The writings of Origen, Vol. 1 (of 2) — John Shaqi
The writings of Origen, Vol. 1 (of 2)Origen
Religion
The writings of Origen, Vol. 1 (of 2)
Origen
Apologetics -- History -- Early church, ca. 30-600; Celsus (Platonic philosopher), active 180; Theology -- History -- Early Church, ca. 30-600
6. Regarding the devil and his angels, and the opposing influences, the
teaching of the church has laid down that these beings exist indeed; but
what they are, or how they exist, it has not explained with sufficient
clearness. This opinion, however, is held by most, that the devil was an
angel, and that, having become an apostate, he induced as many of the
angels as possible to fall away with himself, and these up to the
present time are called his angels.
7. This also is a part of the church’s teaching, that the world was made
and took its beginning at a certain time, and is to be destroyed on
account of its wickedness. But what existed before this world, or what
will exist after it, has not become certainly known to the many, for
there is no clear statement regarding it in the teaching of the church.
8. Then, finally, that the Scriptures were written by the Spirit of God,
and have a meaning, not such only as is apparent at first sight, but
also another, which escapes the notice of most. For those [words] which
are written are the forms of certain mysteries,[14] and the images of
divine things. Respecting which there is one opinion throughout the
whole church, that the whole law is indeed spiritual; but that the
spiritual meaning which the law conveys is not known to all, but to
those only on whom the grace of the Holy Spirit is bestowed in the word
of wisdom and knowledge.
The term ἀσώματον, _i.e._ incorporeal, is disused and unknown, not only
in many other writings, but also in our own Scriptures. And if any one
should quote it to us out of the little treatise entitled _The Doctrine
of Peter_,[15] in which the Saviour seems to say to His disciples, “I am
not an incorporeal demon,”[16] I have to reply, in the first place, that
that work is not included among ecclesiastical books; for we can show
that it was not composed either by Peter or by any other person inspired
by the Spirit of God. But even if the point were to be conceded, the
word ἀσώματον there does not convey the same meaning as is intended by
Greek and Gentile authors when incorporeal nature is discussed by
philosophers. For in the little treatise referred to he used the phrase
“incorporeal demon” to denote that that form or outline of demoniacal
body, whatever it is, does not resemble this gross and visible body of
ours; but, agreeably to the intention of the author of the treatise, it
must be understood to mean that He had not such a body as demons have,
which is naturally fine,[17] and thin as if formed of air (and for this
reason is either considered or called by many incorporeal), but that He
had a solid and palpable body. Now, according to human custom,
everything which is not of that nature is called by the simple or
ignorant incorporeal; as if one were to say that the air which we
breathe was incorporeal, because it is not a body of such a nature as
can be grasped and held, or can offer resistance to pressure.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account