Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 06-10-2010, 04:12 PM

Interesting essay in the Guardian:

Origen, radical biblical scholar

Quote:

Origen was also on the cutting edge of biblical scholarship as the first Christian theologian to learn Hebrew in order to read the Hebrew Bible. Like Philo, Origen read scripture allegorically. The Bible was divinely inspired, he held, but since so many of the stories in the Bible were clearly false and even ridiculous, God's intention must have been that they not be taken literally.

"What intelligent person", Origen asked, "can imagine that there was a first "day", then a second and a third "day" – evening and morning – without the sun, the moon, and the stars … Who is foolish enough to believe that, like a human gardener, God planted a garden in Eden … I cannot imagine that anyone will doubt that these details point symbolically to spiritual meanings, by using an historical narrative which did not literally happen."

ApostateAbe · 06-10-2010, 04:55 PM

I wouldn't ascribe Origen's objections to rationalism as we know it, but it was more about the Platonic philosophy. The gods existed almost purely in the mystical realm, and they typically manifest themselves through minds, not the miracles as you would see in the Bible. Origen was radical to orthodox Christianity as it became, but his Christianity was adjusted to the predominant culture, as what normally happens all of the time everywhere.

GakuseiDon · 06-10-2010, 05:05 PM

The interesting thing there is that Origen was asked by Ambrosius, a patron, to supply a refutation to Celsus' accusations against Christianity. So that when Origen writes that he "cannot imagine that anyone will doubt" that passages in the Old Testament and New Testament contain "an historical narrative which did not literally happen", he isn't just giving his own opinion, but he is responding on behalf of Christianity as he knows it.

GakuseiDon · 06-10-2010, 05:27 PM

God, I love reading through those old works. Reading "Contra Celsus" gives me an Origenism.

Some of the criticisms that Origen refutes are still made today. As I like to say, arguments against Christianity have not improved in 2000 years! Below are quotes from Origen outlining some of Celsus' accusations:

Book 1: http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...origen161.html

And he [Celsus] asserts that certain persons [Christians] who do not wish either to give or receive a reason for their belief, keep repeating, "Do not examine, but believe!" and, "Your faith will save you!"

And after such statements, showing his ignorance even of the number of the apostles, he proceeds thus: "Jesus having gathered around him ten or eleven persons of notorious character, the very wickedest of tax-gatherers and sailors, fled in company with them from place to place, and obtained his living in a shameful and importunate manner." ...

And in addition to the above, this Jew of Celsus afterwards addresses Jesus: "What need, moreover, was there that you, while still an infant, should be conveyed into Egygt? Was it to escape being murdered? But then it was not likely that a God should be afraid of death; and yet an angel came down from heaven, commanding you and your friends to flee, lest ye should be captured and put to death! And was not the great God, who had already sent two angels on your account, able to keep you, His only Son, there in safety?"

Book 3: http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...origen163.html

After these points Celsus quotes some objections against the doctrine of Jesus, made by a very few individuals who are considered Christians, not of the more intelligent, as he supposes, but of the more ignorant class, and asserts that "the following are the rules laid down by them. Let no one come to us [Christian leaders] who has been instructed, or who is wise or prudent (for such qualifications are deemed evil by us); but if there be any ignorant, or unintelligent, or uninstructed, or foolish persons, let them come with confidence.

Book 5: http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...origen165.html

And, as if he [Celsus] had discovered some clever objection to the narrative, he remarks: "The Son of God, then, it appears, could not open his tomb, but required the aid of another to roll away the stone." ...

Book 7: http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...origen167.html

Celsus adds: "Will they not besides make this reflection? If the prophets of the God of the Jews foretold that he who should come into the world would be the Son of this same God, how could he command them through Moses to gather wealth, to extend their dominion, to fill the earth, to put their enemies of every age to the sword, and to destroy them utterly, which indeed he himself did--as Moses says--threatening them, moreover, that if they did not obey his commands, he would treat them as his avowed enemies; whilst, on the other hand, his Son, the man of Nazareth, promulgated laws quite opposed to these, declaring that no one can come to the Father who loves power, or riches, or glory... Whether is it Moses or Jesus who teaches falsely? Did the Father, when he sent Jesus, forget the commands which he had given to Moses?" ...

Book 8: http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...origen168.html

[Celsus writes that] "Just as you, good sir, believe in eternal punishments, so also do the priests who interpret and initiate into the sacred mysteries. The same punishments with which you threaten others, they threaten you. Now it is worthy of examination, which of the two is more firmly established as true; for both parties contend with equal assurance that the truth is on their side." ...

mountainman · 06-10-2010, 05:58 PM

Origen (disambiguation)

Origen (that Eusebius would have us know) was a third-century Christian theologian.

