Originally Posted by aa5874

Didn't you read what Rufinus wrote? Whatever appears heretical in Origen must have been written by the heretics.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

He does? Where exactly? I asked you to provide the text of it for me. But you haven't.

Originally Posted by RUFINUS

As to Origen, however, in whom,
as I have said above,
are to be found, as in those others,
certain diversities of statement,
it will not be sufficient to think precisely
as we think or feel about those who enjoy
an established reputation for orthodoxy;
nor could a similar charge be met by a similar excuse,
were it not that its validity is shown by words
and writings of his own in which he makes this fact
the subject of earnest complaint.

What he had to suffer while still living in the flesh,
while still having feeling and sight,
from the corruption of his books and treatises,
or from counterfeit versions of them,
we may learn clearly from his own letter
which he wrote to certain intimate friends at Alexandria;
and by this you will see how it comes to pass
that some things which are self-contradictory
are found in his writings.

[EDITOR: Letter written by Origen disclosing
the activity of Heretics in his day,
and in his writings at that time. ]

"Some of those persons who take a pleasure
in accusing their neighbours,
bring against us and our teaching
the charge of blasphemy,
though from us they have
never heard anything of the kind.
Let them take heed to themselves
how they refuse to mark that solemn injunction
which says that

`Revilers shall not inherit the kingdom of God,'

when they declare that I hold
that the father of wickedness and perdition,
and of those who are castforth from the kingdom of God,
that is the devil, is to be saved,
a thing which no man can say
even if he has taken leave of his senses
and is manifestly insane.

Yet it is no wonder, I think,
if my teaching is falsified by my adversaries,
and is corrupted and adulterated in the same manner
as the epistle of Paul the Apostle.
Certain men, as we know, compiled a false epistle
under the name of Paul, so that they
might trouble the Thessalonians
as if the day of the Lord were nigh at hand,
and thus beguile them.

It is on account of that false epistle
that he wrote these words
in the second epistle to the Thessalonians:4

`We beseech you, brethren,
by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ
and our gathering together unto him;
to the end that ye be
not quickly shaken from your mind,
nor yet be troubled, either by spirit
or by word or by letter as sent from us,
as that the day of the Lord is at hand.
Let no man beguile you in any wise.'

It is something of the same kind, I perceive,
which is happening to us also.
A certain promoter of heresy,
after a discussion which had been held between us
in the presence of many persons,
and notes of it had been taken,
procured the document from those
who had written out the notes,
and added or struck out whatever he chose,
and changed things as he thought right,
and published it abroad as if it were my work,
but pointing in triumphant scorn
at the expressions which he had himself inserted.

The brethren in Palestine, indignant at this,
sent a man to me at Athens to obtain from me
an authentic copy of the work.
Up to that time I had never even
read it over again or revised it:
it had been so completely neglected
and thrown aside that it could hardly be found.
Nevertheless, I sent it:
and,-God is witness that I am speaking the truth,-
when I met the man himself
who had adulterated the work, and took him to task for having done so,
be answered, as if he were giving me satisfaction:

"I did it because I wished to improve that treatise
and to purge away its faults."


[ED: Here Origen is interviewing his own
personally assigned heretic, and notes
the man's response.]


What kind of a purging was this
that he applied to my dissertation?
such a purging as Marcion
or his successor Apelles after him
gave to the Gospels and
to the writings of the Apostle.

They subverted the true text of Scripture;
and this man similarly first took away
the true statements which I had made,
and then inserted what was false
to furnish grounds for accusation against me.

But, though those who have dared
to do this are impious and heretical men,
yet those who give credence to
such accusations against us
shall not escape the judgment of God.

There are others also, not a few,
who have done this through a wish
to throw confusion into the churches.

Lately, a certain heretic
who had seen me at Ephesus
and had refused to meet me,
and had not opened his mouth in my presence,
but for some reason or other had avoided doing so,
afterwards composed a dissertation
according to his own fancy,
partly mine, partly his own,
and sent it to his disciples in various places:
I know that it reached those who were in Rome,
and I doubt not that it reached others also.

He was behaving in the same reckless way
at Antioch also before I came there:
and the dissertation which he brought with him
came into the hands of many of our friends.
But when I arrived, I took him to task
in the presence of many persons, and,
when he persisted, with a complete absence of shame,
in the impudent defence of his forgery,
I demanded that the book
should be brought in amongst us,
so that my mode of speech
might be recognized by the brethren,
who of course knew the points
on which I am accustomed to insist
and the method of teaching which I employ.

