“TWO GODS”: early christian polytheistic h̶e̶r̶e̶s̶y̶ orthodoxy

Origen of Alexandria, christianity greatest theologian of all time insists of his orthodox view that there are two “gods”, in his conversation¹ with a bishop named Heraclides to define the relationship of Jesus to God the Father, Heraclides admitted to believing in two Gods:

Screen Shot 2019-06-25 at 17.41.24

This evidence fom Patristic literature shows Christians did talk about another god other than the one true God.  This is inescapably polytheistic and contrary to what Jesus believe. Jesus teaches that God is only one, the Father ², his God and ours ³.

 

Footnotes

  1. Origenes – Dialogus cum Heraclide
  2. Jh 17:1
  3. Jn 21:17


Categories: Christianity

Tags: ,

66 replies

  1. Excellent.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Origen of Alexandria, christianity greatest theologian of all time . . .

    no way. where did you get that assessment?

    He is considered a heretic by the Roman Catholic Church and Bible believing Protestants. I don’t know what the EO and OO think of him.

    Like

  3. So no refutation of Origen, just nonsense comments by Kenny. This has been a bad few weeks for you, hasn’t it?

    Like

    • That was Hericlides understanding, not Origen’s. And Eric left out the very next statement by Origen himself.
      “nonsense comments” – actually, they are not non-sense, since Origen was deemed a heretic by all Christians, and so Eric calling him “the greatest theologian of all time” and bad grammar is not non-sense. It is you, Faiz, who is non-sense as a person, since all you do is throw up something that makes no sense logically, in order to obfuscate the issues. You are full of fear, so you have to insult and put forth non-sense statements. no, not bad weeks at all. You bring nothing of value because of your low character and evil heart.

      Here is a more fuller context to the Dialogue:

      Orig.: You do not appear to have answered my question. Explain what you mean. For perhaps I failed to follow you. Is the Father God?
      Heracl.: Assuredly.
      Orig.: Is the Son distinct from the Father?
      Heracl.: Of course. How can he be Son if he is also Father?
      Orig.: While being distinct from the Father is the Son himself also God?
      Heracl.: He himself is also God.
      Orig.: And do two Gods become a unity?
      Heracl.: Yes.
      Orig.: Do we confess two Gods?
      Heracl.: Yes. The power is one.

      ,b>Orig.: But as our brethren take offence at the statement that there are two Gods, we must formulate the doctrine carefully, and show in what sense they are two and in what sense the two are one God. Also the holy Scriptures have taught that several things which are two are one. And not only things which are two, for they have also taught that in some instances more than two, or even a very much larger number of things, are one. Our present task is not to broach a problematic subject only to pass it by and deal cursorily with the matter, but for the sake of the simple folk to chew up, so to speak, the meat, and little by little to instill the doctrine in the ears of our hearers. . . . Accordingly, there are many things which are two that are said in the Scriptures to be one. What passages of Scripture? Adam is one person, his wife another. Adam is distinct from his wife, and his wife is distinct from her husband. Yet it is said in the story of the creation of the world that they two are one: “For the two shall be one flesh.” Therefore, sometimes two beings can become one flesh. Notice, however, that in the case of Adam and Eve it is not said that the two shall become one spirit, nor that the two shall become one soul, but that they shall become one flesh. Again, the righteous man is distinct from Christ; but he is said by the apostle to be one with Christ: “For he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit.” Is it not true that the one is of a subordinate nature or of a low and inferior nature, while Christ’s nature is divine and glorious and blessed? Are they therefore no longer two? Yes, for the man and the woman are “no longer two but one flesh,” and the righteous man and Christ are “one spirit.” So in relation to the Father and God of the universe, our Saviour and Lord is not one flesh, nor one spirit, but something higher than flesh and spirit, namely, one God. The appropriate word when human beings are joined to one another is flesh. The appropriate word when a righteous man is joined to Christ is spirit. But the word when Christ is united to the Father is not flesh, nor spirit, but more honourable than these —God. That is why we understand in this sense “I and the Father are one.” When we pray, because of the one party let us preserve the duality, because of the other party let us hold to the unity. In this way we avoid falling into the opinion of those who have been separated from the Church and turned to the illusory notion of monarchy, who abolish the Son as distinct from the Father and virtually abolish the Father also. Nor do we fall into the other blasphemous doctrine which denies the deity of Christ. What then do the divine Scriptures mean when they say: “Beside me there is no other God, and there shall be none after me,” and “I am and there is no God but me”? In these utterances we are not to think that the unity applies to the God of the universe . . . in separation from Christ, and certainly not to Christ in separation from God. Let us rather say that the sense is the same as that of Jesus’ saying, “I and my Father are one.”

      Like

      • 😂🤣😂 More nonsense. So Origen was a heretic, yet you still try to make him out to be an orthodox trinitarian.

        Even in the part you included, he clearly said that there are 2 gods but because other Christians will take offense, that statement should be carefully worded! And of course, this was before the Nicene council, so we see how Christians were struggling with how to properly formulate their Creed without offending anyone. Wow!

