aa5874

To avoid confusion, please read post #16, there you will find out what "Biblical Literalism" means.

Perhaps, you need for me to repeat the words found in Contra Calsus and De Principiis by Origen.

Do you not see that even the "Logos", the Word, Wisdom, Light and Truth are regarded as literally living by Origen?

Do you not see that the God of the Jews is regarded as the literal Creator of the world by Origen?

Do you not see that Jesus is regarded by Origen as literally the Son of God and was a literal God who created the world as the Logos, who literally became a man but indeed a God, truly born of a virgin, truly resurrected and truly ascended to heaven?

Do you not see that even the devil and his angels were regarded as literally in existence by Origen?

Origen has spoken. He is a literalist.

Amaleq13

His comments suggest he would have said "The author of the story." Perhaps he thought that was Moses. I don't know.

Why do you think this is relevant to whether Origen interpreted all the apparently literal Bible stories as though they actually happened?

He explicitly states that he does not.

That does not describe an individual who interprets all the apparently literal Bible stories as though they actually happened so it does not describe a literalist. Your conclusion is false.

None of which requires or even suggests he interpreted all the apparently literal Bible stories as though they actually happened so none of it is relevant and none of it supports your assertion.

This continues to have no basis as Origen explicitly denies the claim.

That definition establishes that Origen was not a literalist.

A literalist interprets every story that appears (ie "face value" from the definition) to be relating history as literally doing so.

The story of Adam in the Garden purports to relate actual events in the history of humanity.

Modern literalists take this story literally.

Origen did not.

Origen was not a literalist.

QED

aa5874

Based on the meaning of "Biblical Literalism," you are completely wrong. See post #16 to avoid making the same erroneous claims over and over.

Again, did Origen write or believe Adam was literally created by God?

Yes or No?

What is Origen position on the flood? Did he write that the flood with Noah literally happened?

What is Origen's position with Moses and the tablets with the Laws from God? Did Origen believe or write that God literally wrote the Laws with his fingers on the tablets twice?

Origen called the Jewish Scripture, the Mosiac books, history.

Origen was a literalist.

mountainman

Dear Stephen and aa5874,

Forgeries in the name of Origen abounded even in Origen's own time; Origen himself (quoted by Rufinius) informs us of this disconcerting fact. The Origenist Controversy in the fourth and fifth centuries has already attracted a great deal of scholarship -- none of which to this day has offered a completely satisfactory explanation for this affair. Therefore it would be most premature IMHO to state that this 3rd century author was definitely responsible for the heights of allegorical exegesis found in writings under this name. I completely understand that mainstream theorists completely ignore this awkward complexity of the Origenist Controversy and maintain strict authoritative reference to Origen, as if the controversy and the forgeries were of little or no consequence. Beware of Doppelgängers.

According to this WIKI not only do we have two separate Origens: Origen the christian and Origen the (neopythagorean) pagan, but Origen's teacher Ammonius Saccas also appears to have an alter-ego (duplicate) in history. So to paraphrase Inigo Montoya ---- are we sure we think we know which Origen we are talking about, or which Ammonias Saccas was which Origens' teacher?

Best wishes,


Pete

Ben C Smith

What if the Rufinian quotation of Origen to the effect that Origenic forgeries abounded is itself a forgery?

(Kind of how most scholars think of 2 Thessalonians 2.2; 3.17.

Ben.

Jeffrey Gibson

Umm .... to be valid, this statement presupposes a direct acquaintance with all of the scholarship that's been produced on the Origenist Controversy. But how much of it have you actually read? And whose explanations in particular do you find wanting?

To be more specific, what is it exactly about Clark's or Cassian's or Radford's and especially K. Holl's and F. Diekamp's and P. Lardet's explanations that you find unsatisfactory?

Who said anything about "the heights of allegorical exegesis", let alone that Origen was responsible for them?

And was the fact that Origen used an allegorical method of exegesis really what the Origenist Controversy was all about? Can you tell me what besides Wiki entries informs your "knowledge" of this matter? Is it another children's book, or something more substantial?

Please, no dodges, Pete. Just tell us what you've actually read on the controversy.

And these awkward complexities are what, exactly?

What makes you think that the Wiki claims are worth considering?

Jeffrey

Amaleq13

Please explain exactly how since my argument is based on that very definition.

According to that link, a literalist interprets any story literally that has a "face value" appearance of being intended that way.

Do you believe the story of Adam in the Garden has a "face value" of allegory or metaphor?

Modern literalists disagree and insist that the story be taken as literally true.

Why would you have a better understanding of their position than they do?

No. He clearly says otherwise and indicates the story should not be interpreted literally.

I don't know and that holds for all your other questions. Based on his figurative interpretation of the story of Adam, we obviously cannot assume he would have interpreted any of them literally.

Since Origen also identified at least one story as being figurative rather than historical, he obviously did not mean every story contained was history.

Not according to the definition you are using. The exceptions described there refer to "face value" allegories or metaphors like the parables. Otherwise, the stories are accepted as written and defended as such.

Would you honestly expect someone you considered to be a literalist to interpret the story of Adam figuratively?

Jeffrey Gibson

Was On First Principles one of them?

May we have the text of this quote, please?

And how would the existence of forgeries of Origen's works mitigate the fact that Origen engaged in and argued for the employment of allegorical exegesis?

Jeffrey

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

To be brief, anyone who assumes there was any christian history before the archaeologists say christian history started.

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

How can we be absolutely sure it was not?

Best wishes,



Pete