Origen may also refer to:

Origen the Pagan, a third-century Platonist philosopher

The question is really whether Eusebius either "mistakenly" conflated the two or
purposefully invented the "Christianization" of the existing Neoplatonist Origen.

This question may be repeated with the teacher of the Neoplatonist Origen the founder of the Neoplatonist lineage - the figure of Ammonias Saccas.

Ammonius of Alexandria (Christian)

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

Ammonius of Alexandria was a Christian philosopher who lived in the 3rd century. He is not to be confused with Ammonius Saccas, the Neoplatonist philosopher, also from Alexandria.

Until the 19th century Ammonius was credited with devising the early medieval divisions of the text of the Four Gospels, still usually known as the Ammonian Sections. These are now usually ascribed to Eusebius of Caesarea instead. Eusebius (Church History, vi. 19), who is followed by Jerome, asserts that Ammonius was born a Christian, remained faithful to Christianity throughout his life, and produced two works, The Harmony of Moses and Jesus and a Diatessaron, or The Harmony of the Four Gospels. There is an extant Latin translation by the sixth century bishop Victor of Capua of an anonymous Diatessaron, it is generally ascribed it to Tatian, but it could have been written by Ammonius.

Eusebius attacks Porphyry for saying that Ammonius apostatized early in his life and left no writings behind him, but Eusebius was presumably confusing Ammonius with the Neoplatonist

Ammonias Saccas

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

Ammonius Saccas (3rd century AD) (Ancient Greek: Ἀμμώνιος Σακκᾶς) was a Greek philosopher from Alexandria who was often referred to as one of the founders of Neoplatonism. He is mainly known as the teacher of Plotinus, whom he taught for eleven years from 232 to 243. He was undoubtably the biggest influence on Plotinus in his development of Neoplatonism, although little is known about his own philosophical views. Later Christian writers stated that Ammonius was a Christian, but it is now generally assumed that there was a different Ammonius of Alexandria who wrote biblical texts.

aa5874 · 06-10-2010, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Interesting essay in the Guardian:

Origen, radical biblical scholar

Quote:

Origen was also on the cutting edge of biblical scholarship as the first Christian theologian to learn Hebrew in order to read the Hebrew Bible. Like Philo, Origen read scripture allegorically. The Bible was divinely inspired, he held, but since so many of the stories in the Bible were clearly false and even ridiculous, God's intention must have been that they not be taken literally.

"What intelligent person", Origen asked, "can imagine that there was a first "day", then a second and a third "day" – evening and morning – without the sun, the moon, and the stars … Who is foolish enough to believe that, like a human gardener, God planted a garden in Eden … I cannot imagine that anyone will doubt that these details point symbolically to spiritual meanings, by using an historical narrative which did not literally happen."

Well, if Origen was on the cutting edge of biblical scholarship let us see what he wrote about the birth of Jesus and the CREATION of the first men.

Examine Contra Celsus 1.27

Quote:

Chapter 37

I think, then, that it has been pretty well established not only that our Saviour was to be born of a virgin, but also that there were prophets among the Jews who uttered not merely general predictions about the future—as, e.g., regarding Christ and the kingdoms of the world, and the events that were to happen to Israel, and those nations which were to believe in the Saviour, and many other things concerning Him—but also prophecies respecting particular events; as, for instance, how the asses of Kish, which were lost, were to be discovered, and regarding the sickness which had fallen upon the son of the king of Israel, and any other recorded circumstance of a similar kind.

But as a further answer to the Greeks, who do not believe in the birth of Jesus from a virgin, we have to say that the Creator has shown, by the generation of several kinds of animals, that what He has done in the instance of one animal, He could do, if it pleased Him, in that of others, and also of man himself.

For it is ascertained that there is a certain female animal which has no intercourse with the male (as writers on animals say is the case with vultures), and that this animal, without sexual intercourse, preserves the succession of race.

What incredibility, therefore, is there in supposing that, if God wished to send a divine teacher to the human race, He caused Him to be born in some manner different from the common! Nay, according to the Greeks themselves, all men were not born of a man and woman.

For if the world has been created, as many even of the Greeks are pleased to admit, then the first men must have been produced not from sexual intercourse, but from the earth, in which spermatic elements existed; which, however, I consider more incredible than that Jesus was born like other men, so far as regards the half of his birth.

And there is no absurdity in employing Grecian histories to answer Greeks, with the view of showing that we are not the only persons who have recourse to miraculous narratives of this kind.

