Trying to understand the temptation in Eden

[Neoplatonist]

To me it sounds like you are trying to give God human characteristics. His ways are not our ways. His ways are so far above our ways… Thought of God SHOULD leave us awe struck and trembling…

I didn’t invent the whole Father paradigm for relating to God. ?] Yet if we cannot make sense out of Him even by analogy, then where does that leave the function of organized religion? Would we just go each week and be reminded that we have no idea what is going on so we should should just hope we accidentally get it right? (I hope you enjoy a little banter in the discussion, the heavy mood of late has worn a little thin.)

 

[Aloysium]

I didn’t invent the whole Father paradigm for relating to God. ?] Yet if we cannot make sense out of Him even by analogy, then where does that leave the function of organized religion? Would we just go each week and be reminded that we have no idea what is going on so we should should just hope we accidentally get it right? (I hope you enjoy a little banter in the discussion, the heavy mood of late has worn a little thin.)

That may very well be what is going on here.

Trying to communicate Truth:
What words will be understood?
hoping this time, a key unlocks the door to awe.

 

[dmwessel]

I believe it is a little more subtle than this.
(Remember David danced naked in front of the Ark without blame even though many derided him for it).

Also, as neither animal nor man wore garments in Eden 'naked" is not a concept that existed until God clothed them after they left Eden.

naked does not mean physically naked as they were in Paradise (ethereal garden) so they didn’t have physical bodies - this is speaking of a spiritual sense - they were *spiritually *naked (without covering)

Therefore how can they realise they “have no clothes”.

again, they realized they were spiritually naked

Perhaps the root Hebrwew word for “naked” is worth investigating further.
But without even doing that logic suggests that the real issue, as Aquinas states, is that they became aware of disordered “movements of the flesh”.

they didn’t have flesh and blood bodies in Paradise so they could not have movements of the flesh - that only happened after they were clothed with skin(s)

That is, they realised that they were no longer complete masters of their bodies, they had lost what the Church calls “the gift of original justice.”
Their sin damaged their very human constitution by decoupling the closeness of body and soul and also gave rise to concupiscence. This is the “wound” of their personal sin - which also got passed down to us.

Only the mortal body is capable of sin - again, they did not have mortal bodies in Eden/Heaven

Let not sin therefore reign in your **mortal **body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. (Romand 6:12)

So they wanted to hide this shameful disorder from each other and from God and from their own consciousness by hiding in the bushes.

They had not yet been cast out of Eden so therefore, this hiding in the bushes was not an earthly situation.

I believe this is a little off course.
In the Garden Adam was not only more than an animal but he was the most perfect human in the order of nature. And he was also established in both Original Justice and in Sanctifying Grace.

According to Gen. 2:7 man was only a *soul *(animal principle) before it was put into the garden. It only gained a spiritual component when God put it in the garden (Gen. 2:8)

Only Mary and Jesus have ever come back to that level of closeness to God since.

I do believe this is the Catholic position.

 

[Neoplatonist]

Interesting direction this has taken. I have one question at the moment: if only a mortal body can sin, how did the angels fall?

 

[Aloysium]

naked does not mean physically naked as they were in Paradise (ethereal garden) so they didn’t have physical bodies . . . they didn’t have flesh and blood bodies in Paradise so they could not have movements of the flesh - that only happened after they were clothed with skin(s) . . . According to Gen. 2:7 man was only a *soul *(animal principle) before it was put into the garden. It only gained a spiritual component when God put it in the garden (Gen. 2:8) . . . I do believe this is the Catholic position.

CCC: 355 "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them."218 Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is “in the image of God”; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created “male and female”; (IV) God established him in his friendship. . . . 356 of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”. He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake”, and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity: What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good. . . . 358 God created everything for man, but man in turn was created to serve and love God and to offer all creation back to him: What is it that is about to be created, that enjoys such honour? It is man that great and wonderful living creature, more precious in the eyes of God than all other creatures! For him the heavens and the earth, the sea and all the rest of creation exist. God attached so much importance to his salvation that he did not spare his own Son for the sake of man. Nor does he ever cease to work, trying every possible means, until he has raised man up to himself and made him sit at his right hand.
359 “In reality it is only in the mystery of** the Word made flesh** that the mystery of man truly becomes clear.”
St. Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ. . . the first man, Adam, he says, became a living soul, the last Adam a life-giving spirit. the first Adam was made by the last Adam, from whom he also received his soul, to give him life… the second Adam stamped his image on the first Adam when he created him. That is why he took on himself the role and the name of the first Adam, in order that he might not lose what he had made in his own image. the first Adam, the last Adam: the first had a beginning, the last knows no end. the last Adam is indeed the first; as he himself says: “I am the first and the last.”

Gen 2: 7 Yahweh God shaped man from the soil of the ground and blew the breath of life into his nostrils, and man became a living being.
8 Yahweh God planted a garden in Eden, which is in the east, and there he put the man he had fashioned.
9 From the soil, Yahweh God caused to grow every kind of tree, enticing to look at and good to eat, with the tree of life in the middle of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Being a living soul does not preclude a physical body, as we hope to have in the resurrection.

