Amaleq13

Occupational hazard?

I'm fascinated by the pathology while retaining a shred of optimism for a breakthrough.

aa5874

Again your post is erroneous. No where did Origen claim that Adam was not literally created. Your are confusing a story about Adam, who was already created, in the garden with the acts of Creation.

Who did Origen write or believe created the first man?

The God of the Jews.

Please read Contra Celsus 2.9 and the preface of De Principiis.

Again, your post is bogus.

You do not understand the difference between the Creation story and a post-Creation story featuring the created Adam and the Creator.

Are you really trying to claim that Origen wrote that the Creator, or the God of the Jews only exists figuratively due to the post-Creation story?

Origen would have been declared an heretic.

Marcion, according to Tertullian, declared that Jesus was not literally human as was deemed an heretic. Marcion declared that some other God created the world and was called an heretic.

Origen was a literalist. He wrote that the God of the Jews with his Logos, his Son, truly , (not figuratively), born of a virgin, truly not firguratively) resurrected and truly ascended, literally created the world and the first man as commanded.

S.C.Carlson

Are you implying he wasn't?

Stephen

mountainman

Dear S.C.Carlson,

We have a large jigsaw puzzle. It has many considerations. We must consider Rufinus a Eusebian continuator, and to be associated with Jerome (and thus Damasius). We must examine how well Rufinus is known to have been "just a faithful translator" of other texts, aside from Origen's --- for example. We must consider the type of people these authors name above were.

Then we must examine the other extents of the controversies over the writings and books of Origen. This involves people like Pachomius and the Tall Brothers and a century of desert monasticism which, incidentally is preserved by the Coptic (and other sources) to Latin "translations" by two of the abovenamed - Rufinus and Jerome - both in the direct employ of the powerful (and ruthless) orthodoxy. We must examine the involvement of Cyril, and his political motivations for "christological orthodoxy" which swept all his opponents away into the lake of heresey.

Dear Jeffrey and Stephen,

Please be honest here. Is Rufinus trying to pull "a Eusebius and the Jesus to Agbar letter"? Rufinus is very fortunate to find a Letter written by Origen (not perhaps in the archives) disclosing the activity of Heretics in his day, and in his writings at that time. Rufinus quotes this letter of Origen himself. Did you read this letter cited by Rufinus?

Additionally Jeffrey, I have listed a number of exernal textual considerations (above) which have relevance to my position and your questions. Political history and textual criticism have shared zones, but they also have domains in which the other is hardly relevant. We all know what Arnaldo Momigliano thought about forgery.

Best wishes,


Pete

aa5874

See post #57. According to Rufinus, heretics forged parts of the writings of Origen, and even Origen wrote a letter to warn of the forgeries.

S.C.Carlson

So is your argument that, because Rufinus did not declare Origen a heretic, Origen (or some of his views) was never declared heretical?

Stephen

Jeffrey Gibson

He does? Where exactly?

I asked you to provide the text of it for me. But you haven't.

If you are speaking of my question about what, according to you, Rufinus quotes of Origen, what you have listed above does no such thing. So I see you are closing out the year with yet more dodges.

Jeffrey

aa5874

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

According to Rufinus, Origen himself wrote about forgeries in his writings.

Please read the ENTIRE link in post #57, not just a brief look.

Amaleq13

He describes the story about Adam as literary creation and indicates that it should not be interpreted literally even though the story appears to be relating actual events.

This is contrary to how a literalist would interpret the story according to the definition you claim to be using.

The only one confused seems to be you. The only story that is relevant is the one about Adam because Origen's self-described interpretation of that story contradicts your assertion that he was a literalist according to the definition you claim to be using.

That you think this in any way relates to what I've been posting suggests you haven't the faintest clue.

According to the definition you claim to be using, a literalist would interpret the story of Adam in the Garden literally.

Origen interpreted it figuratively.

Origin was, therefore, not a literalist.

QED

You made a global claim and only a single contrary example is needed to refute the claim. You understand that much logic, correct?

aa5874

Again, bogus information.

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

No where did Origen claim that the Creator or Adam were not literal in the post-Creation story.

Origen wrote that there is one God, the God of the Jews, the Creator who with his Logos Jesus the Son of God, truly born of a virgin, truly resurrected, truly ascended and who was God, created the first man, Adam.

I must repeat, see Contra Celsus 2.9 and the preface of De Pricipiis, to remind you, over and over of your bogus arguments.

Origen was a literalist.