Origen and some early Christian thinkers speculated that God may have created and destroyed worlds in cycles before the current creation described in Genesis 1. This idea, though speculative, raises the question: since Scripture does not detail what God did in His eternal past (before "In the beginning"), on what biblical basis do Christian traditions reject such views? Given that: - God is eternal and existed before time, - Genesis 1 focuses on the beginning of our world, not necessarily God's first act of creation, - Ecclesiastes 3:11 says, "He has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end," How do Christians who reject Origen’s cyclical creation model ground that rejection **biblically**, rather than merely philosophically or theologically? Are there specific Scriptures or doctrinal principles that limit God's act of creation to a single beginning as described in Genesis?

Origen was arguably the most influential theologian of the first three centuries. In his 1981 book on the Arian Controversy, RPC Hanson wrote: > “Marcellus of Ancyra, in attacking Asterius and Narcissus of Neronias, > Eusebius of Caesarea and Paulinus of Tyre (certain leading Arians), > had accused them of being under the baleful influence of Origen” > (p61). > > “Epiphanius directly connects Origen with Arianism. He … declares that > the Arians and Anhomoians learnt from Origen” (p61). > > “Many scholars have regarded Arian ideas in a vague and wholesale way > as an inheritance from Origen's doctrine” (p62). Rowan Williams, in his 2001 book on Arius, also stated: > "From very early on, there were those who saw Origen as the ultimate > source of Arius' heresy" (RW, 131). Questions: 1. On what specific doctrines did Origen and Arius agree and on which doctrines did they not agree? 2. Considering these, may we describe Arius as an Originist?

**Did any early church Christian writers ever place Origen in a early martyrology or menologium ?** There are many early Church Fathers . Some are canonized saints, while some are not. Origen is not without controversy in his writings, motivations and actions. Yet one can not deny that he genuinely believed in Jesus Christ and was more than willing to suffer death for his belief in God. > Origen, most modest of writers, hardly ever alludes to himself in his own works; but Eusebius has devoted to him almost the entire sixth book of "Ecclesiastical History". > > Finally, at a much later period, under Pontian of Rome and Zebinus of Antioch (Eusebius, VI, xxiii), he journeyed into Greece, passing through Caesarea where Theoctistus, Bishop of that city, assisted by Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem, raised him to the priesthood. Demetrius, although he had given letters of recommendation to Origen, was very much offended by this ordination, which had taken place without his knowledge and, as he thought, in derogation of his rights. If Eusebius (VI, viii) is to be believed, he was envious of the increasing influence of his catechist. So, on his return to Alexandria, Origen soon perceived that his bishop was rather unfriendly towards him. He yielded to the storm and quitted Egypt (231). The details of this affair were recorded by Eusebius in the lost second book of the "Apology for Origen"; according to Photius, who had read the work, two councils were held at Alexandria, one of which pronounced a decree of banishment against Origen while the other deposed him from the priesthood (Biblioth. cod. 118). **St. Jerome declares expressly that he was not condemned on a point of doctrine**. > > Age did not diminish his activities. He was over sixty when he wrote his "Contra Celsum" and his "Commentary on St. Matthew". The persecution of Decius (250) prevented him from continuing these works. Origen was imprisoned and barbarously tortured, but his courage was unshaken and from his prison he wrote letters breathing the spirit of the martyrs (Eusebius, Church History VI.39). He was still alive on the death of Decius (251), but only lingering on, and he died, probably, from the results of the sufferings endured during the persecution (253 or 254), at the age of sixty-nine (Eusebius, Church History VII.1). His last days were spent at Tyr, though his reason for retiring thither is unknown. He was buried with honour as a confessor of the Faith. **For a long time his sepulchre, behind the high-altar of the cathedral of Tyr**, was visited by pilgrims. Today, as nothing remains of this cathedral except a mass of ruins, the exact location of his tomb is unknown. - Catholic Encyclopedia There are claims that Origen may have castrated himself, but the claim seems somewhat dubious. > Eusebius claims that, as a young man, following a literal misreading of Matthew 19:12, in which Jesus is presented as saying "there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven", Origen went to a physician and paid him to surgically remove his genitals in order to ensure his reputation as a respectable tutor to young men and women. Eusebius further alleges that Origen privately told Demetrius, the bishop of Alexandria, about the castration and that Demetrius initially praised him for his devotion to God on account of it. Origen himself, however, never mentions anything about having castrated himself in any of his surviving writings and, in his exegesis of this verse in his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, written near the end of life, he strongly condemns any literal interpretation of Matthew 19:12, asserting that only an idiot would interpret the passage as advocating literal castration. > > Since the beginning of the twentieth century, some scholars have questioned the historicity of Origen's self-castration, with many seeing it as a wholesale fabrication. Trigg states that Eusebius's account of Origen's self-castration is certainly true, because Eusebius, who was an ardent admirer of Origen, yet clearly describes the castration as an act of pure folly, would have had no motive to pass on a piece of information that might tarnish Origen's reputation unless it was "notorious and beyond question." Trigg sees Origen's condemnation of the literal interpretation of Matthew 19:12 as him "tacitly repudiating the literalistic reading he had acted on in his youth." Alleged self-castration Wikipedia goes on to say this about his last years: > In c. 249, the Plague of Cyprian broke out. In 250, Emperor Decius, believing that the plague was caused by Christians' failure to recognise him as Divine, issued a decree for Christians to be persecuted. This time Origen did not escape. Eusebius recounts how Origen suffered "bodily tortures and torments under the iron collar and in the dungeon; and how for many days with his feet stretched four spaces in the stocks". The governor of Caesarea gave very specific orders that Origen was not to be killed until he had publicly renounced in faith in Christ. Origen endured two years of imprisonment and torture, but obstinately refused to renounce his faith. In 252, the emperor Decius was assassinated and Origen was released from prison. Nonetheless, Origen's health was broken by the physical tortures enacted on him and he died less than a year later at the age of sixty-nine. A later legend, recounted by Jerome and numerous itineraries, places his death and burial at Tyre, but little value can be attached to this. - Origen (Wikipedia) Although Origen was a controversial figure in the Early Church . It seems that he may have been honored as a true martyr within the community of some of the faithful, being buried behind the high-altar of the cathedral at Tyre. His father, St. Leonides of Alexandria , is recognized as a martyr in the Catholic Church (April 22). Thus once again I ask: **Does the name of Origen appear on any early martyrology or menologium and if so does it assign a date for his feast?**