        And notice that he doesn’t even mention the holy spirit! What a mess Christianity is and always has been!

        Liked by 3 people

      • It makes sense, if you take care to read with comprehension, which apparently, you are unable to do.

        It is you who are non-sense, and an evil character.

        Like

      • Waaah, waaah, waaah…keep whining…

        No, it doesn’t make sense. It further proves what a mess Christianity has always been. The only ones who claim it makes “sense” are brainwashed apologists who would even believe that 2+2=5 if their faith required them to do so.

        Like

      • Faizy / QB:
        You are being deliberately obtuse and so stupid you cannot understand the nuances of the doctrine. There is only One God by substance / essence, and there are three persons (a different category) – personal relations within the One God.

        But you are too dense to grasp deep things.

        Like

      • 😂😂😂 Kenny, you are being naturally stupid. I am not talking about your moronic explanations of the foolish trinity doctrine. I am talking about Origen and how the early Christians were struggling to develop and articulate their doctrine. Origen clearly stated there were 2 gods. You, with your brainwashed trinitarian mindset, are anachronistically trying to turn Origen into a trinitarian. He clearly was not one. The first and main problem for you is that he didn’t say there were 3 gods (including the holy spirit). So any attempt to magically pull the TRInity from Origen is doomed to failure. At best, you could say that he was some sort of binitarian or at worse a polytheist.

        But you are too dense and brainwashed to grasp these simple things. Most clowns like you are.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Actually, it was Hericleides was the one who said “two gods”, but you are too stupid to see that.

        You don’t know enough about what you are trying to understand. You don’t know what you are talking about.

        “Then, Thirdly, the apostles related that the Holy Spirit was associated in honour and dignity with the Father and the Son. ”
        (Origen, De Principiis, Preface, 4)

        ” We must understand, therefore, that as the Son, who alone knows the Father, reveals Him to whom He will, so the Holy Spirit, who alone searches the deep things of God, reveals God to whom He will: “For the Spirit bloweth where He listeth.” (John 3:8) We are not, however, to suppose that the Spirit derives His knowledge through revelation from the Son. For if the Holy Spirit knows the Father through the Son’s revelation, He passes from a state of ignorance into one of knowledge; but it is alike impious and foolish to confess the Holy Spirit, and yet to ascribe to Him ignorance. For even although something else existed before the Holy Spirit, it was not by progressive advancement that He came to be the Holy Spirit; as if any one should venture to say, that at the time when He was not yet the Holy Spirit He was ignorant of the Father, but that after He had received knowledge He was made the Holy Spirit. For if this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the Unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit. When we use, indeed, such terms as “always” or “was,” or any other designation of time, they are not to be taken absolutely, but with due allowance; for while the significations of these words relate to time, and those subjects of which we speak are spoken of by a stretch of language as existing in time, they nevertheless surpass in their real nature all conception of the finite understanding.

        5. Nevertheless it seems proper to inquire what is the reason why he who is regenerated by God unto salvation has to do both with Father and Son and Holy Spirit, and does not obtain salvation unless with the co-operation of the entire Trinity; and why it is impossible to become partaker of the Father or the Son without the Holy Spirit.
        Origen, On First Principles, (De Principiis, 1:3:4-5)

        Origen was a Trinitarian, although did not have the exact same formulations of later writers, like Athanasius, the Cappadocian fathers, or Augustine.

        So, Origen is not a Binitarian. You are defeated.
        You are out of your area of understanding. You don’t know what you are talking about.

        Like

  4. I made a typo on the beginning of the quote that Eric left out, which did not embolden the first sentence:

    Orig.: But as our brethren take offence at the statement that there are two Gods, we must formulate the doctrine carefully, and show in what sense they are two and in what sense the two are one God.

    Like

  5. This does not mean I agree with Hericlides or Origen in that way that they communicated, because there is only one God, period.

    1. This is to show that Eric is wrong to call Origen “the greatest Christian theologian of all”

    Origen of Alexandria, christianity [sic.] greatest theologian of all time

    and
    2. that it was Hericlides false statement of “2 gods”

    and
    3. Origen clarifies the idea of “2 gods” into “I and the Father are one” (one God) “one God in one way”

    Like

    • It’s not you who decides who is the greatest christian theologian in the christian history, you dont have to agree with what I wrote but even Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a peer-reviewed academic resources call Origen one of the greatest Christian theologians.

      Origen satisfied with Heraclides reply, he even further explain how such belief of two Gods is “true” from scriptures.

      Liked by 2 people

      • @ Eric

        He’s ONE of the greatest not THEE greatest lol.

        Anyways yeah, the thing Ken is ignoring is Origen then gave example to clarify his meaning of two gods. A husband and wife are not one entity literally and there is a hierarchy in the household.

