Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 06-14-2010, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

This is the first time that I have read that Christianity created Gnosticism.

I thought Gnostic thought succeeded Plato, and flourished under Roman occupation of Greece, half a century before the "birth" of Jesus of Capernaum. Maybe I was reading the wrong material....

Who would you regard as a pre-Christian Gnostic ?

Andrew Criddle

arnoldo · 06-14-2010, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

. .
The question is whether or not Origen was a "radical" Christian scholar, according to the OP. I doubt the value, in attempting to address this question, of introducing misrepresentation, (by way of mistranslation into Greek,) of Aramaic idioms, as an explanation of Origen's "errors".

Since Celsus was a native Greek author, apparently from Alexandria, living and writing at the end of the second century, I think we ought rather focus on the GREEK, not the Aramaic, arguments, which the third Century Alexandrian, Origen, offers in his attempt to refute Celsus.
In other words, arnoldo, I don't understand why you seek to introduce Aramaic into the discussion, it strikes me as a bit of a sidetrack.....

avi

Hold you horses! The issue of aramaic idioms was in response to post #33 and #34(. . what did Jesus mean when he said people would be salted with fire?. . ) ! However, I retract my earlier statement that Origen had misunderstood certain aramaic idioms such as the examples below;

Quote:

. If we similarly investigate the Gospels, what could be more unreasonable than the command which simple readers think the Saviour gave to His Apostles, "Salute no man by the way." 80 Again, what is said about the smiting on the right cheek is incredible;81 for when a man strikes, if he acts naturally, he strikes the left cheek with his right hand. And we cannot take literally the passage in the Gospel in which the right eye is said to cause one to stumble.82 For even granting the possibility of sight making any one to stumble, why, when the two eyes see, should we put the blame on the right eye. Would any man when he condemns himself for looking on a woman to lust after her, put the blame on the right eye only, and cast it from him?
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/more...02_text.htm#C2

show_no_mercy · 06-14-2010, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Hmm... earlier in this thread you wrote that you "seriously doubt that Origen represented a large portion of Christians." And now you quote Wiki to the effect that Philo's works -- which stressed the same allegorical approach as Origen's -- were "enthusiastically received by the Early Christians"

So Origen and Philo followed the same exact allegorical approach? That's news to me.

Philo doesn't seem to have been on the radar of Christians until the 2nd century; the "early Christians" caveat is wikipedia's wording, not mine.

aa5874 · 06-14-2010, 04:28 PM

It can be shown in many instances that Origen himself used the language of a buffoon.

Examine Origen's language in "Commentary of John 1.17.

Quote:

Again, there is a beginning in a matter of origin, as might appear in the saying: (Genesis 1:1) “In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth.” This meaning, however, appears more plainly in the Book of Job in the passage: (Job 40:19) “This is the beginning of God's creation, made for His angels to mock at.”

One would suppose that the heavens and the earth were made first, of all that was made at the creation of the world.

But the second passage suggests a better view, namely, that as many beings were framed with a body, the first made of these was the creature called dragon, but called in another passage the great whale (leviathan) which [b]the Lord tamed.[b]

Origen believed that his God first made a dragon and tamed a great whale.

What buffoonery from Origen.

mountainman · 06-14-2010, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

This is the first time that I have read that Christianity created Gnosticism.

I thought Gnostic thought succeeded Plato, and flourished under Roman occupation of Greece, half a century before the "birth" of Jesus of Capernaum. Maybe I was reading the wrong material....

Who would you regard as a pre-Christian Gnostic ?

If for the moment and the sake of argument we set aside Buddha and his followers, and even Hermes Trismegistus who is cited as saying "He who knows himself knows the All" the presence of "pre-christian gnosticism" (About 90,600 results) and/or "pre-christian gnostics" (About 35,800 results) is still very impressive.

Here is a very relevant citation:

Quote:

"There were Gnostics in Graeco-Roman academies, the (middle) Platonists,
in the era BCE (ie: Fugulus, Eudorus of Alexandria, Thrasyllus).
These are the Pythagorising Platonists who, before Plotinus,
held that knowledge can be perfected when it communes with the divine,
the mysterious Divine. Cicero speaks of Figulus (45 BCE), "the spiritual one",
who was a contemporary of Apollonius of Tyana, the miracle worker and
spiritualist mystic, and also a Pythagorean."

--- Paul Trejo, German scholar/author as cited by Bernard Simon (2004)
in "The Essence of the Gnostics" (or via: amazon.co.uk), p.19

GakuseiDon · 06-14-2010, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Hmm... earlier in this thread you wrote that you "seriously doubt that Origen represented a large portion of Christians." And now you quote Wiki to the effect that Philo's works -- which stressed the same allegorical approach as Origen's -- were "enthusiastically received by the Early Christians"

So Origen and Philo followed the same exact allegorical approach? That's news to me.