 

[Usagi]

Interesting direction this has taken. I have one question at the moment: if only a mortal body can sin, how did the angels fall?

Note that dmwessel is incorrect in his belief that his position is also the Catholic one.

Usagi

 

[Neoplatonist]

Note that dmwessel is incorrect in his belief that his position is also the Catholic one.

Usagi

Ah.

Man, this place is almost like having the theology grad degree I can’t afford to go get.

 

[Usagi]

Curious to hear if you have thoughts on the same narrowed question I asked BH:

What I am trying to bring out in logical discourse is how we can reconcile that claim ‘that is good’ with any of the other things we ever actually experience to be good or with our understanding of principles of human flourishing in any areas besides religion. Can you clarify your thought on this one aspect? In the other areas of relationship I can think of, and in other ways that come to mind for our use of the term ‘good’, a relationship built on extreme obedience and dependency do not seem to match up.

Can you offer a way they do? The closest I can think of is the parent to the small child, but the human case is different because we would not freely create our child to be forever 5. I’m not saying God didn’t, or that we ever approach his infinity, or how I would do it, or that it isn’t good just because I don’t see how it could be good, or any of that. I am saying: can you give an example that gives a better analogy than that?

A relationship of “extreme obedience and dependency” is unhealthy among humans because humans are equals by nature; no human, even the parent of a small child, is wise or good enough to wield absolute power over another.

In the case of us and God, we (and all of Creation) are inherently, necessarily entirely dependent upon Him. It’s not a relationship He chose or enforced in contrast to other options; it is what happens when the only necessary Being makes other, contingent beings.

Likewise, God really is perfectly good and really does know what is best in every situation, so obeying Him (even blindly and unquestioningly) is not necessarily bad. On the other hand, He did give us intellect and does not normally expect that we will obey even Him completely blindly.

It is wrong to think of Adam and Eve as the equivalent of small children. Well, they were that compared to God, of course, but people tend to imagine that they were ignorant compared to us, their descendants. The more common theological view is that we are all mentally and physically disabled by the Fall in comparison to them. Don’t imagine ignorant primitives or toddlers presented with a shiny-but-dangerous thing, imagine super-powered geniuses given one freaking rule to allow them to keep their powers and brains and deciding to disobey it just because they couldn’t stand to be told “no” about anything (under the influence of the only even more super-powered genius, admittedly).

Usagi

 

[Neoplatonist]

Oh, don’t misunderstand. I mean to refer to all of us as children! My ex moreso than others (j/k, I don’t have an ex)

 

[Blue_Horizon]

they didn’t have flesh and blood bodies in Paradise so they could not have movements of the flesh

Only the mortal body is capable of sin - again, they did not have mortal bodies in Eden/Heaven

According to Gen. 2:7 man was only a *soul *(animal principle) before it was put into the garden. It only gained a spiritual component when God put it in the garden (Gen. 2:8)

dmwessel these unusual positions are not Catholic and in fact do not even do justice to a plain reading of the Biblical texts sorry. Your observations appear to all exhibit a not uncommon theme of the spiritualising of matter typical of Platonism.

To see what you see in Gen 2:7 you would have to spiritualise the word “dust” to an extent that few even of the Alexandrian Fathers would have gone.

 

[petra22]

Ah.

Man, this place is almost like having the theology grad degree I can’t afford to go get.

I agree with you there! Most interesting! I enjoy it so much…

 

[dmwessel]

Being a living soul does not preclude a physical body, as we hope to have in the resurrection.

soul = a physical body (mind, emotions)
spirit = God’s image (metaphysical)

Who knoweth *the spirit *of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of *the beast *that goeth downward to the earth? (Eccl. 3:21)

At death, the metaphysical part of us (God’s image) goes upward (to Heaven) and the beast part of us (body/soul) to the earth (whence it came from/dust).

At the resurrection from the dead, the physical body (which has been changed so that it too can inherit eternal life) is rejoined with it’s spirit.

 

[dmwessel]

dmwessel these unusual positions are not Catholic and in fact do not even do justice to a plain reading of the Biblical texts sorry. Your observations appear to all exhibit a not uncommon theme of the spiritualising of matter typical of Platonism.

To see what you see in Gen 2:7 you would have to spiritualise the word “dust” to an extent that few even of the Alexandrian Fathers would have gone.

I didn’t spiritualize, I said from the beginning that man (soul/as being of the dust/ground/primordial soup) was simply an animal/mammal - which is a physical thing in Gen. 2:7.

I was of the understanding that the official Catholic teaching is evolution based and the Bible concurs with that.

 

[Aloysium]

soul = a physical body (mind, emotions)
spirit = God’s image (metaphysical)

Who knoweth *the spirit *of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of *the beast *that goeth downward to the earth? (Eccl. 3:21)

At death, the metaphysical part of us (God’s image) goes upward (to Heaven) and the beast part of us (body/soul) to the earth (whence it came from/dust).

At the resurrection from the dead, the physical body (which has been changed so that it too can inherit eternal life) is rejoined with it’s spirit.