        Liked by 2 people

      • lol the greatest means the greatest, … I sometimes feel words become meaningless talking to trinitarians.
        Yeah, if we read the whole conversation it follows that it is Origen who promote this belief in two gods and even try to formulate it in a doctrinal formula.. imagine it is coming from the GREATEST theologian in christendom errr.. I mean one of the GREATEST.. 😋

        Liked by 1 person

    • What I find it interesting is that christians seemingly agree with Heraclides & Origen. The problem seems to be just semantic more than anything else. Christians now just avoid saying 2 gods! Other than that, everything else indicates to 2 gods!

      Liked by 2 people

  6. Just leaving these here for everyone for the calm and rationale discussion that will ensue:

    “Precisely because his legacy lived on, undoubtedly one of the greatest genius the early church ever produced, and because his memory and teachings were revered by generations of later Christian thinkers…his reputation had to be something the Church had to control and correct.”

    https://books.google.com/books?id=riEdrWEDFq0C&pg=PA13&dq=Origen+ordination&hl=en#v=onepage&q=greatest&f=false

    “Jerome declared Origen to be “an immortal genius”. In his preface to his book, Hebrew names, he acclaimed him as “”the man whom no one but an ignoramus could fail to admit to have been the greatest teacher of the church since the Apostles.”

    https://books.google.com/books?id=riEdrWEDFq0C&pg=PA13&dq=Origen+ordination&hl=en#v=onepage&q=genius&f=false

    “Origen became the archetypical Christian scholar…His impact on subsequent Christian tradition was immense and is still, to a large extent, unappreciated…Most of the Church Fathers who lived after Origen scarcely did anything but copy his commentaries and treatises on Scripture ”

    https://books.google.com/books/about/Origen_Introduction_1_The_making_of_a_sc.html?id=8TAtFVoQXiEC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q&f=false

    “Eusebius…used… to promote Origen as a scholar and saint.”

    https://books.google.com/books/about/Origen_Introduction_1_The_making_of_a_sc.html?id=8TAtFVoQXiEC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=snippet&q=eusebius&f=false

    “Tertullian was the “Origen of the West” and Origen was the “Tertullian of the East”.
    https://books.google.com/books?id=zexBAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA100&dq=Origen+Father+of+Theology&hl=en#v=snippet&q=origen&f=false

    “Even though he is considered one of the most important, theologians in the history of Christianity, he was never canonized as a Saint and his memory in all major branches of Christianity is marred by suspicion of heresy and by his posthumous condemnation by a general council of the church in 553.”

    https://books.google.com/books?id=zexBAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA100&dq=Origen+Father+of+Theology&hl=en#v=snippet&q=origen&f=false

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Note being illogical is not deep.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Also, red flag here in the link Ken posted:

    “But as our brethren take offence at the statement that there are two Gods, we must formulate the doctrine carefully, and show in what sense they are two and in what sense the two are one God. Also the holy Scriptures have taught that several things which are two are one. And not only things which are two, for they have also taught that in some instances more than two, or even a very much larger number of things, are one. Our present task is not to broach a problematic subject only to pass it by and deal cursorily with the matter, but for the sake of the simple folk to chew up, so to speak, the meat, and little by little to instill the doctrine in the ears of our hearers…”

    He then proceeds makes a terrible analogy of Adam(as) and Eve’s marriage.

    “Accordingly, there are many things which are two that are said in the Scriptures to be one. What passages of Scripture? Adam is one person, his wife another. Adam is distinct from his wife, and his wife is distinct from her husband. Yet it is said in the story of the creation of the world that they two are one: “For the two shall be one flesh.” Therefore, sometimes two beings can become one flesh. Notice, however, that in the case of Adam and Eve it is not said that the two shall become one spirit, nor that the two shall become one soul, but that they shall become one flesh. ”

    He then tries to alter a statement to show Jesus(as) and God being equal (despite the fact that according to Christian texts and his analogy they wouldn’t be)

    “In this way we avoid falling into…blasphemous doctrine which denies the deity of Christ. What then do the divine Scriptures mean when they say: “Beside me there is no other God, and there shall be none after me,” and “I am and there is no God but me”? In these utterances we are not to think that the unity applies to the God of the universe”

    So it appears he was saying their “One” in the sense that a married couple is “One” (i.e. metaphorically) but he was by all definitions a pagan and fuel for Hell if he didn’t repent before his death.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Origen considered the holy Spirit to be inferior to the Father and son, and the son inferior to the Father. So he was not a trinitarian. He was influenced by Neoplatonism. He referred to the son as “second god”. It’s no wonder he was labelled a heretic hundreds of years later. But until then, he was extremely popular and influential.

