Scott Hahn

[johnbres2]

You are missing my point. Clearly, what the serpent “said” is part of the scripture and part of the allegory. And Adam’s sin, representative of all of our sin, consists of a loss of the original bliss intended for all people. But to go beyond it and start to speculate on it like it is a historical scenario is ridiculous, in a scholarly sense. The creation stories in Genesis are HUGELY important theologically. And when the Church discusses it, she does not constantly say “this is allegory.” But if you do a little research, you will find that those stories were never intended by the authors to be taken literally, while they still are of direct universal applicability.

I guess The Catechism of the Catholic Church is “pretty goofy” then.

Here it talks about “what the snake did or didn’t say”:

392 Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels. This “fall” consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter’s words to our first parents: “You will be like God.” The devil “has sinned from the beginning”; he is “a liar and the father of lies.”

Here it talks about “what Adam should or shouldn’t have done”:

416 By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.

What’s “goofy” is claiming that it doesn’t matter what’s written in Holy Scripture.

 

[notsmart]

Over 2,000 views on Scott Hahn.

I would think this is an indication he is at least a household name.

And, that he is being picked to shreads here by some people who have never done the study he has, is so petty.

 

[anon52328184]

I thought you were a recent convert? Now you’re an old-fashioned Catholic?

Anyhow, Catholics are allowed to believe a range of things about the Creation story. Both things you wrote about above are allowable - allegory or literally true.

i am a recent convert. however, i think the old fashioned catholics tend to believe what is written in the Bible. i have been a Christian since i was 2 years old and since the age of hearing about the story of Adam and Eve i have believed it to be true. just because i am a recent convert, doesn’t mean i had not heard anything about what is in the Bible for the past 54 years! if it is allegory, wouldn’t it just be literature rather than the word of God? i was baptized in 1954 for your information. how long have you been a catholic?

 

[notsmart]

i am a recent convert. however, i think the old fashioned catholics tend to believe what is written in the Bible. i have been a Christian since i was 2 years old and since the age of hearing about the story of Adam and Eve i have believed it to be true. just because i am a recent convert, doesn’t mean i had not heard anything about what is in the Bible for the past 54 years! if it is allegory, wouldn’t it just be literature rather than the word of God? i was baptized in 1954 for your information. how long have you been a catholic?

Hi debarahaz,
Are you saying there is no allegory in the bible?

 

[Mea_Culpa]

You are missing my point. Clearly, what the serpent “said” is part of the scripture and part of the allegory. And Adam’s sin, representative of all of our sin, consists of a loss of the original bliss intended for all people. But to go beyond it and start to speculate on it like it is a historical scenario is ridiculous, in a scholarly sense.

Even if you believe the Creation story is an allegory (which I don’t), the fact that what the serpent says is in Scripture makes it worthy of speculation. It is part of the inspired word of God. It is inerrant. It’s not just in there to fill up space. It is not ridiculous to ponder the word of God, to study it as if our (eternal) lives depended upon it.

Do you think if the Creation story is not a “historical scenario” then what is said and done in the story is of no importance because it’s not literally true? That’s the implication of what you’re saying. You seem to be saying, “It doesn’t matter if the serpent says this or that, or Adam does this or that, because it’s not true anyhow.”

Even if you believe the Creation story is an allegory, every word in it is still important.

The creation stories in Genesis are HUGELY important theologically. And when the Church discusses it, she does not constantly say “this is allegory.” But if you do a little research,

I have done research, thank you very much. I know some people think most of the Bible is an allegory, not literally true. I know some people think the Infancy Narratives of Jesus are midrash and not literally true. I don’t buy it.

you will find that those stories were never intended by the authors to be taken literally,

How do you know what the authors intended? Can you read their minds across time?

