Author Topic: Origen and Tertullian  (Read 13872 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lovetzatziki

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 430
Re: Origen and Tertullian
« Reply #45 on: September 17, 2013, 06:11:22 AM »
I think that the biggest problem that the Church has with Origen is that, following Scripture, his one eyed wonder worm caused him to sin, so he removed some of the parts of his body that he believed were the causes of the sin.  The Church seems to often have problems with those that follow what is written rather than what is conveniently interpreted.

I read some Origen in my life, and recently started reading some version of The First Principles or On the Principles. That book is an insult to Origen. I don't think it was writen by him. It tries to copy his style but failes. It many things it even contradicts some of his opinion about exegesis and it is way too superstitious in the wrong way. My call : It is a fake! (At least the version I found). I would appreciate if someone can find me an online reading of The Principles.

Offline Rufus

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,337
  • Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.
Re: Origen and Tertullian
« Reply #46 on: September 17, 2013, 05:59:13 PM »
Evagrius of Pontus beats Origen and Tertullian any day, single-handedly.

And he's a saint! 

No.

Offline Rufus

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,337
  • Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.
Re: Origen and Tertullian
« Reply #47 on: September 17, 2013, 06:00:08 PM »
It is my understanding that the rumors of castration may or may not be accurate.  It doesn't seem to fit Origen's style.

It's almost certainly slander.

Offline Romaios

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,940
Re: Origen and Tertullian
« Reply #48 on: September 17, 2013, 06:43:53 PM »
Evagrius of Pontus beats Origen and Tertullian any day, single-handedly.

And he's a saint! 

No.

He's revered as a Saint by the Armenian Church (feast day 11 February/first week of December?). I don't know about the rest of the OO communion. Fr. Gabriel Bunge would agree.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 06:48:54 PM by Romaios »

Offline Rufus

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,337
  • Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.
Re: Origen and Tertullian
« Reply #49 on: September 17, 2013, 07:45:02 PM »
Evagrius of Pontus beats Origen and Tertullian any day, single-handedly.

And he's a saint! 

No.

He's revered as a Saint by the Armenian Church (feast day 11 February/first week of December?). I don't know about the rest of the OO communion. Fr. Gabriel Bunge would agree.

I always knew those Armenians were up to something.

Offline Shanghaiski

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,981
  • Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia
Re: Origen and Tertullian
« Reply #50 on: September 17, 2013, 11:21:11 PM »
Do either have a special title in Orthodoxy? I read that Tertullian is called the Founder of Western Theology. But maybe that is just Wikipedia picking up what a handful of modern writers called him?

No special title.
Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Offline Shanghaiski

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,981
  • Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia
Re: Origen and Tertullian
« Reply #51 on: September 17, 2013, 11:23:04 PM »
Evagrius of Pontus beats Origen and Tertullian any day, single-handedly.

And he's a saint! 

No.

Bishop Alexander (Golitsyn) recounted an anecdote about an Athonite monk who believed Evagrius to be a saint because only a saint could write about the spiritual life to such a degree and depth as he did.
Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Offline Shanghaiski

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,981
  • Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia
Re: Origen and Tertullian
« Reply #52 on: September 17, 2013, 11:23:50 PM »
Evagrius of Pontus beats Origen and Tertullian any day, single-handedly.

And he's a saint! 

No.


He's revered as a Saint by the Armenian Church (feast day 11 February/first week of December?). I don't know about the rest of the OO communion. Fr. Gabriel Bunge would agree.

I always knew those Armenians were up to something.

Kind of makes you wonder what else they're keeping under those pointy hoods.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 11:24:10 PM by Shanghaiski »
Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Origen and Tertullian
« Reply #53 on: September 18, 2013, 08:14:49 AM »
I think that the biggest problem that the Church has with Origen is that, following Scripture, his one eyed wonder worm caused him to sin, so he removed some of the parts of his body that he believed were the causes of the sin.  The Church seems to often have problems with those that follow what is written rather than what is conveniently interpreted.

I read some Origen in my life, and recently started reading some version of The First Principles or On the Principles. That book is an insult to Origen. I don't think it was writen by him. It tries to copy his style but failes. It many things it even contradicts some of his opinion about exegesis and it is way too superstitious in the wrong way. My call : It is a fake! (At least the version I found). I would appreciate if someone can find me an online reading of The Principles.
Say what?  ???

