It is contrary to what he explicitly says in his writings and even the anti-origenists never bothered with that claim which must have been recognized as total bullshit. Eusebius was making shit up or had the weirdest sources.
Catholics make use of his earlier writings and disregard what became of him later. We respect his contributions, as we do Tertullian's, but there's a reason that he's not a saint, unlike, say, Ignatius of Antioch.
He was quite popular during his life. He was condemned much later, when he had been dead for generations, because of schismatics who played off his name.
Evagrius, creator of the Seven Deadly Sins and huge in monasticism and Christianity generally was a huge Origenist.
>believed that souls were created first, before the rest of creation >believed that they were originally pure, but got bored of contemplating god and fell away into sin >believed that Jesus was the most pure of the souls, the only one that didn't fall >one step away from believing in karma and reincarnation - believed that circumstances of birth depended on the soul's behavior before the birth >believed that everyone would eventually go to heaven >believed that the Bible was mostly allegorical
holy shit, this guy invented New Age
This is really just cherry picking. Origen was a deep student of the scriptures and some of his speculations he lays out as simply speculation.
He sees multiple layers to scripture which was something that was in Judaism prior to Christianity as well, e.g., Philo of Alexandria.
>believed that souls were created first, before the rest of creation >believed that they were originally pure, but got bored of contemplating god and fell away into sin >believed that Jesus was the most pure of the souls, the only one that didn't fall >one step away from believing in karma and reincarnation - believed that circumstances of birth depended on the soul's behavior before the birth >believed that everyone would eventually go to heaven >believed that the Bible was mostly allegorical
>>one step away from believing in karma and reincarnation - believed that circumstances of birth depended on the soul's behavior before the birth
true
that the Bible was mostly allegorical
true
whole of jesus' story is to be interpreted in a symbolical/initiatic way, from the miraculous birth from a virgin to the passion and ressurection
>>one step away from believing in karma and reincarnation - believed that circumstances of birth depended on the soul's behavior before the birth
true
that the Bible was mostly allegorical
true
whole of jesus' story is to be interpreted in a symbolical/initiatic way, from the miraculous birth from a virgin to the passion and ressurection
>whole of jesus' story is to be interpreted in a symbolical/initiatic way, from the miraculous birth from a virgin to the passion and ressurection
miracles (healings, bilocation, etc) are found everywhere in all religions, hindus called it 'siddhis'
not only Jesus but also Orfeus, Pythagoras, zoroaster, buddha, Krshna, Laozi, and others are said to be born miraculously
the whole death and ressurection clearly refers to the well-known phenomenon of 'initiatic death', also presented in the aforementioned characters' stories
Origen never believed even half of that. It's incredible how fifth centuries shitposters still taint a man 1500 years later.
For instance he never advocated universal redemption (he explicitly argued against it). He also didn't believe souls were created first separate from the rest of creation because his own form of hylomorphism would forbid that (if anything he was suspicious because of his elucubrations on the subtle bodies of angels). He mentions the hypothesis of metempsychosis once and it has little to do with karman, if only because there is redemption.
He did advance several dodgy things, like continuous creation from eternity backwards, or that earthly conditions were drawn from free will (although that is not "karman").
Is there a branch of Christianity that doesn't consider him a heretic?
Black person, if he was ever considered a heretic then how do you think we still have his corpus?
Origen was never formally condemned. Some sentences here and here are heterodox and he was never seriously considered for canonization either.
As for his writings remaining some Greeks in their long downward spiral to full moronation destroyed most of his works. A large part of remaining works are only in Latin translations. We also have the writing of a few heretics.
Origen did cut his diqq off which is extremely weird and not good, but he was an unusually perceptive and modern theologian. Don't know if he's fully rehabilitated but things he says 1500 years ago are basically Orthodoxy now.
My own personal ranking having read a bunch of these guys:
Bonaventure > Pseudo Dionysus = Late Augustine > Boehme > Eckhart > Origen = Evagrius > Merton = Bernard of Clairvaux > Early Augustine > Boethius > Gregory of Nysa
Where do these fit in your subjective order:
Marguerite Porette
John Climacus
Guigo II
Richard of St. Victor
St. Ignatius of Loyola
Luca Pacioli
John Scotus Eriugena
William Blake
Just read the desert fathers and be done with Christianity
get behind me satan
No it was political slander
So this dude castrated himsef or something? What actual reasoning does Christianity have for supporting that but also being transphobic?
