"If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority . . . There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father" (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).
"For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] 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." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4)
"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification . . . " (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).
Reply: It seems with this entry we now have full blown Trinitarianism. But anyone who has a deeper knowledge of Origen knows that this is not true. When I go to the wikipedia entry called "Trinitarianism in the Church Fathers" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitarianism_in_the_Church_Fathers) it adds a caveat in regards to Origen: "Some see Origen as holding what many scholars refer to as a "subordinist" Christology: in Origen, 'the Son and Spirit are always in some sense derivative of, less than, and subordinate to their source, the one God, that is, the Father':[2]
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... (Origen, First, 33-4 [I.3]) From this, it is argued that Origen was in fact unitarian.[2]"
Origen is also added to the Subordinationism wikipedia entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subordinationism): "Origen taught that Jesus was deuteros theos (secondary god),[8] a notion borrowed from Hellenistic philosophy. He also said the Son was "distinct" from the Father.[9] Finally Origen insisted that the Son is other in substance than the Father.[10] It should be noticed that some of these same references are used to defend the concept of the Trinity. However, subordinationism is not a differentiation or distinction between persons in the Trinity. In this regard they agree. Subordinationism rather suggests that the Son (and Spirit) are other in substance than the Father.[10]"
Alvan Lamson adds: But let us listen to Origen himself. In his commentaries on John, he pronounces "God the Logos," or Son, to be "surpassed by the God of the universe." Commenting on John i. 3, "All things were made by him," he observes, that the particle by or through (DIA), is never referred to the primary agent, but only to the secondary and subordinate; and he takes, as an example, Heb. i. 2, "By whom also he made the worlds," or ages. By this expression, he says, Paul meant to teach us that "God made the ages by the Son" as an instrument. So he adds, in the place under consideration, "If all things were made (DIA) through the Logos, they were not made (UPO) by him" (that is, as the primary cause), "but by a greater and better; and who can that be but the Father?" Again: Jesus is called the "true light"; and in "proportion as God, the Father of truth, is greater than truth, and the Father of wisdom is more noble and excellent than wisdom, — in the same proportion," says Origen, "he excels the true light." Again: the Son and Spirit, he says, "are excelled by the Father, as much or more than they excel other beings." — "He is in no respect to be compared with the Father; for he is the image of his goodness, and the effulgence, not of God, but of his glory and of his eternal light; and a ray, not of the Father, but of his power, and a pure emanation of his most powerful glory, and a spotless mirror of his energy." Again: "The Father, who sent him (Jesus), is alone good, and greater than he who was sent."
https://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2018/02/origens-subordinationist-trinity-by.html
Joseph Priestley noted: Origen, quoted by Dr. Clarke, says, "Hence we may solve the scruple of many pious persons, who, through fear lest they should make two Gods, fall into false and wicked notions....We must tell them that he who is of himself God, (AUTOQEOS) is that God (hO QEOS) (as our Saviour, in his prayer to his Father says, that they may know thee, the only true God;) but that whatever is God besides that self-existent person, being so only by communication of his divinity, cannot so properly be styled (hO QEOS) that God, but rather (QEOS) a divine person." The same observation had before been made by Clemens Alexandrinus, who also calls the Son a creature, and the work of God? Origen also says, "According to our doctrine, the God and Father of all is not alone great; for he has communicated of his greatness to the first-begotten of all the creation" (PRWTOTOKOS PASHS KTISEWS).
https://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-supremacy-of-father-in-early-church.html
With all of the above in view, someone noted back in 1839 that: "It certainly, therefore, requires no peculiar profundity of scholarship, nor any remarkable honesty of criticism, to perceive that Origen was not 'orthodox' in respect to the person of Jesus Christ, distinguishing perspicuously the Saviour, even in his highest condition, from the Supreme Deity."
https://tinyurl.com/y3tpn46v
It's really quite irritating when people rationalize their position, by adding to the text, even in parenthesis, to make it sound as if someone said what they want them to say, based on their own pre-suppositions.
ReplyDeletePart of your reply: 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... (Origen, First, 33-4 [I.3]) From this, it is argued that Origen was in fact unitarian.[2]"
Your presupposition is that Jesus is a creature. I have spoken with Glenn and Alex from the Kingdom Hall down the street NUMEROUS times... Jesus, creature. Jesus, creature. So, let's not pretend that isn't something that is pushed by the Organization.
First, your parenthesis are put in place to give credit to the point that Jesus is a creature. The Bible doesn't say that and neither did Origen in this instance. Your point is made that Origen had a set of beliefs that are similar to your own, but he went against the grain and got a significant following, to believe what was NOT actually in the Bible.
You would do well to read the Bible and squash the eisegesis techniques that the Organization has taught you and seek what the Bible says - ALONE... Pick on translations, pick on spurious comments, but if you do - then let's go Greek man. That's where it's at!!! Anyway. I'm so sorry that you have invested so much time and energy into something that is so patently false and that which represents a Christian Cult.
JesusSaidIAmGod.com
There are a lot of assumptions about me in your reply. I will defend any religious group where they get it right. I am also a fan of Catholic Bibles and have defended them as well on this blog. Beyond the insults above, you have not really provided any arguments. I checked out your site. I think I may make a response to it on this blog.
Delete