Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 12-28-2008, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon

The implication is that “real Christians” are the ones who stay closest to the strictest, most literal interpretation of scriptures, and that literal interpretation is presumably how the earlier (less "sophisticated"?) Christians saw things and how the writers of those texts saw things.

No, not true. A non-literal view of Scriptures was there from the earliest times, and probably predates Christianity via its Jewish roots.

Here is Origen, in "Contra Celsus", writing 1800 years ago (my bolding):

And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? and again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that any one doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.

But in the very same books Contra Cesus book 2 chapter 9, Origen confirmed he is a literalist. He believed the God of the Jews with Jesus the Logos literally created the world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra Celsus 2.9

.. For we assert that it was to Him the Father gave the command, when in Mosaic account of 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 were also addressed the words, Let us make man in Our 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 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.

Origen and the church writers were literalists

GakuseiDon · 12-29-2008, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

No, not true. A non-literal view of Scriptures was there from the earliest times, and probably predates Christianity via its Jewish roots.

Here is Origen, in "Contra Celsus", writing 1800 years ago (my bolding):

And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? and again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that any one doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.

But in the very same books Contra Cesus book 2 chapter 9, Origen confirmed he is a literalist. He believed the God of the Jews with Jesus the Logos literally created the world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra Celsus 2.9

.. For we assert that it was to Him the Father gave the command, when in Mosaic account of 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 were also addressed the words, Let us make man in Our 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 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.

Origen and the church writers were literalists

Do you actually care about what you post? Or do you just like taking the opposite position? I have no idea how you get that someone who says that some parts of the Bible can't be taken literally is, in fact, a literalist.

Shouldn't you be out chasing women, or cashing social security cheques, or whatever the heck you do when you aren't on the Internet? As an alternative to posting dribble, I mean. :banghead:

aa5874 · 12-29-2008, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But in the very same books Contra Cesus book 2 chapter 9, Origen confirmed he is a literalist. He believed the God of the Jews with Jesus the Logos literally created the world.

Origen and the church writers were literalists

Do you actually care about what you post? Or do you just like taking the opposite position? I have no idea how you get that someone who says that some parts of the Bible can't be taken literally is, in fact, a literalist.

Shouldn't you be out chasing women, or cashing social security cheques, or whatever the heck you do when you aren't on the Internet? As an alternative to posting dribble, I mean. :banghead:

I will be reading your posts very, very diligently, and chasing every word.

I quoted Contra Celsus just like you, why is not your quote from Contra Celsus a dribble?

Now it is completely illogical and false to claim Origen was not a literalist when he clearly showed that he was.

I will quote more passages from Contra Celsus to show that Origen believed Jesus, conceived by the Holy Ghost, was the Logos who literally created the world.

Origen was a literalist.

Toto · 12-29-2008, 08:38 AM

aa5874: let's say that a literalist believes that everything in the Scriptures is literally true. If Origen only believes that a few assertions are literally true, in particular the theological idea that Jesus as the Logos created the world, but that others must be treated as metaphor, he is not a literalist.

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-29-2008, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Origen was a literalist.

Always? In every single time that he exegetes scripture?

Jeffrey

aa5874 · 12-29-2008, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

aa5874: let's say that a literalist believes that everything in the Scriptures is literally true. If Origen only believes that a few assertions are literally true, in particular the theological idea that Jesus as the Logos created the world, but that others must be treated as metaphor, he is not a literalist.

A literalist believes the Bible is literally true. Origen believed the Bible was literally true. He is a literalist.

Now, show me where Origen claimed that the Bible is not literally true with respect to the God of the Jews and his Son called Jesus, the offspring of the Holy, Logos and creator of the world, born of a virgin who was transfigured, crucified, resurrected and ascended through the clouds.

Where did Origen claim that the God of the Jews was not the literal Creator of the world?

What is Origen's position on the flood with Noah?

Do you think believing the Jesus story, as found in the NT, to be literally true, is just a "few assertions"?

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-29-2008, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

aa5874: let's say that a literalist believes that everything in the Scriptures is literally true. If Origen only believes that a few assertions are literally true, in particular the theological idea that Jesus as the Logos created the world, but that others must be treated as metaphor, he is not a literalist.

A literalist believes the Bible is literally true. Origen believed the Bible was literally true.

All of it? Every single word an passage that's in it? Are there never any passages he interprets, let alone claims must be interpreted, in other ways?

And have you read all of the extant texts of Origin to be sure of this?

Have you even read his commentary on Matthew's Gospel? Or John's?

More importantly have you read his On First Principles?

(any wagers on what kind of dodge the a man will post in response to this?)

Jeffrey

Amaleq13 · 12-29-2008, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

A literalist believes the Bible is literally true.

True. A literalist believes the whole Bible is literally true. A literalist cannot consider any part to be figurative or not literal.

Quote:

Origen believed the Bible was literally true. He is a literalist.

False. Origen did not believe the whole Bible was literally true. He explicitly states that the creation story(ies) in Genesis were figurative and did not literally happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Origen

And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that any one doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.

aa5874 · 12-29-2008, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

A literalist believes the Bible is literally true.

True. A literalist believes the whole Bible is literally true. A literalist cannot consider any part to be figurative or not literal.

False. Origen did not believe the whole Bible was literally true. He explicitly states that the creation story(ies) in Genesis were figurative and did not literally happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Origen

And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that any one doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.

Please read Contra Celsus 2.9

Quote:

He spoke and they were made; He commanded and they were created'

Just show where Origen stated that the God of the Jews figuratively created the world.

Let's not waste time.

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-29-2008, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

True. A literalist believes the whole Bible is literally true. A literalist cannot consider any part to be figurative or not literal.

False. Origen did not believe the whole Bible was literally true. He explicitly states that the creation story(ies) in Genesis were figurative and did not literally happen.

Please read Contra Celsus 2.9

Quote:

He spoke and they were made; He commanded and they were created'

Just show where Origen stated that the God of the Jews figuratively created the world.

Let's not waste time.

Coming from you, this is rich!

Did anyone else's irony meter break on receiving A man's admonition?

Jeffrey

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

12-29-2008, 08:38 AM	#4
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	aa5874: let's say that a literalist believes that everything in the Scriptures is literally true. If Origen only believes that a few assertions are literally true, in particular the theological idea that Jesus as the Logos created the world, but that others must be treated as metaphor, he is not a literalist.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.