For some have thought fit, not in regard to ancient and heroic narratives, but in regard to events of very recent occurrence, to relate as a possible thing that Plato was the son of Amphictione, Ariston being prevented from having marital intercourse with his wife until she had given birth to him with whom she was pregnant by Apollo.

And yet these are veritable fables, which have led to the invention of such stories concerning a man whom they regarded as possessing greater wisdom and power than the multitude, and as having received the beginning of his corporeal substance from better and diviner elements than others, because they thought that this was appropriate to persons who were too great to be human beings.

And since Celsus has introduced the Jew disputing with Jesus, and tearing in pieces, as he imagines, the fiction of His birth from a virgin, comparing the Greek fables about Danaë;, and Melanippe, and Auge, and Antiope, our answer is, that such language becomes a buffoon, and not one who is writing in a serious tone.

Origen was on the cutting edge of BUFFOONERY.

Origen claimed Jesus was TRULY born of a virgin and that the first men were created from SPERMATIC DIRT.

GakuseiDon · 06-10-2010, 07:09 PM

Another interesting point from Origen's "Contra Celsus": it's generally thought that Celsus wrote around 170 CE. If so, then the idea of treating Genesis as allegorical long predated Origen. He quotes Celsus as writing: "the more modest among Jews and Christians are ashamed of these things, and endeavour to give them somehow an allegorical signification." Context below:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...origen164.html

In the next place, as it is his [Celsus'] object to slander our Scriptures, he ridicules the following statement: "And God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof. And the rib, which He had taken from the man, made He a woman," and so on; without quoting the words, which would give the hearer the impression that they are spoken with a figurative meaning. He would not even have it appear that the words were used allegorically, although he says afterwards, that "the more modest among Jews and Christians are ashamed of these things, and endeavour to give them somehow an allegorical signification."

mountainman · 06-10-2010, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Origen was on the cutting edge of BUFFOONERY.

The Origenist controversies of later centuries were caused by forgery into the books of Origen the Platonist, who was the pupil of Ammonias Saccas the founder of Neoplatonism. The forgeries into the books of the pagan Origin were consistent with discussion of "things to do with the christians and their books".

Eusebius had been hired by Constantine to enact the "Fabrication of the Christians" by perverting the technological preservation of Greek literature as it was found in the libraries of Rome on 28th October 312 CE

Quote:

Originally Posted by Momigliano

On 28 October 312 the Christians suddenly and unexpectedly found themselves victorious (2). The victory was a miracle — though opinions differed as to the nature of the sign vouchsafed to Constantine. The winners became conscious of their victory in a mood of resentment and vengeance. A voice shrill with implacable hatred announced to the world the victory of the Milvian Bridge: Lactantius’ De mortibus persecutorum.

aa5874 · 06-10-2010, 09:20 PM

It is clear that Origen is at the cutting edge of Buffoonery.

Let us examine what Origen claimed about Creation. Justin claimed Jesus, the Word, was the Creator.

Examine "Against Celsus" 2.9

Quote:

..For we assert that it was to Him the Father gave the command, when in the Mosaic account of the creation He uttered the words, "Let there be light," and "Let there be a firmament," and gave the injunctions with regard to those other creative acts which were performed; and that to Him also were addressed the words, "Let Us make man in Our own image and likeness;" and that the Logos, when commanded, obeyed all the Father's will.

And we make these statements not from our own conjectures, but because we believe the prophecies circulated among the Jews, in which it is said of God, and of the works of creation, in express words, as follows: "He spoke, and they were made, He commanded, and they were created."

Now if God gave the command, and the creatures were formed, who, according to the view of the spirit of prophecy, could He be that was able to carry out such commands of the Father, save Him who, so to speak, is the living Logos and the Truth?

Origen was at the cutting edge of BUFFOONERY he believed that God created heaven and earth and the FIRST MEN through the Logos Jesus Christ.

Steven Carr · 06-10-2010, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Interesting essay in the Guardian:

Origen, radical biblical scholar

Quote:

Origen was also on the cutting edge of biblical scholarship as the first Christian theologian to learn Hebrew in order to read the Hebrew Bible. Like Philo, Origen read scripture allegorically. The Bible was divinely inspired, he held, but since so many of the stories in the Bible were clearly false and even ridiculous, God's intention must have been that they not be taken literally.

While literal readings of many Biblical passages are absurd (what did Jesus mean when he said people would be salted with fire?), try reading Christian allegorical readings without laughing at how ridiculous they are.

Taking things allegorically does not make them sensible or free from ridicule.

Didn't Origen read the following passage and then castrate himself?

'"For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can."'

So Origen cut it off.