He did not, however, venture to bring in the book,
and his assertions were refuted by them all
and he himself was convicted of forgery,
and thus the brethren were taught a lesson
not to give ear to such accusations.

If then any one is willing to trust me at all
- I speak as in the sight of God -
let him believe what I say about the things
which are falsely inserted in my letter.


[ED: Here Origen is summarising
the case for the defence, to
be followed by the typical or else.]


But if any man refuses to believe me,
and chooses to speak evil of me,
it is not to me that he does the injury:
he will himself be arraigned
as a false witness before God,
since he is either bearing
false witness against his neighbour,
or giving credit to those who bear it."

------- END of Origen's purported letter

Such are the complaints which he made while still living,
and while he was still able to detect the corruptions
and falsifications which had been made in his books.

There is another letter of his, in which I remember
to have read a complaint of the falsifying of his writings;
but I have not a copy of it at hand,
otherwise I could add to those which I have quoted
a second testimony in favour of his good faith
and veracity direct from himself.

[ED: There was a second letter from Origen
but alas its back at the scriptorum.]


But I think that I have said enough to satisfy
those who listen to what is said,
not in the interest of strife and detraction,
but in that of a love of truth.


[ED: Essentially a licence to
corrupt the writings of others
in order to "harmonise" them to
the "Ecclesiatical Standard".]


I have shown and proved
in the case of the saintly men
of whom I have made mention,
and of whose orthodoxy is no question,
that, where the tenor of a book
is presumably right,
anything which is found in it
contrary to the faith of the church
is more properly believed
to have been inserted by heretics
than to have been written by the author:
and I cannot think it an absurd demand
that the same thing should be believed
in the case of Origen,
not only because the argument is similar
but because of the witness given by himself
in the complaints which I have
brought out from his writings:
otherwise we must believe that,
like a silly or insane person,
he has written in contradiction to himself.


[ED: or that writings have been
forged under his name that do
not correspond in philosophical
integrity to his original writings
which were still extant in Alexandria,
at the library, until its destruction.]

Originally Posted by mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

Here is one translation [EDITOR: in which I have interspersed some comments]. I have indented the letter of Origen as cited by Rufinus in Rufinus's Epilogue to Pamphilus the Martyr's Apology for Origen otherwise known as the Book Concerning the Adulteration of the Works of Origen. ... addressed to Macarius at Pinetum c.397 CE.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

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

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Creator and Adam in the garden is a post-creation story.

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Do you honestly not understand that a SINGLE example of Origen treating an apparently literal bible story figurately is sufficient to deny your global assertion? This is Logic 101, amigo.

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

You love to refer to problems with the "logics" of your opponents arguments and claim to have a grasp of logic so please address the above logical argument in an equally logical and systematic fashion.

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

aa5874 seems to think if someone ever once interpreted anything as literal, that person is a "literalist." I ended up getting involved with his assertion that just because one person didn't condemn Origen and/or his views as heretical, he and/or his views weren't ever condemned as heretical. There must be a name for this fallacy: Hasty generalization, perhaps?

Stephen

Originally Posted by aa5874

I will show again and again that your argument, that literalists must accept everything as literal, is bogus and illogical

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

First, you have yet to directly respond to my argument let alone show anything about it. All you've done is repeatedly make the empty assertion that it is "bogus" and launch into irrelevant tangents. Second, that is clearly not the definition of "literalist" that I have been using. I have been using the definition you claim to be using. That definition allows an exception for their typically literal interpretations in the case of metaphors or parables that were clearly not intended literally.

The story of Adam in the garden is not presented as though it is a parable or metaphor. It is presented as though it describes events that actually took place. According to the definition you claim to be using, a literalist would interpret such a story literally.

Origen interprets it figuratively.

Origen was clearly not a literalist according to the definition you claim to be using and you clearly have no cogent argument to either support your position or critique my own. In fact, you've shown absolutely no indication that you even recognize the fundamental logical flaw in your position.

My optimism for a breakthrough has disappeared and the pathology has become boring. I will leave you to your logically flawed and erroneous assertion so you can continue to foolishly repeat it. :wave:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

... Origen did not believe Adam was literally created by God. He believed Adam was created by the author of the story.