Origen, in *Contra Celsus*, Book VII , responds to an attack from Celsus: that Christians are just like Jews in rejecting all forms of images without exception. In this rebuttal by Origen, we clearly see that Greek philosophers, specifically Celsus, did not think of idols as 'actual Gods' made of wood, for stone, but as just representations of them only, dedicated to them, in order to facilitate worship. The Greek worship of the gods did not terminate on the physical object or icon, but through them passed into the actual god never resting on the mere medium or icon. The Greek view of images as facilitating higher worship is ridiculed by Origen: >For what reasonable man can refrain from smiling when he sees that one who has learned from philosophy such profound and noble sentiments about God or the gods, turns straightway to images and offers to them his prayers, or imagines that **by gazing upon these material things he can ascend from the visible symbol to that which is spiritual and immaterial.** Celsus in turn ridicules Christians because they “despise without exception all images” and so do not even have any form of God to facilitate their worship. He further argues that this is contradictory the Christian claim that man was made in the mage of God, therefore God can be represented by physical images and Christians have no excuse not to have images. **The question is how did Origen respond to this claim that Christian despised all images without exception just like Jews? Did origin admit such was the case and argue why, or did he think there were actually some images used in the Church to facilitate worship, like Mary or the Cross and that Celsus was simply unaware of them?**

What was clear enough has become muddled for reasons unknown about Origen. We can speculate the resurgence of the idea of universal salvation is one reason for Origen's rise. >In the seventeenth century, the English Cambridge Platonist Henry More (1614 – 1687) was a devoted Origenist and, although he did reject the notion of universal salvation, he accepted most of Origen's other teachings. -wiki- >A few of his views were unorthodox, to the point that later generations debated whether he was a saint or a heretic. ... For instance, Origen believed in the pre-existence of souls and that one’s status in the present world was proportional to one’s commitment to God during this pre-existence. His negative attitude toward the material world wasn’t much different than that of the Gnostics he so strongly opposed. He also considered the Trinity a ranking, not an equality, and believed that everyone, even demons, would one day be forgiven and purified by God. These claims were key to his being declared a heretic by various councils in the centuries after his death. -source- So, what does the earlier church (pre 1054) believe about Origen?