Talk about 'cutting' edge of Biblical scholarship.

That is not really the edge to cut.....

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-10-2010, 04:55 PM	#2
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	I wouldn't ascribe Origen's objections to rationalism as we know it, but it was more about the Platonic philosophy. The gods existed almost purely in the mystical realm, and they typically manifest themselves through minds, not the miracles as you would see in the Bible. Origen was radical to orthodox Christianity as it became, but his Christianity was adjusted to the predominant culture, as what normally happens all of the time everywhere.

06-10-2010, 05:05 PM	#3
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	The interesting thing there is that Origen was asked by Ambrosius, a patron, to supply a refutation to Celsus' accusations against Christianity. So that when Origen writes that he "cannot imagine that anyone will doubt" that passages in the Old Testament and New Testament contain "an historical narrative which did not literally happen", he isn't just giving his own opinion, but he is responding on behalf of Christianity as he knows it.

06-10-2010, 05:27 PM	#4
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	God, I love reading through those old works. Reading "Contra Celsus" gives me an Origenism. Some of the criticisms that Origen refutes are still made today. As I like to say, arguments against Christianity have not improved in 2000 years! Below are quotes from Origen outlining some of Celsus' accusations: Book 1: http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...origen161.html And he [Celsus] asserts that certain persons [Christians] who do not wish either to give or receive a reason for their belief, keep repeating, "Do not examine, but believe!" and, "Your faith will save you!" And after such statements, showing his ignorance even of the number of the apostles, he proceeds thus: "Jesus having gathered around him ten or eleven persons of notorious character, the very wickedest of tax-gatherers and sailors, fled in company with them from place to place, and obtained his living in a shameful and importunate manner." ... And in addition to the above, this Jew of Celsus afterwards addresses Jesus: "What need, moreover, was there that you, while still an infant, should be conveyed into Egygt? Was it to escape being murdered? But then it was not likely that a God should be afraid of death; and yet an angel came down from heaven, commanding you and your friends to flee, lest ye should be captured and put to death! And was not the great God, who had already sent two angels on your account, able to keep you, His only Son, there in safety?" Book 3: http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...origen163.html After these points Celsus quotes some objections against the doctrine of Jesus, made by a very few individuals who are considered Christians, not of the more intelligent, as he supposes, but of the more ignorant class, and asserts that "the following are the rules laid down by them. Let no one come to us [Christian leaders] who has been instructed, or who is wise or prudent (for such qualifications are deemed evil by us); but if there be any ignorant, or unintelligent, or uninstructed, or foolish persons, let them come with confidence. Book 5: http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...origen165.html And, as if he [Celsus] had discovered some clever objection to the narrative, he remarks: "The Son of God, then, it appears, could not open his tomb, but required the aid of another to roll away the stone." ... Book 7: http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...origen167.html Celsus adds: "Will they not besides make this reflection? If the prophets of the God of the Jews foretold that he who should come into the world would be the Son of this same God, how could he command them through Moses to gather wealth, to extend their dominion, to fill the earth, to put their enemies of every age to the sword, and to destroy them utterly, which indeed he himself did--as Moses says--threatening them, moreover, that if they did not obey his commands, he would treat them as his avowed enemies; whilst, on the other hand, his Son, the man of Nazareth, promulgated laws quite opposed to these, declaring that no one can come to the Father who loves power, or riches, or glory... Whether is it Moses or Jesus who teaches falsely? Did the Father, when he sent Jesus, forget the commands which he had given to Moses?" ... Book 8: http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...origen168.html [Celsus writes that] "Just as you, good sir, believe in eternal punishments, so also do the priests who interpret and initiate into the sacred mysteries. The same punishments with which you threaten others, they threaten you. Now it is worthy of examination, which of the two is more firmly established as true; for both parties contend with equal assurance that the truth is on their side." ...

06-10-2010, 07:09 PM	#7
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	Another interesting point from Origen's "Contra Celsus": it's generally thought that Celsus wrote around 170 CE. If so, then the idea of treating Genesis as allegorical long predated Origen. He quotes Celsus as writing: "the more modest among Jews and Christians are ashamed of these things, and endeavour to give them somehow an allegorical signification." Context below: http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...origen164.html In the next place, as it is his [Celsus'] object to slander our Scriptures, he ridicules the following statement: "And God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof. And the rib, which He had taken from the man, made He a woman," and so on; without quoting the words, which would give the hearer the impression that they are spoken with a figurative meaning. He would not even have it appear that the words were used allegorically, although he says afterwards, that "the more modest among Jews and Christians are ashamed of these things, and endeavour to give them somehow an allegorical signification."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.