?

To you guys who are honestly and sincerely answering the OP’s questions and random remarks, blessings on you. I have learned alot in reading your posts. Thanks a lot for helping to clear up some confusion that I had.

God bless.

 

[raymond_king]

So, Hahn realized that his Protestant pastor was wrong concerning “it is finished”, and that the Catholic position is correct - another milestone in Hahn’s conversion to Catholicism.

I’m guessing you realize you may have been too quick to judge Hahn’s exegesis? :yup:

it is not a matter of catholic or protestant. it is to see what is really there. Ray

 

[raymond_king]

So, Hahn realized that his Protestant pastor was wrong concerning “it is finished”, and that the Catholic position is correct - another milestone in Hahn’s conversion to Catholicism.

I’m guessing you realize you may have been too quick to judge Hahn’s exegesis? :yup:

I think that I put out a good summary. did you bother to do the work? did you bother to look up the scriptures that were provided. Ray

 

[Rahn]

Popcorn anyone? Butter? Salt? Plain?

(I can just see this thread is going to be quite entertaining, courtesy of the OP… )

[sign]Would you like Coke or Pepsi with your popcorn?[/sign]

God has given me judgement to discern that Pepsi is the beverage of choice to go with buttered and salted popcorn. See, I have credentials too, I Iisten to the Voice of God. HE teaches me that it is false to have Pepsi with anything other than buttered popcorn with salt, and that is what is True.

Hey, it makes about as much sense as what the OP claims!

Sorry to tell you, that’s not God. It’s well documented that God prefers Coke

 

[raymond_king]

This from your link is interesting, as Hahn came to his conclusion without knowing the Catholic position, but found the Catholic position was identical to his own conclusion.

Perhaps the OP misunderstood Hahn’s exegesis? Or he disagrees with it (which then would be disagreeing with Catholic teaching)?

Anywho, after checking the Flame Warriors site posted by jwinch2, I think we may be dealing with this one, since the OP gave his credentials from the get-go (“oh, yes i do have credentials, Iisten to the Voice of God. HE teaches me what is false and what is True. Judgment is given to me to discern. Ray”)

If I eat any more ,I think I will explode. I think I need some
Anybody want a cup? Sugar? Cream?

Jerome81 and Randy, thanks for some serious replies.

nothing has anything to do with catholic or protestant. it has to do what is within the scriptures. Ray

 

[raymond_king]

well, after putting my views forword, and getting such a reaction. I spent a few hours listening to Scotts tape “The Supper of The Lamb”: His premise seems to be : The words that were meant by “it is finished” refers to the completion of the ‘passover meal’. He takes of his teacher in the seminary who asked this question given the basis that the act of redemption has not been completed. Therefore, we do not understand Jesus words " it is finished". For these proofs he refers to the old testament , that the hysop branch was raised to the lipts of Christ giving Him The Sour wine. This in Scotts words was the culmination of the great Hillel that during the last supper was not completed. He notes John 19 as a refer 26-30. this where i believe Scott was mislead. Her wants to establish his own ideas rather then the true exploration of scripture. For as states at the begginng of the tape " indeed christ did die for our sin and died to remove our quilt, but the death of Christ is often reduced to that. Much to the neglect of some other glorious consequenses of Christs atoning death.this is what we would like to focus on today".
My rebuttal: What jesus referred to is not the 4th cup of Scoots premise but to the fulfillment of the scriptures . In john 17 we hear stated “after he had spoken these words, jesus looked up to heaven and he said: 'Father, the hour has come! Give glory to your son that your son may give glory to you,inasmuch as you have given him glory over all mankind, that he may give eternal life on those you gave him. I have given you glory on earth by finishing the work you have gave me to do…
Enter also the vinegar on the hyssop branch. This is another fulfillment
of scripture from psalm 69:21-22. " in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink”.

So my point is this: Scott was mislead by his original instructor to think that the “it is finished” refered to the passover meal or seder. Rather to the completion of the work that the Father sent Him to do. His passion and death upon which He never gave up the Life. Noone was going to take it from him. Psalm 22 is a statement that refers to this .
it was not his physical life, which they indeed took away, it was the life he lived with the Father.
One of the good points i took away fro the take of the 4th cup was this: That jesua took the vow of the nazarene. he said he would not drink of the cup again until he drank it with us in the kingdom. This aspect Scott points out clearly. That the 4th cup is the cup of ‘consummation’. I will ponder on this. I think it is worth more than consideration! Raymond King raymondking08@gmail.com/QUOTE

I dont’t seem to see a detailed refute of our objections. Verse for verse . It cannot be the way Hahn has stated: there is no 4th cup theory had holds neither wine nor water. He is ALL wrong. And if he is wrong in this matter how many other matters is he incorrect, should we follow a man who has made such a blinding error? Ray

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

nothing has anything to do with catholic or protestant. it has to do what is within the scriptures. Ray

This is definitively a Protestant position. Tradition and the Magisterium carry as much theololgical weight as Scripture for Catholics.