From the [Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_Celsum) : > Origen responds to Celsus's accusation that Jesus had performed his miracles using magic rather than divine powers by asserting that, unlike magicians, Jesus had not performed his miracles for show, but rather to reform his audiences. This seems like a rather bizarre explanation as intent doesn't necessarily have correlation to the method of the act. It doesn't logically follow. This leads me to think that the source that the Wikipedia is citing (Trigg 1983, p. 229 and Olson 1999, p. 103) might've butchered Origen's argument and Origen's intent. As such, my question is: What did Origen mean in this explanation? Is there more to this argument (to be more clear, Origen's argument against Celsus' accusation of Chrisst using black magic)?

Where did Arius learn his theology? Did he rely on specific theologians that wrote before him? Origen? Clement of Alexandria? Lucian of Antioch? Were his ideas based on the Bible or on Greek philosophy? Was he part of a specific school of thought or did he develop an entirely new system?

It seems clear that the Catholic Church rejected Origen's claim that souls were created and existed before conception and birth. Does the Church pinpoint fertilization of the egg as the moment a soul is created? Is it upon implantation, or once the heart starts beating? Is it at some other stage before birth? Maybe it is upon the taking of the first breath, since the Greek word *pneuma* ("breath") is associated with the word "soul". Or does it happen at some other point in time? According to the Catholic Church, when do souls start to exist?

I found this quote of Origen condemning birthdays as the practice of the gentile sinners . > **...of all the holy people in the Scriptures, no one is recorded to have kept a feast or held a great banquet on his birthday. It is only sinners (like Pharaoh and Herod) who make great rejoicings over the day on which they were born into this world below** (Origen, in Levit., Hom. VIII, in Migne P.G., XII, 495) (Thurston H. Natal Day. Transcribed by Thomas M. Barrett. Dedicated to Margaret Johanna Albertina Behling Barrett. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume X. Copyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York). The writings of the late third century Catholic theologian Arnobius show that, even that late, Catholics objected to the celebration of birthdays as he wrote: > ...you worship with couches, altars, temples, and other service, and by celebrating their games and birthdays, those whom it was fitting that you should assail with keenest hatred. (Arnobius. Against the Heathen (Book I), Chapter 64. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 6. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1886. Online Edition Copyright © 2005 by K. Knight). Can you quote the full context of Origen (and Arnobius) quotes, and any responses or discussion on this view by others, within the third century in English and Greek? I need to know the reasons for his views. Background: >- The Encyclopedia Judaica could not be more blunt: “The celebration of birthdays is unknown in traditional Jewish ritual.” In fact, it says, the only birthday party mentioned in the Bible is for Pharaoh! (Genesis 40:20). *Birthdays, Jewishly * > >- History of celebration of birthdays in the West: > >“It is thought that the large-scale celebration of birthdays in Europe began with the cult of Mithras, which originated in Persia but was spread by soldiers throughout the Roman Empire. Before this, such celebrations were not common; and, hence, practices from other contexts such as the Saturnalia were adapted for birthdays. Because many Roman soldiers took to Mithraism, it had a wide distribution and influence throughout the empire until it was supplanted by Christianity.” > >“Christmas is also relevant because December 25th was the day of celebration of the birthday of the sun-god Mithra. Perhaps it should also be mentioned that one of the key features of Mithraism was Sunday observance. The reason that this seems to be relevant is that the Roman Emperor Constantine, the first Roman Emperor to make a profession of Christ, was also the first Emperor to make Sunday laws–which he began to do on March 7, 321. Also, a few years later, the Council of Nicea that Constantine convened in 325 A.D. declared Sunday to be the “Christian day” of worship (for more information, please see the article Europa and the Book of Revelation).” *Pagan Origins of Birthdays *

> The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either > through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse > audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have > transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or > deletions as they please (Origen, Commentary on Matthew 15.14 as quoted in Bruce M. Metzger, "Explicit References in the Works of Origen to Variant Readings in New Testament manuscripts," in Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert Pierce Casey, ed. J Neville Birdsall and Robert W. Thomson (Freiburg: Herder, 1968), 78—79; reference from Erhman, 223._ According to Bruce Metzger this indicated that all the manuscripts at Orgien's time were corrupt > Origen suggests that perhaps all of the manuscripts existing in his > day may have become corrupt.... (Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New > Testament. Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (second > edition 1979; first edition 1964), 152; citing Metzger, “Explicit > references in the works of Origen to Variant Readings in New Testament > Manuscripts,” in Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert > Pierce Casey, ed. J.N. Birdsall (1963): 78–95.)

The Bible does not describe God and His Son in terms of substance. The closest we get is Hebrews 1:3, where the Son is described as the mirror image of the hypostasis of God. At the time, hypostasis still had the same meaning as ousia (substance), as it also had in the 325 AD Nicene Creed. Therefore the NASB translates hypostasis as "substance" in Hebrews 1:3. The Wikipedia page Sabellianism states that the Gnostics were the first to use the word in connection with their doctrine of emanation in which the generator and the generated have the same substance. Were these people also Christians? Did they perhaps bring substance language into the church debate? The dates of the theologians that used the word substance, as I could gather from Wikipedia, in their apparent chronological sequence, are as follows: - Praxeas lived at the end of the 2nd century/beginning of the 3rd century. - Tertullian (155-220) - In Against Praxeas, Tertullian often refers to substance. Did he get it from Praxeas? - Sabellius flourished about AD 215 - Prof Ninan stated that Sabellius used the word homoousian. - Noetus was a presbyter around AD 230 - Origen (184-253) - According to his Wikipedia page, he rejected the belief that the Son and the Father were one hypostasis as heretical. But that implies that somebody was using that language before him. That would include Tertullian. So, these people all lived more or less at the same time but given the early date for Tertullian, and since he wrote Against Praxeas, I assume Praxeas was the first of the authors. Is it possible that he was one of the gnostics and that he introduced the word substance into the debate?

> The Father, or first person, is ... the only one who is *autotheos*, God in the fullest sense, whereas the Son is his *dunamis* or power and the Spirit a dependent being (SEP > Origen ) > The Scriptures teach that there is essentially but one God, and, therefore, that the essence both of the Son and Spirit is unbegotten ... (Calvin's Institutes 1.13 .25 @ ccel.org) Are the two views compatible or incompatible?

Until reading the "Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew" by Origen Adamantius, I presumed (based on the teachings of Wikipedia) that the original manuscript of Matthew was written in Greek & that Mark was the earliest gospel. **In contrast to internet, early church scholars like Origen (around 246-248 AD) stated that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew & that Mark was the second gospel account written.**

Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew, who was at one time a publican and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first; and that he composed it in the Hebrew tongue and published it for the converts from Judaism. The second written was that according to Mark, who wrote it according to the instruction of Peter, who, in his General Epistle, acknowledged him as a son, saying, "The church that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son." And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles. Last of all, that according to John.

Biblehub - Origen's Commentary on Matthew's Gospel **Regarding early church "Commentary of Matthew" by Origen, should Christians trust Matthew was the first Gospel written in Hebrew?**

After reading works by Origen Adamantius regarding scepticism surrounding the divine inspiration of 1 Corinthians 7:17 & 2 Timothy 3:16 written by the apostle Paul, disciples might wonder if early church councils established textual validation for "divine inspiration" in authors that create church doctrines. In the "Commentary on John" [Book 1] by Origen Adamantius, we read in section #5:

Consider on this point the language of St. Paul. When he declares that "Every Scripture is inspired of God and profitable," does he include his own writings? Or does he not include his dictum, "I say, and not the Lord," and "So I ordain in all the churches," and "What things I suffered at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra," and similar things which he writes in virtue of his own authority, and which do not quite possess **the character of words flowing from divine inspiration**. "

Early Christian Writings - Origen Origen seems to speculate the "divine inspiration" of Shaul / Paul the Apostle in the self-imposed remarks found in 1 Corinthians 7:17. 1 Corinthians 7:17 [KJV] "But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. **And so ordain I in all churches**." In **2 Timothy 3:16** [KJV], we read :

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

**In response to Origen Adamantius, what were "characteristics of divine inspiration" for authors of church doctrines?**

In an article answering Georg Kaplan's 1 denials of the Trinitarian doctrine, Ken Temple states : >Even if the early Church had never applied the title θεός to Jesus, his deity would still be apparent in his being the object of human and angelic worship and of saving faith; the exerciser of exclusively divine functions such as creatorial agency, the forgiveness of sins, and the final judgment; the addressee in petitionary prayer; the possessor of all divine attributes; the bearer of numerous titles used of Yahweh in the OT; and the co-author of divine blessing. > >Faith in the deity of Christ does not rest on the evidence or validity of a series of ‘proof-texts’ in which Jesus may receive the title θεός **but on the general testimony of the NT** corroborated at the bar of personal experience.147 > >Apologetics and Agape - Wordpress - March 19, 2018 Nevertheless he publishes a list of texts as an example. However what attracted my attention and what prompts my question is his answer to the objection that the doctrine of the Trinity was formed in later centuries than the early church and the objector claims that the early church knew nothing of it until Nicea. So Ken Temple further states : >... Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and Athanasius and Hillary and others had expressions of the Trinity in centuries (and at the same time – Athanasius and Hillary) before Gregory of Nyssa. Ignatius is clear on the Deity of Christ in early second century (around 107-110 AD) and has a simple expression of the Trinity. So, Ken Temple then quotes from Ignatius (writing in 107-110 AD), which I shall not copy, it is in the linked document. But all he says of Tertullian is : >Also, Tertullian, around 190-220 AD, used the basic words, “Trinitas Unitas” (three in one) and “persona” (the Latin equivalent of hypostatis) over 1 century before the Cappadocian Fathers, as did Origen around 250 AD. My question is - Are there more susbstantial references available on this subject from Tertullian and Origen and Irenaeus ? ------------------------------------ 1 Georg Kaplan, a professed Unitarian, seems to be linked to the pseudonyms 'Gregory Blunt' and 'Thomas Pearne'. (Although, elsewhere it is spelt 'Kaplin'). Edit : Comment suggests that this is a third layer of pseudonym.

I've heard and read in "**Worlds Made by Words: Scholarship and Community in the Modern West**" (book by *Anthony Grafton*, page 222) that Origen was considered a Church Father but not a Saint by either the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church? Why is this so?

Related answer: [Is there any substance to the claim that Origen supported reincarnation?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/41428/21576) The following quote is widely attributed to Origen in books and on the internet (e.g., [here](https://books.google.com/books?id=CJKcCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT164&lpg=PT164) and [here](https://books.google.com/books?id=oYeN2OOH3KYC&pg=PA13)) : > The soul has neither beginning nor end. [They] come into this world strengthened by the victories or weakened by the defeats of their previous lives. It's sometimes attributed to Origen's [*De Principiis*](http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0412.htm) , but a simple text search of that work does not reveal this quote. From the answer linked above, it's pretty clear that Origen taught at least some doctrine of preexistence of souls, but this quote is often used to say that Origen believed in full-blown reincarnation. Where does this quote come from? Is it actually in the writings of Origen? If not, when/where did it originate? --- **Note:** Some might argue that the quote in this question is a fair summary of Origen's teaching. That's irrelevant. I'm interested in the origin of *the quote itself*, accounting for the possibility of minor differences due to translation into English from the original language. None of the "real" Origen quotes listed in the linked answer are anywhere close enough, in my opinion, to be considered the source of the quote in this question.

While reading a [fascinating answer on universalism and apocatastasis](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/12287/21576) , I found [1 Corinthians 15:28](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+15%3A28&version=ESV) quoted as evidence for the idea that all people will ultimately be restored/saved: > When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all. (ESV) According to the linked answer, Origen believed that "all would eventually be reconciled to God," a sort of Christian universalism. But I notice that 1 Corinthians 15:28 doesn't say "all people" – it says "all things." And it would seem that the devil and his demons could be included in this "all things," according to this interpretation of the verse. So, for now, let me ask: **did the prominent advocates of apocatastasis in the early church believe that the devil and his demons would ultimately be restored or reconciled to God?** Since "prominent advocates" may not be sufficiently specific, let's limit ourselves to the views of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa. If modern scholars have analyzed their writings in order to answer this question, that analysis, in conjunction with quotes from the writings of these fathers, would be great.

I've seen it suggested that [Origen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen) was in line with the [idealist understanding of Christian eschatology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism_(Christian_eschatology)) . Is anyone able to clarify this? What is the evidence that Origen was in support of the Idealist position? (For example, [this answer to a related but different question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/43554/21576) also uses Origen in support of a subset of the typical idealist position, without substantiating it.) _For those not familiar with Christian eschatological categories, usually in reference to how Revelation is interpreted, the general categories are Idealist, Futurist, Preterist, and Historical_

[Origen of Alexandria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen) is considered one of Christianity's greatest systematic theologians, and it is said that he was a believer in reincarnation. Is there any substance (textual evidence) to the claim that Origen supported reincarnation?