It is an interesting article and one that should be read.
BTW, Origen knew of the section, although we don’t really know what the section said in Origen’s time:
I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless— being, although against his will, not far from the truth— that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),— the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure. (Ad Celsus 1.47)
Anyway, a positive read.
I do not believe Josephus who made his career calling Vespasian God’s chosen person called Jesus Christ. However, the TJ does have some historical foundation… just not sure how much.
On the other issue… would this prove a Historical Jesus? No. In my opinion it wouldn’t prove a historical any more than a lack of the TJ would disprove the historical Jesus. TJ still falls into the realm of historical reporting. Josephus was not an eyewitness — and given his lack of reference to any of the Way/Jesus movement in Wars, I’d say he would have to have it reported to him via several degrees of separation.
No. While he espoused some idea of inerrancy, Michael Holmes reminds us that his inerrancy was only in the gnostic, or spiritual sense,
Did Origen, the most influential Biblical scholar in the early centuries of the Church, believe in the “inerrancy” of Scripture? Yes. Does this mean that he may be cited as evidence in support of the thesis that “the Church throughout its history has always held to the inerrancy of the literal sense of the text”?1No. As we shall see in the following pages, Origen did hold a high view of the divine author-ship and inspiration of Scripture, and from this he formulated a theory of the “inerrancy” of Scripture. But for Origen this theory of the full veracity of all Scripture applied only to the spiritual sense of the text, not to the ordinary or literal sense—which in fact, according to Origen, contains numerous errors, impossible statements, and even fictional elements. He held, as it were, to what may be termed the “analogical inerrancy” rather than to the “literal inerrancy” of Scripture. Following a brief discussion of these views of Origen we shall conclude by mentioning some of the implications of these findings for certain aspects of the contemporary “inerrancy debate.”
See here for the rest of his pdf. The issue with taking any of these ancient authors as supporters for the modern, Evangelical view of inerrancy is that you have to first make them Evangelicals. Origen doesn’t really believe in inerrancy of the written text, only in what it can be allegorically made to say. He didn’t advocate plain sense, which is where inerrancy seems to really lie (yes, that word has a double meaning), but supported that Scripture was only useful in a heavily philosophized way.
I admit it – I still enjoy the song ‘I’ll Fly Away‘ although it is generally discredited with the bad theology of escapism, a Platonic/Gnostic notion of what happens in the afterlife. We can pretend that such flights of fancy are new to Christian theology, as we do with most things which aren’t to our liking, but Origen speaks to the fact that he excepted a flight himself.
Origen (c.185-253), priest and theologian
Homilies on Saint Luke’s Gospel, no.15 (trad. SC 87, p. 233 rev.)
«Go in peace»
«A woman touched the tassel on Jesus’ cloak and she was cured.» (cf. Mt 9,20). If this woman gained so many benefits from touching the border of his cloak, what are we to think of Simeon who «took the child in his arms» and, holding him, gave himself up to rejoicing as he perceived that he was carrying the child who had come to «proclaim liberty to captives» (Lk 4,18) and that he himself was about to be set free from the constraints of the body? He recognized that no one could release someone from the prison-house of the body in hope of the life to come except he whom he held in his arms. And it was to him that he spoke, saying: «Now, Master, you may let your servant go in peace. For so long as I was not holding Christ, so long as I was not cradling him in my arms, I was held fast and unable to escape from my bonds».
Moreover, not Simeon alone but the whole human race is to be understood by these words. If anyone leaves this world, if anyone is set free from prison and the place of captivity to gain the royal throne, he should take Jesus in his hands and wrap his arms around him; he should draw him wholly to his heart. Then, leaping for joy, he will be able to go wherever he wills.
Sounds pretty familiar to the tune above…
When the shadows of this life have gone,
I’ll fly away;
Like a bird from prison bars has flown,
I’ll fly away (I’ll fly away)
This is why we work hard and continue to struggle, for our hope is in the living God, who is the Savior of all people and particularly of all believers. (1Ti 4:10 NLT)
I want to follow the same method which I used with John 12.32.
From the start, this verse appeared in Ignatius’ greeting to the church at Philippi, attached to the Lord Jesus Christ:
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church of God which is at Philippi, which has obtained mercy in faith, and patience, and love unfeigned: Mercy and peace from God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, “who is the Saviour of all men, specially of them that believe.”
