"Who is so silly as to believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, planted a paradise eastward of Eden, and set in it a visible and palpable tree of life, of such a sort that anyone who tasted of its fruit with his bodily teeth would gain eternal life?" ( Origen, 'On first Principles, trans. G.W. Butterworth -Notre Dame: Ave Maria Press, 2013 ) Origen wasn't 'silly', (well most of the time at least), so he must have thought there must exist more plausible ways of understanding the story than what it literally suggests when treated as exclusively actual history. .
A good point. As one who previously felt very strongly that the truth and power of the Gospel relied heavily on a literal reading of the Fall, having looking at it in other ways more aligned with current Scientific understandings of the origins of the human race has been a challenge to my faith. If the Bible, including Genesis, shouldn't be treated as an infallible source book on history and biology; then what exactly should it be treated as? Maybe it's better viewed as a collection of inspired stories and wisdom texts whose value isn't in its historiocity and factuality but rather in its illustration of the Church's understanding of the spiritual principles of God and the Universe, guiding us along the path of theosis and providing consolation, hope, and a sense of order in the chaos of our everyday lives. I suppose I can live with that. But that does make Our Lord's references to original sin and even his justification for the lifelong obligation of marriage more mystical and allegorical than neatly literal. I wonder how that impacts our understanding of His role as Savior? Should that be viewed as more allegorical too?
I see no logical or practical reason to regard Christ's atonement as allegorical, though it could be regarded as an acted parable. He was often found doing that during his ministry on earth. Why not even in his death and resurrection? He often deliberately fulfilled prophesy too. Obviously from early times the church regarded his death as something rather more significant than just another Roman execution. Every event leading up to it and following it involving him was an event of significance. The whole creaton myth contains events of significance, it's just that perhaps the significance may not be literally historical, the way we now regard history. History, the way we now view it, is quite a relatively new invention actually. That story in chapters 2-4 was written long before history, as we know it, was invented and the events related refer to a 'once upon a time' period, before civilisation or even writing was invented. .
I have always felt that Origen is important in the development of the Church's thinking and theology. The Church has condemned some of his thinking, and some of his work is as apposite today as it ever was, and most notably here the way we handle the text of the Old Testament.
Fair points, Tiffy. I have no reason to doubt the essential truthfulness of the Gospel story. However, I don't think it beyond the pale to think that at least some of the events recorded in the Gospels didn't happen literally as they were described. I think of Joseph Campbell's take on the Ascension, for example. He said, "We know that Jesus could not have ascended to heaven because there is no physical heaven anywhere in the universe. Even ascending at the speed of light, Jesus would still be in the galaxy." Which is a fair point. Was this language poetical, relaying symbolically an event that was primarily spiritual and internal? Consider this. This kind of incredible and miraculous event is the climax, the final event of Our Lord's earthly ministry and was witnessed by all of the Apostles, and yet only Luke and Acts describe it. And even those accounts conflict in chronology. There are other such events that, if taken literally, are clearly errors. But, if they are poetic and allegorical, then they can be read to convey a spiritual meaning that does not need to be factual to convey truth. Whether or not the Apostles literally witnessed Our Lord levitate into the clouds does not change the truth of Our Lord's message of universal and unconditional love, compassion, and non-judgment or His call to forgive our enemies, feed the poor, and comfort the downtrodden. In the same way, whether or not a talking snake tricked a naked woman into eating an apple in a garden in Iraq 6000-ish years ago doesn't change the essential truth that there is a brokenness in humanity, a nagging impulse to do wrong even when we know what is right and that there's an aching emptiness within each of us that cries out for a loving and forgiving God to heal our brokenness and show us a way to be better than who we are.
Mar 16:15 And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Mar 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. Mar 10:24 And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God! Mar 10:25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” Mat 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Mat 7:22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ Mat 7:23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ Mat 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Mat 25:42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, Mat 25:43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Mat 25:44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Mat 25:45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ Mat 25:46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Rev 22:11 Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.” Rev 22:12 “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done. Rev 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” Oops, I got distracted and was reading my Bible. Umm, you were saying something about our Lord's unconditional love and non-judgment?
The general consensus of the early Church was that the scriptures were to be viewed as fundamentally a theological work. Conveying to humanity God's desire for a relationship with us, and His work of salvation. The Desert Fathers and the Monastics, through sapiential (wisdom) theology, expressed this view and expanded upon it. They held that many passages did not have to be interpreted literally but were instead imparting truths in a way that could be easily understood. Origen pushed this idea to the limit but I don't think any current Eastern theologians or the majority in the West who understand the context of his work would say it leaves the realm of orthodox belief. Some of his writings are right on the line and should be read cautiously, but I'd say they can still be useful.
