GakuseiDon

:lol:

aa5874

Origen was on the cutting edge of BUFFOONERY. He used Greek Myths as his corroborative source for the RESURRECTION of Jesus

"Against Celsus" 2.16 Origen's belief that Jesus was RAISED from the DEAD was sustained because of Greek myths.

In effect, once the Greeks did believe and write that their Gods were raised from the dead then Origen felt satisfied that Jesus was also RAISED from the DEAD.

Origen was on the cutting edge of buffoonery.

jgreen44

What intelligent person can imagine that a three-day-old rotting corpse came back to life and subsequently flew up into the sky never to be seen again?

arnoldo

Origin was following the platonic approach for an allegorical interpretation of scriptures including the writings which latter became known as the NT. For a modern non allegorical interpretation of the Genesis account which Origen questions see below;

Elijah

I agree, I think there is way too much superstitious assumptions placed on the early Christians. Rational understandings I think is the way to go.

I like how Origen paints Moses as a man of reason trying to build a society free of superstition like their Plato tried with his republic. I like it when rational minded people see their counterparts in the past. I know a lot don’t agree with that approach but I still believe it’s better to give the benefit of the doubt in this regard than to assume superstitious understandings.

that we might be in possession of a pattern of a heavenly city which even Plato would have sought to describe; although I doubt whether he could have accomplished as much as was done by Moses and those who followed him, who nourished a chosen generation, and a holy nation, dedicated to God, with words free from all superstition.

And also I like how he makes the argument against idolatry and superstition as synonymous.

For he ought not to have adulterated or polluted this worship with what we call idolatry, but what the many would describe by the term superstition.

Took that a little personally huh? Just imagine if it wasn’t for the civility/censorship of this board it would be all day nonstop with insults like that to the mythers who try to compare the Jesus story to a Greek myth about a gods instead of one about a great man like their Plato.

aa5874

You seem to have IGNORED that it was Origen who referred to Celsus' arguments as BUFFOONERY when Celsus used the Greek fables to demonstrated that the Virgin birth was fiction.

But, Origen himself would use the same BUFFOONERY to argue that Jesus was RAISED from the DEAD.

"Against Celsus" 2.16
Origen used the same language of a buffoon.

He was on the cutting edge of Buffoonery

show_no_mercy

Right. Origen, an obviously educated gentile writing in the early 3rd century, is responding to Celsus (who was writing around 50 years befor Origen) as the more intellectual version of Christianity that began sprouting in the 2nd century. This more intellectually refined Christianity is also the Christianity that created the Gnostics.

However, I seriously doubt that Origen represented a large portion of Christians, or even the original Christians. Paul obviously thought that Adam was the literal first human being who brought death into the world. He contrasts the "one man" Adam who ushered in death with the "one man" Jesus who conquered it (Rom 5:12-20). If Paul did not believe in a literal Adam then his analogy is inapt.

We can't claim that Origen was "radical" and then claim that he represented Christians.

It's interesting to note that there are quite a few criticisms of Christianity that Celsus got right. He claims that Christians were changing gospels as they saw fit. This is exactly the case for the canonical Matt, Luke, and John and the various heretical gospels. All are "mutilated" versions of Mark. Celsus was probably the first who observed a "synoptic problem".

GakuseiDon

From Origen's "cannot imagine that anyone will doubt" comment, I think he sees his views as representative of his form of Christianity, whatever it is. I doubt that most Christians of that time worried over specific details of "allegorism" and "historicism", anymore than Christians did up until modern times.

And what did the original Christians believe, again?

I don't think Origen was thought of as radical, at least not until a while after his death, when what was considered orthodox found that it disagreed with the legacy of Origen.

The idea that the Scriptures contained allegories was a view held by both Jews (Philo being the most prominent example) and Christians. Educated Christians simply adopted the views of their educated predecessors.

Elijah

I’m not ignoring it, it’s just not the point that he was referring to when he called the idea to compare the virgin birth to a greek myth instead of a Greek historical figure when they have similar stories as “becoming a fool” and “not writing in a serious tone”. If you want to counter that argument for the mythers then you should illustrate why you think Homer’s poems are better examples to understand Jesus instead of Plato or Socrates life. The fact that he had the same lack of understanding of human biology as everyone did back then really is quit irrelevant.

I don’t really want to have this conversation though I just thought it was too funny you posted that quote and went crazy calling him a buffoon for it. But do think about considering putting Socrates into your myth model for Jesus instead of the earlier poetry.

aa5874

Again, don't you see that Origen himself used the word "buffoon" in the passage?

Why don't you accept the evidence? Are you afraid of the written EVIDENCE?

"Against Celsus"
My ANSWER to Origen is that he was on the cutting edge of BUFFOONERY, not Celsus.