 

[mcrow]

nothing has anything to do with catholic or protestant. it has to do what is within the scriptures. Ray

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.

The problem is many protestants do not take remotely close to the right approach to inerpreting the bible. Only protestants (and some under studied Catholics) would cherry pick a verse out of the bible with no consideration of the context and history of the book in which it is written.

These are protestant or Catholic issues and why Catholics and Protestants often cannot have productive debates about scripture.

 

[Farsight001]

nothing has anything to do with catholic or protestant. it has to do what is within the scriptures. Ray

I agree. And Scott Hahn’s interpretations correctly understands what is in scripture. Your interpretation is incorrect and we have shown that time and time again here, which you have blatantly chosen to ignore.

Respond to what people have said. Play the game or quit wasting our time.

 

[InternetWoman]

Given that I just happen to listen to Scott Hahns’ “The Lamb’s Super” and “The Fourth Cup” today (I do a lot of driving) I’ll at list answer the OP’s question about the meaning of the 4th cup.

The standard Jewish Passover that Jesus was celebrating at the Last Super had four cups of wine that participants would drink:

The first cup started the Passover celebration
The second cup prepared them for the reading of the Exodus.
The third cup was the Blessing Cup - done as part of eating the passover lamb.
The fourth cup was the Consummation Cup - that ended and finalized the Passover.

The fourth cup was drunk after singing the 'Great Hallel (sp?)". If you read the four Gospels, Jesus and the Apostles left the Passover meal after “Singing a Hym” that hym is the “Great Hallel” (you can tell by the sequencing and the “toast” that Jesus made).

So what happened? When (or did?) Jesus drink the 4th cup? The answer - when he drank the sour wine on the cross and said “It is finished” (John 19:28-30). What was finished? The Passover - the Lamb of God had finished the Passover and could drink the Cup of Consummation.

So what do you find so offensive about this?

 

[raymond_king]

Given that I just happen to listen to Scott Hahns’ “The Lamb’s Super” and “The Fourth Cup” today (I do a lot of driving) I’ll at list answer the OP’s question about the meaning of the 4th cup.

The standard Jewish Passover that Jesus was celebrating at the Last Super had four cups of wine that participants would drink:

The first cup started the Passover celebration
The second cup prepared them for the reading of the Exodus.
The third cup was the Blessing Cup - done as part of eating the passover lamb.
The fourth cup was the Consummation Cup - that ended and finalized the Passover.

The fourth cup was drunk after singing the 'Great Hallel (sp?)". If you read the four Gospels, Jesus and the Apostles left the Passover meal after “Singing a Hym” that hym is the “Great Hallel” (you can tell by the sequencing and the “toast” that Jesus made).

So what happened? When (or did?) Jesus drink the 4th cup? The answer - when he drank the sour wine on the cross and said “It is finished” (John 19:28-30). What was finished? The Passover - the Lamb of God had finished the Passover and could drink the Cup of Consummation.

So what do you find so offensive about this?

did you and your folks not bother to look up the scriptural quotes that we gave you. do you not want to learn new things and come into the Mystery of Christ The Lord God?

 

[raymond_king]

I agree. And Scott Hahn’s interpretations correctly understands what is in scripture. Your interpretation is incorrect and we have shown that time and time again here, which you have blatantly chosen to ignore.

Respond to what people have said. Play the game or quit wasting our time.

this is not a game, and I,m sure about your motives. I still think that you try to act as the gad -fly to under mine true talks on our web-site. Like I said before, ask me a question, however esoteric and i will answer it and prove to all that I indeed ‘hear the voice of God’ . Or are you afraid to be un-masked. Ray

 

[Farsight001]

this is not a game, and I,m sure about your motives. I still think that you try to act as the gad -fly to under mine true talks on our web-site. Like I said before, ask me a question, however esoteric and i will answer it and prove to all that I indeed ‘hear the voice of God’ . Or are you afraid to be un-masked. Ray

Who is “we” and “our”? You are one poster. There is no “we” when it comes to you. Now respond to the posts refuting your position, or continue to be labeled a charlatan, as you already have been. I don’t fall for tricks like yours and I don’t play your game. I work with mental health patients, so I’ve seen every game in the book. don’t even bother. You have one real option here - start responding to people’s counter arguments back on page one, or go away and quit wasting our time. You can clearly tell that your efforts are working on no one, so why bother with continuing with the vain repetitions?

 

[Little_One0307]

did you and your folks not bother to look up the scriptural quotes that we gave you. do you not want to learn new things and come into the Mystery of Christ The Lord God?

Did you and your folks not bother to consider and look into what was said about the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, the Sacred Tradition of the CHurch that several posters posted? Do you not want to learn new things and come into the Mystery of Christ the Lord, God?

