Jeffrey Gibson

In other words, you haven't read any of "the scholarship that's been produced on the Origenist Controversy". I thought as much before I posted my question. Thanks for clarifying that I was correct.

But how about the other questions of mine in that you dodged?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

What specific grounds do you have for thinking that it was?

Did Origen complain that it was not his? Did Rufinus name it as a forgery?

Jeffrey

S.C.Carlson

It's been a year since I've read Rufinus, but my impression is different. He was claiming that the works of Origen he was translating had been adulterated by heretics. If Rufinus thought a work was an outright forgery, he wouldn't have translated it.

Stephen

S.C.Carlson

Well, Rufinus was sure it wasn't an outright forgery; after all, he translated it into Latin.

Stephen

Jeffrey Gibson

I've just had a brief look at Rufinus' Apology, and that's the impression I come away with as well. More importantly, I didn't see anything from Origen about how books were being forged in his name, let alone that such a practice was an "abounding" one in his own time.

What have I missed? Where specifically in Rufinus does Rufinus quote Origen as stating that (lots of) books that he did not write were being attributed to him -- and what are the actual words of this text?

Jeffrey

aa5874

Your post is bogus.

No where did Origen claim the creation of the world was not literal.

Origen clearly asserted that God is the Creator of the world and did make man in his own image using His Logos, Jesus his Son, truly born of a virgin, truly resurrected and truly ascended to heaven.


Origen was a literalist

Toto

Rufinus’s Epilogue to Pamphilus the Martyr’s Apology for Origen otherwise The Book Concerning the Adulteration of the Works of Origen.

Jeffrey Gibson

Thanks for this. Having now read Rufinus work at a more leisurely pace, I can say with some confidence that it's clear Pete has misread and misrepresented the what Rufinus writes. Contrary to what Pete claims, Rufinus does not anywhere within it quote Origen as saying that forgeries in his [Origen's] name abounded in Origen's own time". Nor (assuming that by "forgeries" Pete means "books") is there anything within this text that substantiates Pete's claim that both Origen and Rufinus were aware of, let alone complained about, (lots of) books that Origen did not write being attributed to him [Origen] in Origen's lifetime (or for that matter, even after it).

I wonder what the passage or passages in this work is/are that Pete (mis)reads as saying so?

Jeffrey

Amaleq13

That isn't what you asked.

You asked "Again, did Origen write or believe Adam was literally created by God?" and the answer, based on the quote we've been reading is "No, Origen did not believe Adam was literally created by God. He believed Adam was created by the author of the story."

Origen also clearly asserted that the apparently literal story of Adam should be understood figuratively so it simply false to call him a literalist according to the definition you claim to be using.

Not according to the definition you claim to be using.

Ben C Smith

Are there no walls in Alaska to bang your head against, that you have to look for them in internet forums??



Ben.