    https://www.iep.utm.edu/origen-of-alexandria/#H3

    “Origen begins his treatise On First Principles by establishing, in typical Platonic fashion, a divine hierarchical triad; but instead of calling these principles by typical Platonic terms like monad, dyad, and world-soul, he calls them “Father,” “Christ,” and “Holy Spirit,” though he does describe these principles using Platonic language. The first of these principles, the Father, is a perfect unity, complete unto Himself, and without body – a purely spiritual mind. Since God the Father is, for Origen, “personal and active,” it follows that there existed with Him, always, an entity upon which to exercise His intellectual activity. This entity is Christ the Son, the Logos, or Wisdom (Sophia), of God, the first emanation of the Father, corresponding to Numenius’ “second god,” as we have seen above (section 2). The third and last principle of the divine triad is the Holy Spirit, who “proceeds from the Son and is related to Him as the Son is related to the Father” (A. Tripolitis 1978, p. 94). Here is Origen explaining the status of the Holy Spirit, in a passage preserved in the original Greek:

    The God and Father, who holds the universe together, is superior to every being that exists, for he imparts to each one from his own existence that which each one is; the Son, being less than the Father, is superior to rational creatures alone (for he is second to the Father); the Holy Spirit is still less, and dwells within the saints alone. So that in this way the power of the Father is greater than that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and that of the Son is more than that of the Holy Spirit, and in turn the power of the Holy Spirit exceeds that of every other holy being (Fragment 9 [Koetschau] tr. Butterworth 1966, pp. 33-34, and footnote).

    This graded hierarchy reveals an allotment of power to the second and third members of the Trinity: the Father’s power is universal, but the Son’s corresponds only to rational creatures, while the Spirit’s power corresponds strictly to the “saints” or those who have achieved salvation. Such a structure of divine influence on the created realm is found much later in the system of the Neoplatonic philosopher Proclus (see J. Dillon, in G. Vesey, ed. 1989).”

    Liked by 2 people

  10. @ QB

    That’s a million-dollar question, QB. Keep in mind the like of Eusebius (who they take their history from) and Jerome defended his “greatness”

    Liked by 1 person

  11. You wasted a lot of cut and paste,etc.

    For, I did not say he was not considered a great theologian for his time; the problem was calling him

    “Christianity’s GREATEST Theologian of all time” . . . ”

    of all time” !!!

    He was a great scholar, and contributed a lot of great things . . .

    Eric wrote:
    \”christianity greatest theologian of all time”

    All your quotes don’t match up to that, Stew.

    Clearly the apostle Paul, Athanasius, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas (for Roman Catholics) and Calvin and Edwards (for Reformed Protestants) are greater giants, “for all time”

    Like

  12. @ Ken

    Finally, Origen in clarifying the position separates them into a “metaphorical one” like a husband and wife. Now maybe he gave a bad example but he is DEFINITELY saying they are two separate gods. Again let me copy my post for you:

    “But as our brethren take offence at the statement that there are two Gods, we must formulate the doctrine carefully, and show in what sense they are two and in what sense the two are one God. Also the holy Scriptures have taught that several things which are two are one. And not only things which are two, for they have also taught that in some instances more than two, or even a very much larger number of things, are one. Our present task is not to broach a problematic subject only to pass it by and deal cursorily with the matter, but for the sake of the simple folk to chew up, so to speak, the meat, and little by little to instill the doctrine in the ears of our hearers…”

    He then proceeds makes the terrible analogy of Adam(as) and Eve’s marriage.

    “Accordingly, there are many things which are two that are said in the Scriptures to be one. What passages of Scripture? Adam is one person, his wife another. Adam is distinct from his wife, and his wife is distinct from her husband. Yet it is said in the story of the creation of the world that they two are one: “For the two shall be one flesh.” Therefore, sometimes two beings can become one flesh. Notice, however, that in the case of Adam and Eve it is not said that the two shall become one spirit, nor that the two shall become one soul, but that they shall become one flesh. ”

    He then tries to alter a statement to show Jesus(as) and God being equal (despite the fact that according to Christian texts and his analogy they aren’t)

    “In this way we avoid falling into…blasphemous doctrine which denies the deity of Christ. What then do the divine Scriptures mean when they say: “Beside me there is no other God, and there shall be none after me,” and “I am and there is no God but me”? In these utterances we are not to think that the unity applies to the God of the universe”

    He may have changed his views or something but in this example, he is clearly stating there are two gods.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. @ Ken

    I’m stupid but you believe 1+1+1=1 got it.

    My bad I’ll guess Origen will have to settle with being one of the greatest “genius” of the early Church and the next best teacher after the Apostles.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. Pennywise, Origen called the son the “second god” dummy. Get over yourself.

    To say that Origen was a trinitarian is laughable. He didn’t know anything of the sort. To him, the three beings were in a hierarchy, and were not “coequal”. That’s tritheism, not trinity.