They both stressed the same allegorical approach to Scriptures, yes. Glad to have helped.

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Philo doesn't seem to have been on the radar of Christians until the 2nd century; the "early Christians" caveat is wikipedia's wording, not mine.

Origen wrote in the 3rd Century. If the Christians in the 2nd Century enthusiastically received Philo's writings, then I think Origen's comment 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" suggests that reading the Old and New Testaments allegorically was a wide-spread practice of his time.

aa5874 · 06-14-2010, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

So Origen and Philo followed the same exact allegorical approach? That's news to me.

They both stressed the same allegorical approach to Scriptures, yes. Glad to have helped.

Origen believed Jesus was Truly God, Creator, born of a Virgin, was LITERALLY raised from the dead and REALLY asccended TO HEAVEN.

This is Origen in "De Principiis"

Quote:

4. The particular points clearly delivered in the teaching of the apostles are as follow:—

First, That there is one God, who created and arranged all things, and who, when nothing existed, called all things into being— God from the first creation and foundation of the world—

Secondly, That Jesus Christ Himself, who came (into the world), was born of the Father before all creatures;

that, after He had been the servant of the Father in the creation of all things— “For by Him were all things made” —

He in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was;

that He assumed a body like to our own, differing in this respect only, that it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit:

that this Jesus Christ was truly born, and did truly suffer, and did not endure this death common (to man) in appearance only, but did truly die;

that He did truly rise from the dead; and that after His resurrection He conversed with His disciples, and was taken up (into heaven).

Origen believed in the LITERAL Creation of heaven and earth by Jesus , the Word who was God.

Origen was the on the cutting edge of buffoonery. He used the language of a buffoon.

mountainman · 06-14-2010, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Philo doesn't seem to have been on the radar of Christians until the 2nd century; the "early Christians" caveat is wikipedia's wording, not mine.

Origen wrote in the 3rd Century. If the Christians in the 2nd Century enthusiastically received Philo's writings, then I think Origen's comment 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" suggests that reading the Old and New Testaments allegorically was a wide-spread practice of his time.

No it does not. This is just another totally unjustified inference by the "one-eyed faithful flock of believers" .....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arnaldo Momigliano

We all know the story of the man who went into a London bookshop and asked for a New Testament in Greek. The assistant retired to a back room and after ten minutes came back with a grave look: ‘Strange, sir, but Greek seems to be the only language into which the New Testament has not yet been translated.’ The story may remind us of two facts. The first is that there was a time in which the New Testament was only available in Greek.

The second and more important is that at that time it was as difficult as it is now to find a bookshop with a New, or for that matter an Old, Testament in Greek. About A.D. 180 a man like Galen could walk into a bookshop only to discover that they were selling an unauthorized edition of his own lectures. But though he was interested in the Christians, Galen would hardly have found a Bible.

The Bible was no literature for the pagan. Its Greek was not elegant enough. Lactantius noted: ‘apud sapientes et doctos et principes huius saeculi scriptura sancta fide care(a)t (Inst.v.1.15). If we find a pagan who had a slight acquaintance with the Bible, such as the anonymous author of On the Sublime, we suspect direct Jewish influence: justifiedly so, because the author of the Sublime was a student of Caecilius of Calacte, who, to all appearances was a Jew (11).

Normally the educated pagans of the Roman empire knew nothing about either Jewish or Christian history. If they wanted some information about the Jews, they picked up second-hand distortions such as we read in Tacitus. The consequence was that a direct acquaintance with Jewish or Christian history normally came together with conversion to Judaism or to Christianity.

People learnt a new history because they acquired a new religion. Conversion meant literally the discovery of a new history from Adam and Eve to contemporary events.

Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century A.D.
* This essay first appeared in A. Momigliano, ed.,
The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century,
The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1963, pp. 79—99 (1)

The major conversion of the educated and uneducated civilians of the Roman empire occurred in the 4th century and no earlier, and it is simply common sense that very few educated pagans would have bothered to read the bible before it was "discovered" and published by the Roman Emperor Constantine. And in regard to the great predominance of uneducated pagans, if they knew anything at all about the available greek literature, they simply sought such advice from the educated class.

popgoestheweasel · 06-19-2010, 08:22 PM

Origen and Clement and Philo agree on the proper interpretation of Isaiah chapter 61:2/Luke 4:19 against Irenaeus. Irenaeus claims it is a gnostic interpretation.

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

06-19-2010, 08:22 PM	#49
popgoestheweasel Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: northeast Posts: 18	Origen and Clement and Philo agree on the proper interpretation of Isaiah chapter 61:2/Luke 4:19 against Irenaeus. Irenaeus claims it is a gnostic interpretation.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.