 

[johnbres2]

Here is a quote from the earlier thread. You must be able to read the Catechism here with subtlety to understand the historical/allegorical implications. The account uses “figurative” language. This means, for instance, that serpents don’t talk, and there is no “tree” called the “Tree of Knowledge” that has fruit that people were not supposed to eat. But nonetheless the thing that is being described is considered something that happened within the human race at the very beginning. Humanity neglected God and tried to be self-sufficient. They tried to take good and evil into their own hands. They sinned. This propensity to sin passed on to all of humanity. You have to read these things with your intellect. That is in fact what I love about Catholicism: it is a religion of faith and reason together. Most people are unwilling to grasp the true depth of these early creation stories. You have to think, people. Read the early Fathers, read the Catechism, but you have to think too.

“The Catechism in 390 says, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.” It says it uses figurative language - in other words, things like symbols, etc. It doesn’t say the account in Genesis 3 is a strict, chronological retelling of the event as it would be recorded by a camcorder.”

Oh but it is.

Go back to the earlier posts on this thread and you will see an outline of what Catholics must believe. All Catholic theologians must believe these doctrines.

Before you reply to this, go back and read the earlier points on this blog. The story of Adam and Eve is not allegorical.

 

[anon52328184]

i agree with what mea culpa says and that is why i left the anglican church because there you are not expected to believe anything of what is in the bible-unless it is an orthodox anglican or traditional - i joined the roman catholic church because i thought that the tradition of the interpretation of scripture was protected. that it is seen as real.

i was told there was a santa claus when i was a little girl, but as i grew older, i discovered there really is no man in a red suit who comes down the chimney to bring christmas presents.

so far, i have not discovered anything that says the Creation story is not real.
so, until someone can prove otherwise, i will continue to believe the story of adam and eve. i am open to the idea that someday someone might prove otherwise, but right now, i don’t see it.

if someone else chooses to see the whole bible as allegory, well, you might be missing something. how can you believe in anything the Bible says then?

 

[notsmart]

How do you decide what is allegory and what is not?

i agree with what mea culpa says and that is why i left the anglican church because there you are not expected to believe anything of what is in the bible-unless it is an orthodox anglican or traditional - i joined the roman catholic church because i thought that the tradition of the interpretation of scripture was protected. that it is seen as real.

i was told there was a santa claus when i was a little girl, but as i grew older, i discovered there really is no man in a red suit who comes down the chimney to bring christmas presents.

so far, i have not discovered anything that says the Creation story is not real.
so, until someone can prove otherwise, i will continue to believe the story of adam and eve. i am open to the idea that someday someone might prove otherwise, but right now, i don’t see it.

if someone else chooses to see the whole bible as allegory, well, you might be missing something. how can you believe in anything the Bible says then?

 

[Cinette]

I know this is not the topic but seeing that people are attacking Scott Hahn for earning money for his books it would be great to find out how much priests are paid.

Here in South Africa the last time I looked it was $140 a month. They drive old Toyotas or beetles. They certainly do not live the “good life”

After all, they took vows of poverty.

What about priests who write books that sell like hot cakes and even those with modest sales. Do you think they keep the money and go off to Los Vegas?

Aha, here is a topic for a new thread.

:extrahappy: :extrahappy:

The skeptics would really enjoy themselves!

 

[anon52328184]

i don’t see the bible as allegory so i don’t need to worry about that.

there are some people who think some parts of the bible are allegory and some aren’t. i guess they think they are smart enough to know which is and which isn’t.

i take the whole bible to be the inspired word of God.

 

[johnbres2]

There is no need to get all defensive. By my saying that the creation story is allegorical, I am still saying it is the inspired word of God. Read the Pope’s writings if you want to get into the full depth of the creation story. I just grabbed one of his books off the shelf, in light of our discussion here. The book is called “God and the World,” from 2000, and it is the trascript of an interview between Peter Seewald and (then) Cardinal Ratzinger. Seewald poses this question:

Adam, that is, literally, "the man,"called his wife Eve. “Eve” means life, and so Eve became the mother of all living creatures. Perhaps men have never yet quite got over this gift of a bone; in this figure there seems to be a great mystery concealed.