On First Principles
is Origen's most well known work. What possible basis other than your personal opinion do you have to support such a notion?
God bless!

Offline lovetzatziki

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 430
Re: Origen and Tertullian
« Reply #54 on: September 19, 2013, 03:50:43 PM »
I think that the biggest problem that the Church has with Origen is that, following Scripture, his one eyed wonder worm caused him to sin, so he removed some of the parts of his body that he believed were the causes of the sin.  The Church seems to often have problems with those that follow what is written rather than what is conveniently interpreted.

I read some Origen in my life, and recently started reading some version of The First Principles or On the Principles. That book is an insult to Origen. I don't think it was writen by him. It tries to copy his style but failes. It many things it even contradicts some of his opinion about exegesis and it is way too superstitious in the wrong way. My call : It is a fake! (At least the version I found). I would appreciate if someone can find me an online reading of The Principles.
Say what?  ???

On First Principles
is Origen's most well known work. What possible basis other than your personal opinion do you have to support such a notion?

From what I have heard there were some falsified Origenist writings. That's what. And I have read parts and homilies of Origen they are so full of spirit and live and meaning and big pictures and everything. This ones are not, they are entirely substanceless exactly like the oposite of what Origen's style trully was. Plus Origen always emphasided on the moral and allegorical hermeneutics and explanations and he was great! Nothing like that in that writing.

Offline Romaios

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,940
Re: Origen and Tertullian
« Reply #55 on: September 20, 2013, 09:56:44 AM »
From what I have heard there were some falsified Origenist writings. That's what. And I have read parts and homilies of Origen they are so full of spirit and live and meaning and big pictures and everything. This ones are not, they are entirely substanceless exactly like the oposite of what Origen's style trully was.

Not falsified (as in entirely counterfeited) - interpolated/purged here and there maybe. The complete original text was not preserved, so we have to rely on Latin translations by St. Jerome and his buddy Rufinus. They were both Origenists first, but the former turned against him after meeting St. Epiphanius. Most scholars assume St. Jerome's translation to be more reliable than Rufinus', who would have tried to defend his master by watering down potentially heretical bits in translation.

Your argument is silly - it assumes that an author must be confined to a single genre (the homily).

Plus Origen always emphasided on the moral and allegorical hermeneutics and explanations and he was great! Nothing like that in that writing.

Quote from: Origen, De principiis, Book IV
8. Having spoken thus briefly on the subject of the divine inspiration of the holy Scriptures, it is necessary to proceed to the (consideration of the) manner in which they are to be read and understood, seeing numerous errors have been com­mitted in consequence of the method in which the holy documents ought to be examined; not having been discovered by the multitude. For both the hardened in heart, and the ignorant persons belonging to the circumcision, have not believed on our Saviour, thinking that they are follow­ing the language of the prophecies re­specting Him, and not perceiving in a manner palpable to their senses that He had proclaimed liberty to the captives, nor that He had built up what they truly con­sider the city of God, nor cut off "the chariots of Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem," nor eaten butter and honey, and, before knowing or preferring the evil, had selected the good.(...)

9. Now the cause, in all the points pre­viously enumerated, of the false opinions, and of the impious statements or ignorant assertions about God, appears to be nothing else than the not understanding the Scripture according to its spiritual meaning, but the interpretation of it agree­ably to the mere letter. And therefore, to those who believe that the sacred books are not the compositions of men, but that they were composed by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, agreeably to the will of the Father of all things through Jesus Christ, and that they have come down to us, we must point out the ways (of interpreting them) which appear (correct) to us, who cling to the standard of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ according to the succession of the apostles. Now, that there are certain mystical economies made known by the holy Scriptures, all— even the most simple of those who adhere to the word— have believed; but what these are, candid and modest individuals confess that they know not. If, then, one were to be perplexed about the intercourse of Lot with his daughters, and about the two wives of Abraham, and the two sisters married to Jacob, and the two handmaids who bore him children, they can return no other answer than this, that these are mysteries not understood by us. Nay, also, when the (description of the) fitting out of the tabernacle is read, believing that what is written is a type, they seek to adapt what they can to each particular related about the tabernacle,— not being wrong so far as regards their belief that the tabernacle is a type of something, but erring sometimes in adapting the descrip­tion of that of which the tabernacle is a type, to some special thing in a manner worthy of Scripture. And all the history that is considered to tell of marriages, or the begetting of children, or of wars, or any histories whatever that are in circula­tion among the multitude, they declare to be types; but of what in each individual instance, partly owing to their habits not being thoroughly exercised— partly, too, owing to their precipitation— sometimes, even when an individual does happen to be well trained and clear-sighted, owing to the excessive difficulty of discovering things on the part of men—the nature of each particular regarding these (types) is not clearly ascertained.

