andrewcriddle

Origen's interpretation of the passage in Matthew about eunuchs is online at origen-matthew It is unclear how this allegorical interpretation is to be reconciled with the claim by Eusebius that Origen (on the basis of this passage) castrated himself.

Andrew Criddle

Roger Pearse

Much in this post is merely wishful thinking, but this seems to be to be bang on.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874

But, whether or not Origen castrated himself does NOT alter that his argument is the language of a buffoon.

It is just total nonsense that Matthew 19.12 is allegoric or "spiritual".

Matthew 19.12 refers to those who are:

1. PHYSICALLY born eunuchs.

2. PHYSICALLY made eunuchs by other people.

3. PHYSICALLY made eunuchs by themselves.

It is just total buffoonery that a person could SPIRITUALLY become a eunuch at BIRTH.

What are the actual SIGNS that a person was a SPIRITUAL eunuch at BIRTH?

They would have NO SPIRITUAL BALLS.

Origen was on the cutting edge of BUFFOONERY.

show_no_mercy

I don't see how you can say Philo was "prominent". His views were extremely unpopular among Jews. Which makes sense of his popularity among Christians.

avi

a. "obviously"....hmm. So, his credentials and writings have not been retouched, redacted, censored, or "interpolated"?
b. gentile? how do you know his ethnicity?
c. Celsus? how do you know his biographical stats?
d. "the more intellectual version"... hmm. Isn't the entire myth based upon literate Greeks copying Homer, with some seasoning provided by LXX?
e. "created the Gnostics" ????????
Wow. I must be on another planet.
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....

I am completely lost. I have no idea what you are trying to express. I do understand that you take issue with aa5874, for pointing out that Origen used the word buffoonery, but, I fail to comprehend your subsequent polemic, in toto. (no pun intended)

Instead of attempting, and failing, in my view, to hammer aa for whatever reason, why not try to express your idea, without bandying about names like Socrates, who, as far as I am aware, never wrote anything. Please document your thoughts, quoting authors, instead of providing insults. If you dislike someone's argument, it suffices, in my opinion, to simply offer some evidence to refute their notions.

avi

aa5874

But, there is no historical source of antiquity that even identify ONE single Jesus believer during the time of Philo.

Please name ONE single Jesus believer who was mentioned by Philo.

Please a single supposed early NT writer that mentioned Philo.

Now, in the writings of Philo and Josephus, it can be found that Philo's VIEWS was POPULAR among the Jews.

Philo was CHOSEN by Jews to deliver the VIEWS of the Jews to the Emperor Caligula.

Philo did NOT even propagate in his extant writings that a man, a Jewish man, ought to be worshiped as a God and that the resurrection of that Jewish man was needed for redemption of the sins of Jews.

The writings of Philo was used to FALSELY "historicise" Jesus and Jesus believers in the 1st century before the Fall of the Temple.

Elijah

Sorry I wasn’t clear. Not sure exactly where you’re lost so I may be reiterating some stuff and may fail again at getting the point across.

Origen was refuting a skeptic of Christianity who was comparing the virgin birth of Jesus to mythological figures when they had in their shared culture the same kind of stories attached to their historical figures like Plato. This is the same kind of comparison Aa makes regularly on this board so it was funny to me when Aa goes right to this passage where Origen calls this buffoonery and not someone writing in a serious tone and starts calling him a buffoon without defending why someone would try to compare the story of Jesus to a mythological figure instead of a historical one.

I’m not sure about the Socrates comment. I was just saying that it should be understood more as a narrative of a Jewish philosopher king not a genie banging a lady and making a super baby that is common.

GakuseiDon

"Most prominent example". And were his views extremely unpopular among Jews? I'm not aware of this being the case. Philo was asked to be part of a delegation of Alexandrian Jews to Caligula, due to his learnings and works. From the same Wiki article, Josephus apparently wrote:

"There was now a tumult arisen at Alexandria, between the Jewish inhabitants and the Greeks; and three ambassadors were chosen out of each party that were at variance, who came to Gaius... But Philo, the principal of the Jewish embassage, a man eminent on all accounts, brother to Alexander the alabarch, (30) and one not unskillful in philosophy, was ready to betake himself to make his defense against those accusations"

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"

On the quote by Philo regarding "the sophists of literalness": I cannot find it anywhere. It isn't in any of the English translations of De Somniis. I thought it might be from a missing book that Eusebius of Caesara quotes, but nothing there either.

The quote appears to come from the 19th C, always a bad sign. Does anyone know exactly where Philo wrote: "The sophists of literalness... opened their eyes superciliously"?

jgreen44

Fair enough. The point I was trying to make was that, just like Origen, modern Christians appeal to intelligence and rationality when allegorizing the Genesis account. But at the same time these same modern Christians continue to maintain that a three-day-old rotting corpse came back to life and subsequently flew up into the sky never to be seen again. This kind of thinking involves an incredible amount of cognitive dissonance.

GakuseiDon

Science has shown that God can't make a three-day-old rotting corpse come back to life and fly into the sky? Remarkable.