I understand why you indicate that your religion is “none of the above”.
By “physical”, I understand that to mean that it describes how we bodily are part of the material world. When we die, our body decomposes, returning the complexity that is our body to simpler forms of matter.
I don’t think of people as having a “beast part” so much as that we have feelings: pleasure, anger, fear, sadness, happiness.
BTW: Catholic teaching is not “evolution based”. We believe in two original parents created by God, from whom all mankind springs. How He did this is not specified.

 

[Usagi]

I didn’t spiritualize, I said from the beginning that man (soul/as being of the dust/ground/primordial soup) was simply an animal/mammal - which is a physical thing in Gen. 2:7.

I was of the understanding that the official Catholic teaching is evolution based and the Bible concurs with that.

Catholic teaching is not evolution-based, though it is compatible with the findings of science and with interpretations thereof that are not solely materialistic.

I understood you to be saying that Adam and Eve in the Garden were disembodied spirits. That is not Catholic teaching. If I misunderstood you, my apologies.

Usagi

 

[dmwessel]

Catholic teaching is not evolution-based, though it is compatible with the findings of science and with interpretations thereof that are not solely materialistic.

I understood you to be saying that Adam and Eve in the Garden were disembodied spirits. That is not Catholic teaching. If I misunderstood you, my apologies.

Usagi

If Catholic teaching is compatible with the findings of science and the findings of science are evolution-based, then I don’t know what you’re arguing about?

This is Father Coyne: youtube.com/watch?v=3L15e2sNZsU

see also Pope John Paul II

No I believe you read it correctly. The garden of Eden is in Heaven, another name for it is Paradise (garden). Heaven doe not have *physical * properties as it’s metaphysical. Which means that they *did not *have physical bodies in the garden.

God is a *Spirit * - a spirit is metaphysical - if Heaven is God’s realm, then a physical body cannot possibly be on that level.

 

[Aloysium]

If Catholic teaching is compatible with the findings of science and the findings of science are evolution-based, then I don’t know what you’re arguing about?

This is Father Coyne: youtube.com/watch?v=3L15e2sNZsU

see also Pope John Paul II

No I believe you read it correctly. The garden of Eden is in Heaven, another name for it is Paradise (garden). Heaven doe not have *physical * properties as it’s metaphysical. Which means that they *did not *have physical bodies in the garden.

God is a *Spirit * - a spirit is metaphysical - if Heaven is God’s realm, then a physical body cannot possibly be on that level.

You are obviously entitled to understand things in your own fashion.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I didn’t spiritualize, I said from the beginning that man (soul/as being of the dust/ground/primordial soup) was simply an animal/mammal - which is a physical thing in Gen. 2:7.

.

dmwessel it is hard to hold a rational discussion with you as you seem invent your own unique word defintions, philosophy and and vocabulary..

Did you or did you not opine that:
“According to Gen. 2:7 man was only a soul (animal principle) before it was put into the garden. It only gained a spiritual component when God put it in the garden (Gen. 2:8).”?

If man is only a soul…then clearly he has no matter/body.
And then he gains a “spiritual principle” which again has no matter.

Now if you can advise your reputable Catholic sources for your very unique position it may be worth progressing further. If this is just something you have put together yourself and are flying here … well its a Catholic forum and most of us would prefer to spend our time discussing theory that is at least consistent with basic Catholic teaching and uses technical words with the usual technical meanings.

May I observe, as have others, that your interpretation of Gen 2.7-2.8 is pure fantasy - quite apart from contradicting Catholic teaching.

Gen 2.7 clearly states God created “a man” (not animal) and then placed him in the Garden. This is rather obvious as God only breathed His Spirit into man (thus gifting him with free will and intellect which animals do not possess). There is no indication that God added any extra “spirit” when he was plaed in Eden.

All the above really does sound like you have your own pet theory which you are forcing on Genesis…but I do not think a shoe-horn exists large enough to fit that foot.

 

[petra22]

God is a *Spirit * - a spirit is metaphysical - if Heaven is God’s realm, then a physical body cannot possibly be on that level.

“7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” KJV?
And…If man wasn’t a physical being why was he made from dust of the ground and why did he need nostrils???

 

[InNomineDomini]

I think the first problem of the analogy is that it takes the account of the Fall of Man in Genesis as if it were a history written in precisely the same mode as history is written today. That is to say: it interprets the account in a way which is limited by its literalness, and comes across as silly as a result.

The Catechism speaks of the Fall beginning at CCC 385. There, the Catechism recounts *what *the Fall was, but notes that the manner in which the Fall is recorded uses figurative language.

Whilst certainly, Catholics are free to interpret the extent of this figurative language, and even to believe in a literal snake and a literal tree, we may also acknowledge the genre of the account in Genesis, and interpret it with this genre’s styling in mind. (The genre being an example of an ancient method of history being expressed using figurative language.)

Some quotes:

     **390. **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*. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human  history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first  parents.

     **396.** God created man in his image and established him  in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship  only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating "of the  tree of the knowledge of good and evil" spells this out: "for in the day  that you eat of it, you shall die." The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a  creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent  on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral  norms that govern the use of freedom.

397. Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of. All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

398. In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.