Ratzinger replied, “This too, is one of the great archetypal images the Bible gives us, so that through them we can glimpse things that we can scarcely bring into conceptual form. In the first place, the common nature of man and woman is expressed there. They are one being and have one and the same human dignity. At any rate, their equal dignity is depicted here in the most splendid fashion. The other point is their being turned toward each other. This is shown in the wound, which is present in all of us, and which leads us to turn to each other.”

If you read these books, you see Ratzinger constantly talks like this about this creation stories: they are things we can scarcely conceptualize, but the stories give us beautiful images to explain the eternal truths they portray. So, when the Chuch says, you must believe in Adam and Eve, it means you believe that this story explains the essential nature of Man and Woman and their relation to God and each other. You have to understand this. It’s not a question of, “oh, I think I am so clever to know what is allegory and what isn’t.” I am only talking about the Genesis creation stories. But look more, Jesus constantly used parables and allegories. There wasn’t really a prodigal son, for instance, it is a story designed to convey a crucial truth about the human condition. If Scott Hahn or anyone said, “the prodigal son was only wearing one sandal, and that is why he was walking slow so his dad had to run out and meet him,” you would dismiss it as idle speculation that missed the point completely.

i don’t see the bible as allegory so i don’t need to worry about that.

there are some people who think some parts of the bible are allegory and some aren’t. i guess they think they are smart enough to know which is and which isn’t.

i take the whole bible to be the inspired word of God.

 

[AnyoneAnybody]

You misunderstand me. I never commented on figurative language. I said the account of Adam and Eve was not allegorical. The issue of figurative language never came up.

Here is a quote from the earlier thread. You must be able to read the Catechism here with subtlety to understand the historical/allegorical implications. The account uses “figurative” language. This means, for instance, that serpents don’t talk, and there is no “tree” called the “Tree of Knowledge” that has fruit that people were not supposed to eat. But nonetheless the thing that is being described is considered something that happened within the human race at the very beginning. Humanity neglected God and tried to be self-sufficient. They tried to take good and evil into their own hands. They sinned. This propensity to sin passed on to all of humanity. You have to read these things with your intellect. That is in fact what I love about Catholicism: it is a religion of faith and reason together. Most people are unwilling to grasp the true depth of these early creation stories. You have to think, people. Read the early Fathers, read the Catechism, but you have to think too.

“The Catechism in 390 says, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.” It says it uses figurative language - in other words, things like symbols, etc. It doesn’t say the account in Genesis 3 is a strict, chronological retelling of the event as it would be recorded by a camcorder.”

 

[AnyoneAnybody]

Re: “creation story is allegorical”

This is where you are in disagreement with the Catholic doctrine.

There is no need to get all defensive. By my saying that the creation story is allegorical, I am still saying it is the inspired word of God. Read the Pope’s writings if you want to get into the full depth of the creation story. I just grabbed one of his books off the shelf, in light of our discussion here. The book is called “God and the World,” from 2000, and it is the trascript of an interview between Peter Seewald and (then) Cardinal Ratzinger. Seewald poses this question:

Adam, that is, literally, "the man,"called his wife Eve. “Eve” means life, and so Eve became the mother of all living creatures. Perhaps men have never yet quite got over this gift of a bone; in this figure there seems to be a great mystery concealed.

Ratzinger replied, “This too, is one of the great archetypal images the Bible gives us, so that through them we can glimpse things that we can scarcely bring into conceptual form. In the first place, the common nature of man and woman is expressed there. They are one being and have one and the same human dignity. At any rate, their equal dignity is depicted here in the most splendid fashion. The other point is their being turned toward each other. This is shown in the wound, which is present in all of us, and which leads us to turn to each other.”

If you read these books, you see Ratzinger constantly talks like this about this creation stories: they are things we can scarcely conceptualize, but the stories give us beautiful images to explain the eternal truths they portray. So, when the Chuch says, you must believe in Adam and Eve, it means you believe that this story explains the essential nature of Man and Woman and their relation to God and each other. You have to understand this. It’s not a question of, “oh, I think I am so clever to know what is allegory and what isn’t.” I am only talking about the Genesis creation stories. But look more, Jesus constantly used parables and allegories. There wasn’t really a prodigal son, for instance, it is a story designed to convey a crucial truth about the human condition. If Scott Hahn or anyone said, “the prodigal son was only wearing one sandal, and that is why he was walking slow so his dad had to run out and meet him,” you would dismiss it as idle speculation that missed the point completely.