    Liked by 2 people

    • “Then, Thirdly, the apostles related that the Holy Spirit was associated in honour and dignity with the Father and the Son. ”
      (Origen, De Principiis, Preface, 4)

      ” We must understand, therefore, that as the Son, who alone knows the Father, reveals Him to whom He will, so the Holy Spirit, who alone searches the deep things of God, reveals God to whom He will: “For the Spirit bloweth where He listeth.” (John 3:8) We are not, however, to suppose that the Spirit derives His knowledge through revelation from the Son. For if the Holy Spirit knows the Father through the Son’s revelation, He passes from a state of ignorance into one of knowledge; but it is alike impious and foolish to confess the Holy Spirit, and yet to ascribe to Him ignorance. For even although something else existed before the Holy Spirit, it was not by progressive advancement that He came to be the Holy Spirit; as if any one should venture to say, that at the time when He was not yet the Holy Spirit He was ignorant of the Father, but that after He had received knowledge He was made the Holy Spirit. For if this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the Unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit. When we use, indeed, such terms as “always” or “was,” or any other designation of time, they are not to be taken absolutely, but with due allowance; for while the significations of these words relate to time, and those subjects of which we speak are spoken of by a stretch of language as existing in time, they nevertheless surpass in their real nature all conception of the finite understanding.

      5. Nevertheless it seems proper to inquire what is the reason why he who is regenerated by God unto salvation has to do both with Father and Son and Holy Spirit, and does not obtain salvation unless with the co-operation of the entire Trinity; and why it is impossible to become partaker of the Father or the Son without the Holy Spirit.
      Origen, On First Principles, (De Principiis, 1:3:4-5)

      Origen was a Trinitarian, although did not have the exact same formulations of later writers, like Athanasius, the Cappadocian fathers, or Augustine.

      So, Origen is not a Binitarian. You are defeated.
      You are out of your area of understanding. You don’t know what you are talking about.

      Like

      • @ Ken

        Allow me to highlight some interesting parts here in the quote provided:

        “We must understand, therefore, that as the Son, who alone knows the Father, reveals Him to whom He will, so the Holy Spirit, who alone searches the deep things of God, reveals God to whom He will”

        This is contradictory statements. As Origen just dismissed (because he saw the issue) without evidence, either:

        A. The Holy Spirit is NOT ignorant of the Father, thus disproving his statement about the Son and thus makes an even larger philosophical conundrum of the verse that Christians love to quote to prove their idolatry:

        “No one goes through the Father except through me” (John 14:6)

        This would then include the Holy Spirit as well. And thus disproves the Trinity.

        B. The Holy Spirit goes from a state of ignorance to gaining knowledge

        God is forever All-Knowing at all times or thus can’t claim the attribute for Himself because that would mean there was a time when He was in a state of ignorance even if it was revealed to Him later. Even though the Son admits to being not All-Knowing in Mark 13:32 and Matthew 24:36 (which is enough to disprove the Trinity) as mentioned the alternative of the Holy Spirit having to gain knowledge from the Son proves it is not All-Knowing a well.

        Furthermore, the Father is an aspect of God according to the Trinity, so the Holy Spirit can’t be God if “it alone” searches the deep things of God. God searches the deep things of Himself? Moving on:

        “For…although something else existed before the Holy Spirit”

        So something existed before God, Ken? This is interesting, so the Holy Spirit is not eternal therefore not God and thus disproves the Trinity. Moving on:

        “such terms as “always” or “was,” or any other designation of time, they are not to be taken absolutely, but with due allowance; for while the significations of these words relate to time, and those subjects of which we speak are spoken of by a stretch of language as existing in time, they nevertheless surpass in their real nature all conception of the finite understanding.”

        Yeah, this philosophical ramble makes words means nothing, “but with due allowance” means at ONE POINT it wasn’t there so you can’t say “always” or “was”. You can try to throw as much mumbo jumbo as you want but this makes no sense whatsoever.

        In conclusion, man, it sure is great to be a Muslim as it allows one to cut through all this literary diarrhea and just worship the One God that Jesus(as) worshipped. As I said earlier, saying nonsensical things does not make something “deep”. I can play this game of philosophy but God keeps revelation very simple so that both the idiot and scholar can understand what is required of him to go to Heaven.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Devastating! Kenny’s pathetic revisionism and anachronism lie in ruins. Or to put it another way, Kenny the clown got nuked!

        Liked by 1 person

      • 😂🤣 Pennywise, it’s you who are defeated/nuked/roasted and it’s you who doesn’t know what you’re talking about. Your dishonesty and deliberate twisting of Origen shows how pathetic trinitarians are. They like to have their cake and eat it too.

        Origen was not a trinitarian. And yes, he was not a binitarian either. When he talked about “two gods”, he was affirming his belief in polytheism, and by adding the holy spirit, he became a tritheist. This stemmed from his neoplatonic heritage. The belief in the divine “triad” was common in Hellenistic culture.

        So you are defeated, you raving lunatic. Get over yourself and stop trying to revise history with your filthy trinity nonsense. Lol, you’re like Hindutva fanatics! 😂

        Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, Origen draws his theology from typical hellenistic fashion only with biblical terminology. There is the One, the “First God,” or Father, then a “second god” the Son, proceeding from a first, whom he also called Demiurge.