Some Origenists certainly held to the pre-existence of souls. In Origen's own writings, the most we can say is that he offered pre-existence as a possibility but not as a definitive teaching or belief. Even that is debatable, as he never used the term pre-existence and his views can be just as easily taken as speaking of reality outside of our understanding of time (a concept later used in both Eastern and Western theology). His student Evagrius of Ponticus, as well as John Cassian, and Maximus the Confessor, viewed Origen's work as expressing the latter position. As I said before he definitely pushed the boundaries of orthodoxy at times but I don't believe he ever crossed over.
Well you seem to be bit of a fan of Origen, so I will bring up the issue everyone thought I would. Would you take theological advice from someone who castrated themselves? There seems to be two theories as to why he did this; one is he didn't want to be tempted when teaching young girls, but surely he could have read the many Bible verses about resisting temptation. The other is, one day he flopped open his KJV Bible read Matt 19:12 "and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake" and thought, that's a good idea!
A case that emphasises the fact that none of our reasoning in this life on earth is 'perfect'. Especially the decision made by this otherwise wise theologian. Enthusiasm for doing what we THINK is God's will CAN be a bad thing sometimes when we do not recognise our own foolishness. I think he later understood he had made a big mistake. All the more tragic though when a 'believer' thinks they know the will of God but OTHERS suffer the consequences of that 'believer's' foolisness. .
Eusebius also records clearly fallacious material from Jesus to Abgar, so we needn't take him as the most reliable source. That Origen castrated himself is likely just slander on Origen that was repeated.
I wouldn't say I'm a fan of Origen though I have studied his work quite a bit. I am however an ardent student of his pupil Evagrius as well as Basil, Gregory, and Cassian who continued his work. To address the issue you brought up, my short answer would be yes. I follow the theological advice of many men and women who were great sinners at one time. I follow the teachings contained in the writing of David who committed adultery and murder. I follow the apostles who all had moments of foolishness, doubt, and betrayal. I see no reason to reject the theological advice of a Church Father who suffered a moment of foolishness which he later recognized as foolishness. Also, as Elmo pointed out, we're not entirely sure that Origen did the deed in question. We know from multiple sources that he was ordained after the time of the alleged incident which in itself throws the entire claim into question. The Church had already made the ruling that anyone who maimed themselves intentionally (without a medical reason) was to be precluded from ordination to the diaconate and the presbyterate. For a bishop to defy the Church and perform the ordination is by no means outside the realm of possibility but it is unlikely.
What evidence do you present? I can't prove that the one eyed one horned flying purple eater wasn't sitting in your lap while you typed your post, but actually believing nonsense like that is very silly. Reading the bible literally when it leads absurd conclusions does not make for serious hermeneutics. It becomes a Monty Python sketch
I think the clue that it is a story with a moral, a kind of parable, rather than a record of historical events, is in the names of the trees themselves, (Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil - Tree of Life), plus the anthropomorphistic presentation of God 'walking in the garden'. Perfectly allowable in a 'story' with a moral, but contradictory, if taken literally, of the words of THE WORD, Jesus Christ in Johns Gospel, and of the inspired notion that there is nowhere anyone can possibly go to hide from God's omniprescence, particularly in few bushes. THAT must have an allegorical or metaphorical meaning or it would have no meaning at all. Readers who insist on just interpreting Genesis 2-3 literally have not ever yet understood what they have read only with their eyes but not with their minds and certainly not with any enlightenment by the Holy Spirit. .
I think an indicator is that the passage starts with "Who is so silly as to believe ..." and that he gives no reason apart from this for what he claims. Reading the Bible with a historical-grammatical hermeneutic leads us to accept some absurd conclusions; such as a man being crucified, declared dead, then speared in the chest, returning to life after 3 days in the tomb. Why do you accept this absurdity?
The Bible is not a BOOK with a single genre. You imply that a single hereneutic can lead to a proper understanding of every book, chapter and verse in a whole library of books. It can't.
From the same reasoning you would have to reject God in the person of Jesus walking and talking with people on the road to Emmaus. "not ever yet" negates the rest of the sentence so you are saying that they HAVE read with their minds and with the enlightenment by the Holy Spirit. Or do you mean that when Jesus himself referenced Genesis 2-3 as fact when answering the Pharisees that He did so with mindless literalism devoid of any spiritual enlightenment?