 

[anon52328184]

i think the point i am making is that i don’t sit around thinking about which part of the bible is allegorical and which is not.

it is the Bible and i take it for that.

i appreciate your post and i haven’t done as much reading about the background of each bible story about what this really means and what that really means.

obviously, you and i are reading the Bible from two different perspectives.

i am not being argumentative. i am not telling you how to interpret the Bible.

i understand that Jesus taught in parables and they were called parables.

and i have not read enough of scott hahn to comment on what he writes about.

 

[AnyoneAnybody]

deborahaz,

You are safe believing in what Catholic doctrine says. Catholics
must believe…

1. that Adam and Eve are the parents of all
2. Eve came from Adam
3. Original sin began with their decision.
4. The Devil tempted Adam and Eve to transgress the command of God.

i think the point i am making is that i don’t sit around thinking about which part of the bible is allegorical and which is not.

it is the Bible and i take it for that.

i appreciate your post and i haven’t done as much reading about the background of each bible story about what this really means and what that really means.

obviously, you and i are reading the Bible from two different perspectives.

i am not being argumentative. i am not telling you how to interpret the Bible.

i understand that Jesus taught in parables and they were called parables.

and i have not read enough of scott hahn to comment on what he writes about.

 

[TLara]

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.

the above is found on Dr. Scott Hahn’s web site. I’ve heard some people comment on that Dr. Scott Hahn is not really a theologian and that he doesn’t write in the top tier journals, and so on. I think the underlined portion will dispute that.

Its funny how some people make such ridiculous claims. For those who do not know each of his books contain the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur. they are official declarations that the material you are reading is free from doctrinal or moral err. think about that for a while.

 

[notsmart]

I know this is not the topic but seeing that people are attacking Scott Hahn for earning money for his books it would be great to find out how much priests are paid.

Here in South Africa the last time I looked it was $140 a month. They drive old Toyotas or beetles. They certainly do not live the “good life”

After all, they took vows of poverty.
What about priests who write books that sell like hot cakes and even those with modest sales. Do you think they keep the money and go off to Los Vegas?

Aha, here is a topic for a new thread.

:extrahappy: :extrahappy:

The skeptics would really enjoy themselves!

You bet its a topic for another thread. Parish priests DO NOT take a vow of poverty!

Who told you this?

 

[notsmart]

i don’t see the bible as allegory so i don’t need to worry about that.

there are some people who think some parts of the bible are allegory and some aren’t. i guess they think they are smart enough to know which is and which isn’t.

i take the whole bible to be the inspired word of God.

None of it is allegory? None?

I think you better think this one out again.

 

[AnyoneAnybody]

Thank you TLara,

I read the charge by someone that he did not publish in top tier journals, so I asked what journals does he publish in. I also asked someone to identify the top tier journals in his field.

No one responded. I have the capacity to investigate the validity of this. We would look at the journals he published in and identify the rejection rates and impact factor using Web of Science. This is not my field, but I’m willing to bet some people generate rumors quicker than verifiable facts.

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.

the above is found on Dr. Scott Hahn’s web site. I’ve heard some people comment on that Dr. Scott Hahn is not really a theologian and that he doesn’t write in the top tier journals, and so on. I think the underlined portion will dispute that.

Its funny how some people make such ridiculous claims. For those who do not know each of his books contain the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur. they are official declarations that the material you are reading is free from doctrinal or moral err. think about that for a while.

 

[anon52328184]

None of it is allegory? None?

I think you better think this one out again.

i notice your profile says you haven’t figured religion out yet, so how are you to tell me how i read the Bible. maybe you are not smart after all!

also, this thread is about Scott Hahn - not about allegory.