Speculation about the unfallen

[Matt16_18]

Ghosty:

Matt16_18: … I see no reason to believe your position one way or another …

Thanks for giving me credit for this position, but that honor really belongs to the Blessed John Duns Scotus.

I can understand why you may not accept the Scotists position. It is, after all, a position that is still open for legitimate theological debate in the Church. Perhaps the Church will see a reason to someday definitively declare which position is the infallible teaching of the Church.

As an aside, I believe that St. Hildegarde’s understanding of the terrestrial paradise is a key to opening up another way to appoach the evolution vs. creation debate that many Catholics seem to struggle with. But that is a topic for a different thread.

Ghosty:

As for the whole “persisting paradise”, I don’t know if I accept it. Again, it’s possible, but it doesn’t affect any of matters from Tradition or Scripture near as I can tell. For some it might be comforting, but it matters not at all to me.

OK. In post # 37, nobody said that the idea that the terrestrial paradise still exists “hit me like a brick!”. Some of us can get excited about the idea that paradise still exists, and that the terrestrial paradise is connected to this world in some mysterious manner. Why we find that this something to get excited about can be hard to explain though.

nobody, are you still reading this thread? I am very interested to hear why you made your comment.

 

[Les_Richardson]

Matt16_18:

John Duns Scotus, called Doctor Subtilis, was a Scholastic philosopher and theologian who pioneered the classical defence of the doctrine that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was conceived without original sin (the Immaculate Conception) and argued that the Incarnation was not dependent on the fact that man had sinned …

Encyclopedia Britannica

---

In Scotus, the Incarnation is not a contingency plan when the original creative process of God goes awry because of sin. Scotus rejects this notion as too central an emphasis on Man to the extent that the freedom of God to act in love is determined by an external necessity i.e. the redemption from sin. Scotus understands the Incarnation as always being in the mind of God even before the historical and existential physicality of creation itself and the fact of sin.

Incarnation in Franciscan Spirituality

Thanks. I have started to Google and so far I’ve discovered I am already a bit of a Scotist.

It’s funny. I have a BA in philosophy yet I had a gap where John Duns Scotus is concerned. I’m trying to catch up here.
:dancing:

 

[Matt16_18]

Les Richardson:

Thanks. I have started to Google and so far I’ve discovered I am already a bit of a Scotist.

I can relate to that. I was a Scotist before I ever knew what a Scotists was. Of course, after reading the depth and beauty of the arguments made by Duns Scotus, I realized that I was only a minor league Scotist.

Out of curiousity, let me ask you the same questions that I asked Ghosty: What do you think about St. Hildegarde’s quote that I posted?

Do you believe that the terrestrial paradise still exists as it was before the Fall, and that the plants and animals in the terrestrial paradise are in some mysterious way imparting vitality to the plants and animals in this fallen universe?

 

[nobody]

Matt16_18:

nobody, are you still reading this thread? I am very interested to hear why you made your comment.

Hi.

Yes, I’m still reading…I “subscribed” to the thread.

Why the “terrestial paradise” you have been talking about surprised me: Another of my reading interests is theoretical physics. Are you familiar with string theory (and “braneworlds”)? They are actually running experiments to try to “prove” this theory at FermiLab, which requires the existence of several additional spacial dimensions. I kept thinking about heaven when I read about that stuff. I’ve found out that others have had that idea as well, but I hadn’t heard about saints that had spoken of this idea.

What question has come up in my mind, though, is: Then the creation story in Genesis is referring to this paradise creation, and not this fallen world? I’m not a pure “creationist” - I’m interested in the intelligent design theory (I’ve bought a book but haven’t read it, yet).

Very interesting thread. Thank you to all who have contributed.

nobody

 

[Matt16_18]

nobody

*Are you familiar with string theory (and “braneworlds”)? They are actually running experiments to try to “prove” this theory at FermiLab, which requires the existence of several additional spacial dimensions. *

I have read a little about string theory. I don’t think it will ever be the “theory that explains everything” though, as some seem to hope.

*What question has come up in my mind, though, is: Then the creation story in Genesis is referring to this paradise creation, and not this fallen world? *

Excellent question. I argue that the creation story in Genesis is referring to the universe that contains the terrestrial paradise, AND that the universe that contains the terrestrial paradise is connected to our fallen universe in some mysterious manner. Because of the mysterious connection between the two physical universes, the Genesis account, is in some way, speaking about the creation of fallen universe too.

I’m not a pure “creationist” - I’m interested in the intelligent design theory (I’ve bought a book but haven’t read it, yet).

You might enjoy this thread by PhilVaz: Did Adam/Eve Exist?

Phil has raised an interesting problem that concerns the reconciliation of scientific evolutionary theory and the Catholic dogma that Adam and Eve possessed immortal bodies before the Fall. Read Phil’s first post, and then skip down to his post #43. He and I begin a discussion of the implications of the terrestrial paradise still existing, and how that is the basis of a possible solution to the problem he has raised.

 

[nobody]

Matt,

Next question for you: What about the “new earth” spoken of in Scriptures? If this terrestial paradise exists now, then no need for it to be “new”. Ideas?

nobody