        More information on ancient hellenistic influence in the formulation of the earliest orthodoxy  I recommend  Dr. M. D. Litwa, Iesus Deus: The Early Christian Depiction of Jesus as a Mediterranean God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014). Dr Litwa  MDiv. (Emory), ThM. (Duke), PhD (Virginia) is a scholar of ancient Mediterranean religions with a focus on the New Testament and early Christianity. I have read his book and I think he make a compelling case that Hellenistic theology influence christology.

        Screen Shot 2019-07-31 at 23.03.16

        Liked by 2 people

      • Yet, he clearly said that they are one God and used the Greek term for “triad” and “Trinity”. It was his musing in the development of the more precise formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity, between Tertullian and Athanasius and the Cappodican Fathers and Augustine.

        Like

      • Amazing! He clearly said they were SEPARATE gods and yet Pennywise still insists that he was a trinitarian! Facepalm moment…

        Like

  15. @ Eric

    Let me put my pretentious philosophical hat back on, ahem:

    Technically, ONE of the greatest theologians means like the Top 10.

    Taking it back off, yeah he’s acting like you quoted Arius or something lol. Even if we concede that Ken is correct and he is not THE greatest but ONE of the greatest theologians of Christendom he still basically said the unity is metaphorical and tried to frame a doctrine around it. Also, you must not have read Origen’s other writings Eric words do mean nothing:

    “such terms as “always” or “was,” or any other designation of time, they are not to be taken absolutely, but with due allowance”

    Like how calling something that is polytheistic monotheism changes the matter. Boy if this is the “Genius” of the Early Church one has to shutter at the rest of them.

    Liked by 3 people

  16. @ Eric

    Ohhhh hohoho you’ve only scratched the surface. The authors of John took Philo’s philosophy regarding the Logos and applied it to Jesus(as) tell me if any of this sounds familiar:

    Philo used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being, or demiurge.[13] Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect Form, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world.[14] The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo “the first-born of God.”[14]

    Philo also wrote that “the Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things together and binding all the parts, and prevents them from being dissolved and separated.”[15]

    Philo considers these divine powers in their totality also, treating them as a single independent being, which he designates “Logos”. This name, which he borrowed from Greek philosophy, was first used by Heraclitus and then adopted by the Stoics. Philo’s conception of the Logos is influenced by both of these schools. From Heraclitus he borrowed the conception of the “dividing Logos” (λόγος τομεύς), which calls the various objects into existence by the combination of contrasts (“Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit,” § 43 [i. 503]), and from Stoicism, the characterization of the Logos as the active and vivifying power. But Philo borrowed also Platonic elements in designating the Logos as the “idea of ideas” and the “archetypal idea”.[16]

    There are, in addition, Biblical elements: there are Biblical passages in which the word of Yhwh is regarded as a power acting independently and existing by itself, as Isaiah 55:11;[17] these ideas were further developed by later Judaism in the doctrines of the Divine Word creating the world, the divine throne-chariot and its cherub, the divine splendor and its shekinah, and the name of God as well as the names of the angels; and Philo borrowed from all these in elaborating his doctrine of the Logos. He calls the Logos “second god [deuteros theos]” (Questions and Answers on Genesis 2:62), the “archangel of many names,” “taxiarch” (corps-commander), the “name of God,” also the “heavenly Adam”,[18] the “man, the word of the eternal God.”

    The Logos is also designated as “high priest”, in reference to the exalted position which the high priest occupied after the Exile as the real center of the Jewish state. The Logos, like the high priest, is the expiator of sins, and the mediator and advocate for men: ἱκέτης,[19] and παράκλητος.[20]

    From Alexandrian theology Philo borrowed the idea of wisdom as the mediator; he thereby somewhat confused his doctrine of the Logos, regarding wisdom as the higher principle from which the Logos proceeds, and again coordinating it with the latter.

    Philo’s conception of the Logos is directly related to the Middle Platonic view of God as unmoved and utterly transcendent. As such, the Logos becomes the aspect of the divine that operates in the world—through whom the world is created and sustained.[21] Philo, in connecting his doctrine of the Logos with Scripture, first of all bases on Gen. i. 27 the relation of the Logos to God. He translates this passage as follows: “He made man after the image of God,” concluding therefrom that an image of God existed.[22] This image of God is the type for all other things (the “Archetypal Idea” of Plato), a seal impressed upon things. The Logos is a kind of shadow cast by God, having the outlines but not the blinding light of the Divine Being.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo%27s_view_of_God

    But hey what do we know, we can’t understand “deep” things apparently…

    Liked by 2 people

    • “Then, Thirdly, the apostles related that the Holy Spirit was associated in honour and dignity with the Father and the Son. ”
      (Origen, De Principiis, Preface, 4)

      Like

      • “…the Holy Spirit is still less, and dwells within the saints alone. So that in this way the power of the Father is greater than that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and that of the Son is more than that of the Holy Spirit, and in turn the power of the Holy Spirit exceeds that of every other holy being (Fragment 9 [Koetschau] tr. Butterworth 1966, pp. 33-34, and footnote).”