I am glad that you like to spend so much time on CAF, it seems to me that you are interested in coming to a knowledge of the Fullness of God’s revelation, which is indeed found in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, [ie. Sacred Scripture, Sacred, Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church] in which the fullness of God’s revelation can be found for one of these cannot stand apart from the other, if we desire to know the fullness of God’s revealed truth.

The following is taken from this source.

St. Vincent of Lerins:
The “Vincentian Canon”, AD 434

---

From Chapter 4 of the Commonitorium
A.D. 434
[ed. Moxon, Cambridge Patristic Texts] *

(

1. I have continually given the greatest pains and diligence to inquiring, from the greatest possible number of men outstanding in holiness and in doctrine, how I can secure a kind of fixed and, as it were, general and guiding principle for distinguishing the true Catholic Faith from the degraded falsehoods of heresy. And the answer that I receive is always to this effect; that if I wish, or indeed if anyone wishes, to detect the deceits of heretics that arise and to avoid their snares and to keep healthy and sound in a healthy faith, we ought, with the Lord’s help, to fortify our faith in a twofold manner, firstly, that is, by the authority of God’s Law, then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

(2) Here, it may be, someone will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and is in itself abundantly sufficient, what need is there to join to it the interpretation of the Church? The answer is that because of the very depth of Scripture all men do not place one identical interpretation upon it. The statements of the same writer are explained by different men in different ways, so much so that it seems almost possible to extract from it as many opinions as there are men. Novatian expounds in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another, Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius in another, Photinus, Apollinaris and Priscillian in another, Jovinian, Pelagius and Caelestius in another, and latterly Nestorius in another. Therefore, because of the intricacies of error, which is so multiform, there is great need for the laying down of a rule for the exposition of Prophets and Apostles in accordance with the standard of the interpretation of the Church Catholic.

(3) Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly ‘Catholic,’ as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality *, antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.

(4) What then will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith? The answer is sure. He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb. But what if some novel contagion try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty. What if in antiquity itself two or three men, or it may be a city, or even a whole province be detected in error? Then he will take the greatest care to prefer the decrees of the ancient General Councils, if there are such, to the irresponsible ignorance of a few men. But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort is to be found? Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire their meaning, provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places, they yet continued in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church; and let them be teachers approved and outstanding. And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation. *

God bless.

 

[ClayPots47]

One of the good points i took away fro the take of the 4th cup was this: That jesua took the vow of the nazarene.

Nazirite Vow, and the story of Samson, it’s most famous adherent. Numbers 6:1-21 is the source for this. If you can’t correctly get the difference between ‘Nazarene’ and ‘Nazirite’ apart, how is anything else you wrote correct (Others have told you it isn’t)? There is NO passage in scripture anywhere, that states anything regarding Jesus taking a Nazirite vow. If you say He did, please cite the source, and when He supposedly made this vow? Since Jesus drank wine, and approached dead bodies (Lazarus and the little girl in Mark 5:41), when was He supposed to fulfill this vow?

I dont’t seem to see a detailed refute of our objections. Verse for verse . It cannot be the way Hahn has stated: there is no 4th cup theory had holds neither wine nor water. He is ALL wrong. And if he is wrong in this matter how many other matters is he incorrect, should we follow a man who has made such a blinding error? Ray

Hahn is all wrong, according to you. Others do not agree. Perhaps it is you with the error. The fact that you confuse Nazarene (a resident of the town of Nazareth) with Nazirite (a vow made by many such as Samson as described in Numbers 6:1-21) shows that your ability to parse scripture is questionable. At least Hahn has credentials as a scholar and a teacher to back him. This is precisely why the Catholic Church is not a Sola Scriptura church, and why scripture is to be interpreted by the Magisterium, and not by individuals. Hahn found that his conclusion was what the Catholic position was all along. If you reject Hahn, you reject the Church and her authority to teach and interpret scripture.

 

[EricFilmer]

In the Old Testament, we find the scripture pertaining to the Nazirite Vow, and the story of Samson, it’s most famous adherent…

And just to “round out some bases” here, Samuel and John the Baptist are also traditionally believed to be Nazirites (although the plain words of the Bible imply this rather than specifically state it). Those, plus Samson, are the only three biblical Nazirites that I am aware of.

As a side note, I noticed your signature identification as a “Kid Sister of St. Frank.” Assuming that this identifies you as a Rich Mullins fan, I just wanted to say that I think his music is awesome.

 

[ClayPots47]

As a side note, I noticed your signature identification as a “Kid Sister of St. Frank.” Assuming that this identifies you as a Rich Mullins fan, I just wanted to say that I think his music is awesome.

Yup! Rich Mullins fan. A play on his name for his Franciscan inspired group, “The Kid Brothers of Saint Frank”, and my own membership in the Secular Franciscan Order.