what an interesting answer!
As regards the Great Cappadoccians Fathers, I think that, if we attributed neoplatonic essence to them, we'd be unfair. But, of course, there can be seen a lot of (neo)platonic, and, generally, philosophical form, words, terms, syntax, rhetoric methods in their work.
And it is the use of language that sometimes causes trouble. For example, it's not the same if St. Basil says "flesh" and condemns it(or Apostle St. Paul) and if Plato or Plotinus
, neoplatonic philosopher, or Porhyrius, or Iamblichus or ... , if they do the same. The former condemn certain types of sins. Platonics, the latter, condemn the body itself, which they regard as a tomb. Don't know if I was as clear as I'd like...
Hope I was.
Edit: Oh, and regarding Origen, there was the first Philokalia, which was an anthology made up by St. Gregory theologian and St. Basil, which consisted only of Origen's sayings! That is, he was recognized as heretic and he truly was very-very neoplatonic, but the Fathers thought that there were a lot of gems in his work, and, so, they discerned the worthy part from the not good(and honoured the former).