10. And what need is there to speak of the prophecies, which we all know to be filled with enigmas and dark sayings? And if we come to the Gospels, the exact understanding of these also, as being the mind of Christ, requires the grace that was given to him who said, "But we have the mind of Christ, that we might know the things freely given to us by God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Spirit teaches." And who, on read­ing the revelations made to John, would not be amazed at the unspeakable mys­teries therein concealed, and which are evident (even) to him who does not com­prehend what is written? And to what person, skilful in investigating words, would the Epistles of the Apostles seem to be clear and easy of understanding, since even in them there are countless numbers of most profound ideas, which, (issuing forth) as by an aperture, admit of no rapid com­prehension? And therefore, since these things are so, and since innumerable indi­viduals fall into mistakes, it is not safe in reading (the Scriptures) to declare that one easily understands what needs the key of knowledge, which the Saviour declares is with the lawyers. And let those answer who will not allow that the truth was with these before the advent of Christ, how the key of knowledge is said by our Lord Jesus Christ to be with those who, as they allege, had not the books which contain the secrets of knowledge, and perfect mys­teries. For His words run thus: "Woe unto you, you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge: you have not entered in yourselves, and them that were entering in you hindered."

11. The way, then, as it appears to us, in which we ought to deal with the Scrip­tures, and extract from them their mean­ing, is the following, which has been ascer­tained from the Scriptures themselves. By Solomon in the Proverbs we find some such rule as this enjoined respecting the divine doctrines of Scripture: "And portray them in a threefold manner, in counsel and knowledge, to answer words of truth to them who propose them to you." The individual ought, then, to portray the ideas of holy Scripture in a threefold manner upon his own soul; in order that the simple man may be edified by the "flesh," as it were, of the Scripture, for so we name the obvious sense; while he who has ascended a certain way (may be edified) by the "soul," as it were. The perfect man, again, and he who resem­bles those spoken of by the apostle, when he says, "We speak wisdom among them that are perfect, but not the wisdom of the world, nor of the rulers of this world, who come to nought; but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom, which God has ordained before the ages, unto our glory," (may receive edification) from the spiritual law, which has a shadow of good things to come. For as man consists of body, and soul, and spirit, so in the same way does Scripture, which has been arranged to be given by God for the salvation of men.

Source
« Last Edit: September 20, 2013, 10:04:13 AM by Romaios »

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Origen and Tertullian
« Reply #56 on: September 20, 2013, 10:04:49 AM »
I think that the biggest problem that the Church has with Origen is that, following Scripture, his one eyed wonder worm caused him to sin, so he removed some of the parts of his body that he believed were the causes of the sin.  The Church seems to often have problems with those that follow what is written rather than what is conveniently interpreted.

I read some Origen in my life, and recently started reading some version of The First Principles or On the Principles. That book is an insult to Origen. I don't think it was writen by him. It tries to copy his style but failes. It many things it even contradicts some of his opinion about exegesis and it is way too superstitious in the wrong way. My call : It is a fake! (At least the version I found). I would appreciate if someone can find me an online reading of The Principles.
Say what?  ???

On First Principles
is Origen's most well known work. What possible basis other than your personal opinion do you have to support such a notion?

From what I have heard there were some falsified Origenist writings. That's what. And I have read parts and homilies of Origen they are so full of spirit and live and meaning and big pictures and everything. This ones are not, they are entirely substanceless exactly like the oposite of what Origen's style trully was. Plus Origen always emphasided on the moral and allegorical hermeneutics and explanations and he was great! Nothing like that in that writing.
On First Principles was written to a different audience.  Homilies are for laymen, On First Principles was written for theologians.  To my knowledge, no serious scholar has doubted the authenticity of Origen's authorship.
God bless!