Transphobia is not a real thing aside from the fact that trannies are uncanny valley aesthetically unpleasant to look at.
Is this Origen? I’m reading a book on the trajectory of Christian philosophy and I vaguely recall the author making note of this.
The problem with trannies starts with their demands to be recognized as women.
>there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.
Gospel of Matthew 19:12
It is contrary to what he explicitly says in his writings and even the anti-origenists never bothered with that claim which must have been recognized as total bullshit. Eusebius was making shit up or had the weirdest sources.
Is there a branch of Christianity that doesn't consider him a heretic?
Probably Coptic Orthodoxy but that’s a stretch
Only orthodogs explicitly condemn origen.
Catholics make use of his earlier writings and disregard what became of him later. We respect his contributions, as we do Tertullian's, but there's a reason that he's not a saint, unlike, say, Ignatius of Antioch.
Get over yourselves. Aren't you supposed to be the Catholic -- universal -- church? Where's the intellectual freedom?
Can’t really have a dogmatic system with that
Black person, if he was ever considered a heretic then how do you think we still have his corpus?
>Better than Augustine
Not hard to do
Origen is cool bro. Idk why they didn't like him.
He was quite popular during his life. He was condemned much later, when he had been dead for generations, because of schismatics who played off his name.
Evagrius, creator of the Seven Deadly Sins and huge in monasticism and Christianity generally was a huge Origenist.
This is really just cherry picking. Origen was a deep student of the scriptures and some of his speculations he lays out as simply speculation.
He sees multiple layers to scripture which was something that was in Judaism prior to Christianity as well, e.g., Philo of Alexandria.
>believed that souls were created first, before the rest of creation
>believed that they were originally pure, but got bored of contemplating god and fell away into sin
>believed that Jesus was the most pure of the souls, the only one that didn't fall
>one step away from believing in karma and reincarnation - believed that circumstances of birth depended on the soul's behavior before the birth
>believed that everyone would eventually go to heaven
>believed that the Bible was mostly allegorical
holy shit, this guy invented New Age
>>one step away from believing in karma and reincarnation - believed that circumstances of birth depended on the soul's behavior before the birth
true
that the Bible was mostly allegorical
true
whole of jesus' story is to be interpreted in a symbolical/initiatic way, from the miraculous birth from a virgin to the passion and ressurection
>whole of jesus' story is to be interpreted in a symbolical/initiatic way, from the miraculous birth from a virgin to the passion and ressurection
miracles (healings, bilocation, etc) are found everywhere in all religions, hindus called it 'siddhis'
not only Jesus but also Orfeus, Pythagoras, zoroaster, buddha, Krshna, Laozi, and others are said to be born miraculously
the whole death and ressurection clearly refers to the well-known phenomenon of 'initiatic death', also presented in the aforementioned characters' stories
What initiatic death? He was publicly executed by the state
irrelevant
Origen never believed even half of that. It's incredible how fifth centuries shitposters still taint a man 1500 years later.
For instance he never advocated universal redemption (he explicitly argued against it). He also didn't believe souls were created first separate from the rest of creation because his own form of hylomorphism would forbid that (if anything he was suspicious because of his elucubrations on the subtle bodies of angels). He mentions the hypothesis of metempsychosis once and it has little to do with karman, if only because there is redemption.
He did advance several dodgy things, like continuous creation from eternity backwards, or that earthly conditions were drawn from free will (although that is not "karman").
Origen was never formally condemned. Some sentences here and here are heterodox and he was never seriously considered for canonization either.
As for his writings remaining some Greeks in their long downward spiral to full moronation destroyed most of his works. A large part of remaining works are only in Latin translations. We also have the writing of a few heretics.
Origen did cut his diqq off which is extremely weird and not good, but he was an unusually perceptive and modern theologian. Don't know if he's fully rehabilitated but things he says 1500 years ago are basically Orthodoxy now.
The chopping was a mistake.
My own personal ranking having read a bunch of these guys:
Bonaventure > Pseudo Dionysus = Late Augustine > Boehme > Eckhart > Origen = Evagrius > Merton = Bernard of Clairvaux > Early Augustine > Boethius > Gregory of Nysa
What about Scotus Eriugena?
Where do these fit in your subjective order:
Marguerite Porette
John Climacus
Guigo II
Richard of St. Victor
St. Ignatius of Loyola
Luca Pacioli
John Scotus Eriugena
William Blake
Orthos don't like Augustine either