        Like

  17. For if this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the Unity of the Trinity, [ yet He is] i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit. When we use, indeed, such terms as “always” or “was,” or any other designation of time, they are not to be taken absolutely, but with due allowance; for while the significations of these words relate to time, and those subjects of which we speak are spoken of by a stretch of language as existing in time, they nevertheless surpass in their real nature all conception of the finite understanding.

    5. Nevertheless it seems proper to inquire what is the reason why he who is regenerated by God unto salvation has to do both with Father and Son and Holy Spirit, and does not obtain salvation unless with the co-operation of the entire Trinity; and why it is impossible to become partaker of the Father or the Son without the Holy Spirit.
    Origen, On First Principles, (De Principiis, 1:3:4-5)

    Like

    • From Numenius, Origen likely adopted the conception of a “second god” proceeding from a first, ineffable being called the One, “First God,” or Father. Numenius referred to this “second god” as Demiurge or craftsman, and taught that he created the cosmos by imitating the intellectual content of the “First God.” Origen applied this basic notion to his doctrine of Christ, whom he also called Demiurge (Commentary on John 1.22), and went on to describe Christ as a reflection of the Truth of the Father, stating that compared to human beings Christ is Truth, but compared to the Father He is falsehood (Jerome, Epistle 92, quoting Origen; see also On First Principles 1.2.6).

      Like

      • Faiz / QB – you are quoting a tertiary source, who is quoting a secondary source, and the claim that that is from Origen’s “On First Principles” 1.2.6 is just flat out wrong.

        Here is the relevant section from the primary source:

        For the Son is the Word, and therefore we are not to understand that anything in Him is cognisable by the senses. He is wisdom, and in wisdom there can be no suspicion of anything corporeal. He is the true light, which enlightens every man that cometh into this world; but He has nothing in common with the light of this sun. Our Saviour, therefore, is the image of the invisible God, inasmuch as compared with the Father Himself He is the truth: and as compared with us, to whom He reveals the Father, He is the image by which we come to the knowledge of the Father, whom no one knows save the Son, and he to whom the Son is pleased to reveal Him. And the method of revealing Him is through the understanding. For He by whom the Son Himself is understood, understands, as a consequence, the Father also, according to His own words: “He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father also.”

        Origen, On First Principles, 1.2.6

        http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.v.ii.ii.html

        Like

      • Unless we have the original of origen 1.2.6 (which we dont) we never know what Origen wrote. Your version may be an interpolation. Interestingly according to E. C. Marsh, in the Synodical Letter of Theophilus to the Bishops of Palestine and of Cyprus, Origen did write that “The Son compared with us is truth, but compared with the Father he is falsehood” in which he was condemned.

        Liked by 1 person

      • No, that is the standard version of the original source. “may be an interpolation” is just speculation on your part.

        Like

      • The source you linked to has the same thing as the one I linked to. There is no evidence of textual variants or interpolations.

        For the Son is the Word, and therefore we are not to understand that anything in Him is cognisable by the senses. He is wisdom, and in wisdom there can be no suspicion of anything corporeal. He is the true light, which enlightens every man that cometh into this world; but He has nothing in common with the light of this sun. Our Saviour, therefore, is the image of the invisible God, inasmuch as compared with the Father Himself He is the truth: and as compared with us, to whom He reveals the Father, He is the image by which we come to the knowledge of the Father, whom no one knows save the Son, and he to whom the Son is pleased to reveal Him. And the method of revealing Him is through the understanding. For He by whom the Son Himself is understood, understands, as a consequence, the Father also, according to His own words: “He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father also.” (Origen, On First Principles, 1.2.6)

        http://ecmarsh.com/fathers/anf/ANF-04/anf04-45.htm#P6244_1101010

        Like

      • There is NO Origen Greek original of Origen’s “On the First Principles” these online text are heavily abridged Latin translation by a latin translator Rufinus (397) in which he heavily modified Origen’s text omitting and altering any parts which disagreed with contemporary Christian orthodoxy.
        The version which has statement “The Son compared with us is truth, but compared with the Father he is falsehood” is surviving quotation of Jerome (a latin church father) ‘s translation of Origen works, driven by his dismay of Rufinus’s lack of fidelity to the original Greek. However Jerome’s original translation too has been lost in its entirety. So again we dont have the original of origen 1.2.6 and we never know what Origen wrote. One thing that most scholars agree is that Rufinus version is an interpolation of Origen original, to fit his latin orthodoxy agenda. So no, it is not my speculation.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Yes, basically, this was a disagreement between Jerome and Rufinus (they were friends, but had later disagreements on this issue). Hard to know which one was right, since we no longer have Jerome’s translation, nor the Greek translation. Rufinus suspected that other false teachers were abusing Origen’s writings and writing lies about it.
        see below:

        “Meanwhile, in 397, Rufinus published a Latin translation of Origen’s On First Principles.[221][228][222][124] Rufinus was convinced that Origen’s original treatise had been interpolated by heretics and that these interpolations were the source of the heterodox teachings found in it.[228] He therefore heavily modified Origen’s text, omitting and altering any parts which disagreed with contemporary Christian orthodoxy.[124][228] In the introduction to this translation, Rufinus mentioned that Jerome had studied under Origen’s disciple Didymus the Blind, implying that Jerome was a follower of Origen.[221][226] Jerome was so incensed by this that he resolved to produce his own Latin translation of On the First Principles, in which he promised to translate every word exactly as it was written and lay bare Origen’s heresies to the whole world.[124][221][222] Jerome’s translation has been lost in its entirety.[124]”

        Jerome’s fragment that you are quoting, however, is contradictory to the other material from Origen that I provided; so it seems probable that Rufinus was correct.

        Origen’s main heresies was his denial of hell, denial of a future bodily resurrection, and speculations on the Devil and universal salvation – that everyone, even the Devil, will eventually be saved.

        On the doctrine of the Trinity, he tended toward subordinationism, but it was not Arianism; since he believed in the eternal generation of the Son/Word (that the Son/Word was from eternity past coming out from the Father – light rays of light from the sun.)

        Like

      • Origen’s theology is similar to Arianism with the notable difference that Origen consider the son as second god albeit lesser in power, while Arian considers the son as created being. Origen’s “Trinity” are far different with the Nicene Creed because of the Father is the the principle of existence, the monadic top ladder of hellenistic platonic model. It is polytheistic in nature by countenancing more than One God albeit with one supremacy amongst these “Gods” that is the Father.

        Like

      • nor the Greek translation.

        should have been:

        nor the Greek original of Origen

        Like

    • It is clear what Origen means is the , Father,  Son of God, and the Holy Spirit were distinct entities the first God, the second “god” and the third spirit entity begotten from this second lesser god and neither the second god and the spirt were equal to the first God the Father in power, rank, or authority. This isn’t monotheism, this is gnostic/hellenistic system that the highest god that created lesser gods.

      Origen further wrote:“The God and Father, who holds the universe together, is superior to every being that exists, for He imparts to each one from His own existence that which each one is; the Son, being less than the Father, is superior to rational creatures alone (for He is second to the Father); the Holy Spirit is still less and dwells within the saints alone.  So that in this way the power of the Father is greater than that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; that of the Son is more than that of the Holy Spirit. . .

      “It is also a question for investigation, whether the “only begotten” and “first-born of every creature” is to be called “substance of substances,”. . . while above all there is His Father and God.

      So this is what early christian scholar believe, the greatest theologian the church ever produced.. this is a typical gnostic/helenistic gods,  in a divine hierarchy: the monad, dyad, and world-soul…

      Liked by 1 person

      • @ Eric

        That quote though: 👀👀👀👀👀👀

        Just going to give a quick correction, because remember Ken is going to hair split ONE of the greatest theologians lol. Also in Origen’s defense, this is what Paul seems to believe as well the authors of the gospel of John.

        Like

  18. Larger context of Origen’s statement, showing belief in One God, and the three persons, though he does not use the term “person”.

    4. The particular points clearly delivered in the teaching of the apostles are as follow:—

    First, That there is one God, who created and arranged all things, and who, when nothing existed, called all things into being—God from the first creation and foundation of the world—the God of all just men, of Adam, Abel, Seth, Enos, Enoch, Noe, Sere, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the twelve patriarchs, Moses, and the prophets; and that this God in the last days, as He had announced beforehand by His prophets, sent our Lord Jesus Christ to call in the first place Israel to Himself, and in the second place the Gentiles, after the unfaithfulness of the people of Israel. This just and good God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Himself gave the law and the prophets, and the Gospels, being also the God of the apostles and of the Old and New Testaments.

    Secondly, That Jesus Christ Himself, who came (into the world), was born of the Father before all creatures; that, after He had been the servant of the Father in the creation of all things—“For by Him were all things made” He in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was; that He assumed a body like to our own, differing in this respect only, that it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit: that this Jesus Christ was truly born, and did truly suffer, and did not endure this death common (to man) in appearance only, but did truly die; that He did truly rise from the dead; and that after His resurrection He conversed with His disciples, and was taken up (into heaven).

    Then, Thirdly, the apostles related that the Holy Spirit was associated in honour and dignity with the Father and the Son. But in His case it is not clearly distinguished whether He is to be regarded as born or innate, or also as a Son of God or not: for these are points which have to be inquired into out of sacred Scripture according to the best of our ability, and which demand careful investigation. And that this Spirit inspired each one of the saints, whether prophets or apostles; and that there was not one Spirit in the men of the old dispensation, and another in those who were inspired at the advent of Christ, is most clearly taught throughout the Churches.

    Origen De Principiis. (On First Principles, Preface, 4)

    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.v.i.html

    Like

  19. And Kenny keeps biting the dust.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: