Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
A cursory study of the works of Origen available to us today could lead someone to this conclusion. In the version of De Principiis (First Principles) available to us today it says :
“As we have remarked above, therefore, that material substance of this world, possessing a nature admitting of all possible transformations, is, when dragged down to beings of a lower order, moulded into the crasser and more solid condition of a body, so as to distinguish those visible and varying forms of the world; but when it becomes the servant of more perfect and more blessed beings, it shines in the splendour of celestial bodies, and adorns either the angels of God or the sons of the resurrection with the clothing of a spiritual body, out of all which will be filled up the diverse and varying state of the one world.” 2.2.2.
The fact that it only states “sons of the resurrection” should be more attributed to the clerics who translated De Principiis and less to the intensions of Origen. When we examine the writings available to us today that stem from his own hand, and have not been ‘corrected’ to reflect the dogma of the church, with the prerequisites set out by Origen, we find a world that celebrates the uncorrupted soul of a woman as much (if not more than) as the uncorrupted soul of a man. For how can the One World be a “diverse and varying state” without the presence of all the virtues of women?
“But if any one should desire to discuss these matters more fully, it will be necessary, with all reverence and fear of God, to examine the sacred Scriptures with greater attention and diligence, to ascertain whether the secret and hidden sense within them may perhaps reveal anything regarding these matters; and something may be discovered in their abstruse and mysterious language, through the demonstration of the Holy Spirit to those who are worthy, after many testimonies have been collected on this very point.” 2.2.2.
Modern philosophy teaches the concept of being one with the One, but their perverse notion of oneness requires a loss of self. Some Origen scholars come to this conclusion, even after following Origen’s line of thought through the “Restoration of all Things”. If the Fall was a consequence of the individual misuse of the gift of Free Will, and life on Earth as men and women is the slow process of overcoming this corruption, then how can the final restored soul be any different than that which was once created by God through His Son as a perfect individuals: male and female? Put in another context, how can the One World have less diversity and wonder than this shadow in which we live?
“Study nature in order to find hints of it Creator.” This was consistently taught throughout the history of the Ionian Greeks. The great Ionian philosopher, Socrates praises the virtues of the women in his life, and the Muses from Olympia, to the extent that he sets himself below them. Origen had an Ionian upbringing and shared the Ionian philosophy, but there is little left of his original writings to confirm this today. I am sure that his entire writings would be available to us today had he actually denounced the writings of Plato and the teachings of Socrates.
The infinitesimally slow beautification of the soul and the world
Origenes of Alexander presented the need for such beautification in the greatest detail during the thirds century AD, building on the highest goal for humanity that was set out by Socrates: reaching the level of self-sacrificing Love demonstrated by Eros.
My job is not to convince anyone of my philosophy, since it is possible for the wise searcher to uncover these jewels in any inspired text or through an open-minded observation of the natural world.
The first 11 versus of chapter 12 tell us of Jesus’ return to the house of Lazarus. The symbolism that John supplies here shows us the very broad spectrum of spiritual maturity that exists in our world and at the time of Jesus. Judas, at the bottom of this spectrum, is not totally evil, but very materialistic. Maria has shown herself to be one of those who hear but do not understand (Cf. Matt. 13:13, Mark 4:11-12) and this is why John depicts her as being below the feet of Jesus.
Martha, on the other hand, has advanced to a level where she is able to ‘serve food to the wise’. She is able to bring spiritual nutrition to the table of Jesus and Lazarus. Her spiritual labors have yielded a harvest that both Lazarus and Jesus are happy to receive. Lazarus is honored to sit at the table with Jesus; he understood. This is the man that Jesus loved (John 11:3), and had become spiritually powerful and a threat to the power base of the Pharisees. (Cf. John 12:17-19) He had become a walking witness to the power of God, and based on the position that John portrays him here, he may have become a disciple of even a prophet.
Many people question the huge contrast between Palm Sunday and Good Friday. The depiction of Jesus entering Jerusalem is one with everyone supporting him (Cf. John 12:19) and by Friday nearly all of His supporters were gone. If we examine John’s words from the spiritual aspect it becomes clear that all of souls awaiting redemption were celebrating Jesus’ coming victory over death. They could see that the time was near at which Jesus would cast the Prince of this world out. (Cf. John 12:31) They would wait anxiously while Jesus faced His final tests on Earth.
Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain. John 12:24
I believe that this is to be understood as follows: When the wheat [Jesus] dies without falling into the Earth, it [He] has not accomplished it task in life. When the wheat [Jesus] dies and falls into the Earth [Hell], it [He] has accomplished its task. As Jesus reminds us in 12:27-29, it was always possible that He could have failed His final test and could have died fruitlessly. But fortunately for the world, He did pass all the tests that Lucifer could give to Him and remained true to His Father through great human torment.
Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself. John 12:31-32
By passing His tests, the prophesied ‘Judgment of the World’ was able to take place as He had mentioned on numerous occasions. (See my article at https://origenes2000.org/Publications/FinalJudgment.htm ) Many people have taken Jesus’ words here to foretell His being lifted up on the cross, but that does not fit with His statement. He says, first the ruler of this world [Satan] must be cast out, and then Jesus will be able to draw all from the Earth [and Hell] to Him. All of this happened after His death and not before. No ruler was cast out of world before Jesus died, and there is no biblical reference to such an event.
In a recent study of chapter 8, I came to the following contemplation on the first 12 verses. Jesus does not acknowledge the Law of Moses (Lev 20:10) in relation to the adulteress as coming from His Father, and He does so by not enforce it. Taking this in conjunction with His comments about the true father of the Jews in 8:33 to 8:59 we can logically come to the following hypothesis: the Law of Moses in Lev 20:10 did not stem from the Father of Jesus, but from the father of Jews.
It is clear from Jesus that the 10 Commandments are from God the Father, but their interpretation of their enforcement was obviously wrong. We know from the New Testament that violation of any of the commandments results in spiritual death (separation for God), so why should God also require physical death; especially when the sinner has the chance to repent up until their last breath? The more likely scenario is that either Moses misunderstood the word ‘death’ or that the Satan smuggled in his own laws during the time that the Israelites were waiting to get into the Promised Land.
Another thing to consider is deeper meaning of “anyone free from sin can throw the first stone”. By this, I think that He is suggesting that only God or an Angel of God has the right to judge or punish. His words about judgment later in 8:16 underpin this: even Jesus must get the approval of God when passing judgment.
Here is one mention of the pre-existence of the soul of Jeremiah.
Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
Dear Gabriela,
It is nice to hear that things are going well for you. I do not pretend to understand what you are talking about, but that does not matter. I just want you to know that the light that He gives me goes out to you and your son. We are connected in His light and through me you are connected to a spiritual community of people throughout the world, who are trying to help fulfill the promise of Jesus by bringing His Words back to life. “My Words will never die!”It is us who Jesus was talking to when He Said: “And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:” Mark 4:11 This is the only time in the bible that Jesus used the word mystery, but not in the sense that we cannot know. It is up to all of us to become one of His Disciples in the truest sense; by fulfilling His demand on us to “know the mystery of the kingdom of God”. Origen’s entire life was dedicated to helping people to do just this, but the church that followed him has buried the Word in mystery. We must help to bring His Word back into the light.
This is a huge task, but it is the most important task that there is! Being a small part of this work fill us with His Light, because it is His work. I hope this is what you are feeling.
Love, Shawn
Dear Gabriela,
It took me many years to understand the changes in my life. Yes they were frightening at first because I did not have control of them. Since that time I have learned to accept His Will and not try to think about the future. I trust my guardian angel to guide me in the right direction, even though it does not seem the best at the time. I have always seen that it was right, maybe years later.I wish the best for you and my prayers are with you.
Love ShawnDear Gabriela,
That is very nice to hear. I do not need to know exactly what is changing, but it is nice to hear that you think that it is good. It is especially nice to hear about Thiago.
Love ShawnDear Gabriela,
I have been thinking of you and I picked up the phone a few times yesterday to call, but decided not to disturb you. My two girls come home today, after being gone for nearly two months, so I will be busy in the next few days. Also, I have a nice older man staying with me who is installing the new playground at Shana’s school.We can talk in the next few days though. Let me know when a good time to call would be over the weekend.
Love ShawnWe should investigate this story of Origen’s castration closer. If we look at it in the purely literal sense, then Origen could have followed his own teachings and have done this to put aside a physical desire that was interfering with his spiritual goals. So why would this be a bad thing in the eyes of a Christian since it follows the teachings of Jesus?
And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Mark 9:43-47
If we look at the possible spiritual meaning of “Origen castrating himself”, we could find an explanation more reasonable than the pervious. I personally do not believe that Origen physically castrated himself, but rather that he cut himself off from the materialist powers growing in Alexandria at the time; castrating himself from them and everything that they represented. He wanted no part of the worldly church that was forming there, with its pagan background and materialistic view of Christianity. It is hard for me to believe, based on Origen’s continuous separation of the physical from the spiritual in his work, that he would need this physical separation on his body. From his commentary on Romans we find one of his many discussions in which he conveys the need to separate the physical from the spiritual.
(10) Here, then, the man who lives under the law is described by the Apostle as a woman who is under a husband. But he describes the husband as the message of the law, which he nevertheless calls a mortal husband, who is the message of the law according to the letter. But the sense in which he is dead must now be considered. Indeed in this he can seem to be dead since the spiritual understanding excludes and, as it were, kills the bodily understanding and shows that the letter that kills must be abandoned and the life-giving Spirit must be followed. (Cf. 2 Cor 3.6.)
I agree wholeheartedly that very few people can live up to the spiritual demands of scripture in our highly materialistic society, especially for people in positions of power such as politicians, clergy and scientists. Moreover, when a person truly does, it is often relatively easy for the ruling powers (those who were responsible for writing history) to make such people less than they were. Four examples of this stand out in my mind; King Salomon, Socrates, Origen of Alexandria, and Jean d’Arc. The last example is one less discussed in literature, but probably a very good reminder to people how bad things really can get.
(11) Moreover, this husband will be proven to be dead even more plainly in this way. Truly, as long as “the law was bearing the shadow of the good things to come,” (Heb 10.1.) and as long as an earthly image and type of the heavenly worship was being borne injerusalem,14S and the altar continued to function, and the priesthood, the message of the law of the letter seemed to live in the letter. For Christ had not yet entered into the “sanctuary not made with hands” (Heb 9.24.) nor had he approached the inner curtain, which [M1073] the Apostle, when writing to the Hebrews, interprets to be the flesh of Christ. (Heb 9.3; 10.20.) But when the Word became flesh and lived among US, (Cf.Jn 1.14.) his earthly presence in Jerusalem, with its temple and altar and everything that was borne there, was torn down, at that time her husband died, i.e., the law according to the letter. Or will it not rightly be said in this section that the message of the law is dead, since no sacrifices, no priesthood, and no ministries associated with the Levitical order are being offered? It cannot punish the murderer or stone the adulteress, for the Roman authorities avenge themselves on these things. Do you still doubt whether the law according to the letter is dead? No male goes up to appear before the Lord three times a year; (Cf. Ex 23.17; 34.23; Dt 16.16.) no sheep is being slaughtered at the Passover festival in the city that is believed the Lord God had chosen; (Dt 16.2.) no offering of the piles of first-fruits are being celebrated; no leprous diseases and no defilement of sin are being cleansed. Is it possible to doubt in all these things that the letter of the law is dead? (Cf. 2.13.15.)
…
(15) Yet the Apostle once again draws in different figures to explain the same thought of interpretation. For he adds, “But while we were in the flesh, the vices of sins, which were through the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now, having died, we have been discharged from the law in which we were being held, so that we might serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.” (Rom 7.5-6.)
(16) In these things Paul appears to have departed from one chamber and entered into another using unmarked and hidden entrances, as we said above using the example of a certain parable. (Cf. 5.1.9.) For whereas above he had been treating the law of the letter, which certainly seemed to pertain only to those who had believed from the circumcision, now, by some kind of unmarked switch, he is discussing the law of the flesh and the vices. [M1075] He does this, no doubt, because such a discussion would seem to pertain to the rest of humanity as well, not merely to those who are from the circumcision. Therefore he says, “For while we were in the flesh.” And indeed, as far as the subject is concerned, he certainly was in the flesh when he was saying these things. But “while we were in the flesh,” that is, while we were living according to the ‘flesh, “the vices of sins, which were through the law, were at work in our members.” Now which law is this through which the vices of sins are at work? Does the law of Moses, even when it is observed according to the letter, generate the vices of sins? On the contrary, it is obvious that he is speaking of that law of the members, a law that resists the law of the mind, (Cf. Rom 7.23.) about which we previously have discussed how “the law entered with the result that sin was abounding.” (Rom 5.20.) This, then, is the very law that causes the vices of sins to abound in those who live according to the flesh, with the result that they bear fruit for death. In fact, that law is in our members in order that, by striving against the law of the mind, it might lead us as captives to sin and offer these fruits to death. Origen: Commentary on the First Epistle to the Romans Book 6, Chapter 7I have recently seen two movies done on the life of Jean, and they exemplify the difficulty that historians have in truly understanding extraordinary people of the past. In contrast from what these Hollywood films have to show us, we know from the people that she fought with and those she fought against that this girl was extraordinary. The veteran soldiers that fought with her said that this young girl could use every implement of war as if she had used each of them for 30 years. She could strategize better than the best generals. The mere sight of her made the blood-thirsty English shake in their boots and run away from her. So why was it so hard for the Church to believe that this girl was sent by God, and guided by the Archangel Michael to free France from English oppression? It is straightforward to understand that the King of France, once Jean put him on the throne, was afraid of the popularity that this girl had achieved. The easiest way for him to “take care of her” was to have the Church declare her a heretic so that she could be burned at the stake. And of course, once she was declared a heretic, any other afflictions that historians wanted to prescribe to her, in order to explain away her greatest were easily accepted.
Our search for truth requires that we question long-held beliefs in order to determine if they are not the root cause for the strife in the world. History has shown us that the greatest wrongs can be accomplished by playing on false beliefs, and it is only by putting those beliefs into question that truth has been able to emerge. This is what Origen did, and taught us to do. But he and the Ionian Greeks taught us that we cannot question without basis or without reason. The only viable reference point given to us is God’s creation; nature. As a reminder, we can listen to Origen in his letter to Gregory.
But my desire for you has been that you should direct the whole force of your intelligence to Christianity as your end, and that in the way of production. And I would wish that you should take with you on the one hand those parts of the philosophy of the Greeks which are fit, as it were, to serve as general or preparatory studies for Christianity, and on the other hand so much of Geometry and Astronomy as may be helpful for the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. The children of the philosophers speak of geometry and music and grammar and rhetoric and astronomy as being ancillary to philosophy; and in the same way we might speak of philosophy itself as being ancillary to Christianity. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen-gregory.html
Because of the actions of the church founded by Constantine and Justinian, there have been very few natural scientists that have extended their study to philosophy and to the study scriptures. Likewise, there have been very few clergy who have met Origen’s requirement for the study of Scripture. I agree wholeheartedly that the results have been catastrophic, but their have been a few shining stars come out of the natural sciences: Dr. Edward Bach, Dr. Viktor Frankl, and Erwin Schrödinger to name a few noteworthy.Dear Gabriela,
My friend Teresa is a home-nurse in Switzerland and goes to people’s homes to help them. She talks with her hands and her body. She does mostly foot massage therapy, but is also a kinesiologist. She has said the most profound things to me of anyone in my life, but she is also the one that speaks very little to me.The answer to your question is that, yes, I think that you can add a great deal to what we are talking about, if it is only a few words that come from your heart. You can force others to think and better explain what they are trying to say. It is very effective when someone can stand up to a philosopher and say: “What you are saying does not reflect what I see in people or in nature. If God created this nature, than we should be able to see…”
This is the problem that I have with historians and philosophers like Edward. They separate the words of a person from their actions. You and I know that this cannot be done. If a man does not do what he says, then what he says is worthless. Do not even bother trying to pick out the good pieces of their work. Edward can accept that Origen wrote more about scripture than anyone ever has written, but that a few of things he wrote were wrong and therefore he is a heretic. I am just asking that we try to re-learn all that he knew before we attempt to say whether he is wrong, or whether we are not big enough to understand what he taught. Edward does not understand all that Origen taught and the consequences.
He believes in the “total restoration of all things”, but is not willing to accept that each soul is a unique personality, created individually by Jesus and given eternal life from God. He cannot believe that each fallen soul will return one day to its home in Heaven. That, on its path to restoration, that it must spend some time a spiritual place after its physical body dies and before it is born into a new life. That this place cannot be much different than the physical place that we live. It is hard to understand how people can believe that Heaven is completely different than Earth! Did God create something totally different when he created Earth? Is there really nothing in Heaven that is like that what we have on Earth? Or does it make more sense to say that the material world is only a shadow, a temporary copy of what exists in Heaven, and that is more variety in Heaven that there is on Earth, and not less?
So yes, Gabriela, you can add much. You hands can bring us back down to reality and force us to explain everything so that it makes sense versus the world around us.
Love Shawn
Dear gabriela,
I forgot to add that I would be happy to introduce you. Can you put down a
few ideas of what you would like to say and then I can write it up for you?
Love ShawnDear Gabriela,
I am very happy to here that Origenes comes across so well in French as he does in German and English!
Love ShawnDear Gabriela,
I hope that things are well with you. I have been busy writing a few things on the dialog that you might be interested in. Please have a look when you have a chance.
Love ShawnIn Origen’s discussion of the seed of Abraham in book 20 of his Commentary on John, I have the feeling that he was talking also about himself and his works. He had seen how the Jews failed to grasp the Word taught by Salomon after their exile in Babylon. Origen had also seen how many had failed to grasp the Word of Jesus in his time. It is likely that he foresaw that few would be able to contain the Word that he taught.
(39) Now, we would have accepted everything that has been said about Abraham’s seed and those who resemble him, if we had accepted that the following statements were not made in the literal sense, “I was not sent except to ti1e lost sheep of the house of Israel,” and, “I have not found so great faith, not even in Israel,” (Mt 15.24; Lk 7.9) and all the statements which are similar to these.
(40) These, however, to whom the Word speaks are not likely to receive the Word since he cannot proceed into them because of the surpassing superiority of his greatness; since they are still only seed of Abraham.
(41) But if, in addition to being seed of Abraham, they had cultivated the seed of Abraham and given it over to greatness and growth, the word of Jesus would have proceeded in the greatness and growth of the seed of Abraham.
(42) And you will add that to the present time the Word does not continue in those who have not advanced beyond being seed of Abraham nor come into the state of being his children.
(43) But these also wish to kill the Word, and to crush him, as it were, because they do not contain his greatness.
(44) It is always possible to see those who do not contain the Word because their vessels are too small wishing to kill the unity of the Word’s greatness, since they can contain his members after he has been destroyed and crushed.
(45) If the Word should in this way come to be in those who will destroy him, as it were, he will say, “All my bones were scattered.” (Cf. Ps 21.15) If indeed, then, anyone of us is seed of Abraham, and the Word of God does not continue in him still, let him not seek to kill the Word, but by changing from being seed of Abraham to having become a child of Abraham, he will be able to contain the Word of God whom he did not contain till then. We know that Jerome was overwhelmed by the volume of work produced by Origen. If he felt that few men could not even read the entire body of knowledge that Origen left behind, maybe he was speaking from his own personal experience? It is worth noting that Jerome was declared a saint by the same power that “scattered the bones” of Origen. In my paper “Origen: Prophet or Heretic” I found all nine charges of heresy against Origen by the Emperor to be questionable, as have others before me.We can use Origen’s analysis above to find out if the actions of historical figure and institutions were those of “children of Abraham” or not. Clearly Origen was a “child of Abraham.” But from what I have read about the lives of Jerome and Gregory of Nyssa, they were not as pure as Origen, or certainly not as pure as Jesus. As a matter of fact, what resemblance does a pope or a bishop have to their King? Jesus was a true Servant of God, and therefore humanity as was Origen. Jesus never placed Himself above anyone else, but rather He embraced the sick, weak, downtrodden and outcast, but not the rich.
It is interesting that history calls “the greatest student of Origen” a saint while at the same time declaring his teacher a heretic. By the time of Justinian we know that the church had grown into a very worldly and materialistic organization. It was no longer reaching out, as Origen did, to other beliefs, it was condemning them.
I think we should try to rediscover the entire word taught by Origen before attempting to judge whether it needs modification. As I have said before, so far in my search, I have yet to find a teaching of Origen which is in conflict with the findings of the natural sciences. This is not something that we can say about any church, which was exemplified by the inquisition against Galileo.