Just as a side note here, Ignatius is writing in the early 2nd century, about 110. This helps us in two areas. First, in authorship and dating of 1st Timothy, it should help to nail down that 1st Timothy was known in Asia Minor widely enough to have the most important church leader of the time, which as a bishop of Antioch followed in Peter’s footsteps, to use it and to use it expecting no controversy. Remember, this is a congregation to which Paul wrote as well and now the blessed Polycarp, a disciple of John, was leading. Secondly, it helps to show Ignatius’ Christianity was one which used not only Petrine and Johannine writings, but Pauline as well and doing so without controversy. Tertullian accused his opponents of using this verse, and others, in such as way as to ‘effeminate’ others, while pandering to God. The Latin writers was not one to shy away from a fight, but this seems to be a case in which he didn’t want people imitating the Scriptures:
“But,” say they, “God is ‘good,’ and ‘most good,’7 and ‘pitiful-hearted,’ and ‘a pitier,’ and ‘abundant in pitiful-heartedness,’8 which He holds ‘dearer than all sacrifice,’9 ‘not thinking the sinner’s death of so much worth as his repentance’,10 ‘a Saviour of all men, most of all of believers.’11 And so it will be becoming for ‘the sons of God’12 too to be ‘pitiful-hearted’13 and ‘peacemakers;’14 ‘giving in their turn just as Christ withal hath given to us;’1 ‘not judging, that we be not judged.’2 For ‘to his own lord a man standeth or falleth; who art thou, to judge another’s servant?’3 ‘Remit, and remission shall be made to thee.’”4 Such and so great futilities of theirs wherewith they flatter God and pander to themselves, effeminating rather than invigorating discipline, with how cogent and contrary (arguments) are we for our part able to rebut,—(arguments) which set before us warningly the “severity”5 of God, and provoke our own constancy? (Tertullian: Part Fourth: On Modesty)
Origen uses it against the ancient opponent, Celsus:
But since he has represented those whom he regards as worms, viz., the Christians, as saying that “God, having abandoned the heavenly regions, and despising this great earth, takes up His abode amongst us alone, and to us alone makes His announcements, and ceases not His messages and inquiries as to how we may become His associates for ever,” we have to answer that he attributes to us words which we never uttered, seeing we both read and know that God loves all existing things, and loathes2 nothing which He has made, for He would not have created anything in hatred. We have, moreover, read the declaration: “And Thou sparest all things, because they are Thine, O lover of souls. For Thine incorruptible Spirit is in all. And therefore those also who have fallen away for a little time Thou rebukest, and admonishest, reminding them of their sins.”3 How can we assert that “God, leaving the regions of heaven, and the whole world, and despising this great earth, takes up His abode amongst us only,” when we have found that all thoughtful persons must say in their prayers, that “the earth is full of the mercy of the Lord,”4 and that “the mercy of the Lord is upon all flesh;”5 and that God, being good, “maketh His sun to arise upon the evil and the good, and sendeth His rain upon the just and the unjust;”6 and that He encourages us to a similar course of action, in order that we may become His sons, and teaches us to extend the benefits which we enjoy, so far as in our power, to all men? For He Himself is said to be the Saviour of all men, especially of them that believe;7 and His Christ to be the “propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”8 And this, then, is our answer to the allegations of Celsus. Certain other statements, in keeping with the character of the Jews, might be made by some of that nation, but certainly not by the Christians, who have been taught that “God commendeth His love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us;”9 and although “scarcely for a righteous man will one die, yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.”1 But now is Jesus declared to have come for the sake of sinners in all parts of the world (that they may forsake their sin, and entrust themselves to God), being called also, agreeably to an ancient custom of these Scriptures, the “Christ of God.” (Origen: Origen Against Celsus)
In a letter to a contemporary, Origen writes,
If any one sin, we read,2 “We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for those of the whole world,” since He is the Saviour of all men,3 especially of them that believe, who4 blotted out the written bond that was against us by His own blood, and took it out of the way, so that not even a trace, not even of our blotted-out sins, might still be found, and nailed it to His cross; who having put off from Himself the principalities and powers, made a show of them openly, triumphing over them by His cross. And we are taught to rejoice when we suffer afflictions in the world, knowing the ground of our rejoicing to be this, that the world has been conquered and has manifestly been subjected to its conqueror. Hence all the nations, released from their former rulers, serve Him, because He5 saved the poor from his tyrant by His own passion, and the needy who had no helper. This Saviour, then, having humbled the calumniator by humbling Himself, abides with the visible sun before His illustrious church, tropically called the moon, from generation to generation. And having by His passion destroyed His enemies,
To the same friend, Origen writes about the use in scripture of the phrase ‘of the world.’ Some were using it to mean just the Church, but Origen attempts to write against it, saying,
The reader will do well to consider what was said above and illustrated from various quarters on the question what is meant in Scripture by the word “world”; and I think it proper to repeat this. I am aware that a certain scholar understands by the world the Church alone, since the Church is the adornment of the world,1 and is said to be the light of the world. “You,” he says,2 “are the light of the world.” Now, the adornment of the world is the Church, Christ being her adornment, who is the first light of the world. We must consider if Christ is said to be the light of the same world as His disciples. When Christ is the light of the world, perhaps it is meant that He is the light of the Church, but when His disciples are the light of the world, perhaps they are the light of others who call on the Lord, others in addition to the Church, as Paul says on this point in the beginning of his first Epistle to the Corinthians, where he writes, “To the Church of God, with all who call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Should any one consider that the Church is called the light of the world, meaning thereby of the rest of the race of men, including unbelievers, this may be true if the assertion is taken prophetically and theologically; but if it is to be taken of the present, we remind him that the light of a thing illuminates that thing, and would ask him to show how the remainder of the race is illuminated by the Church’s presence in the world. If those who hold the view in question cannot show this, then let them consider if our interpretation is not a sound one, that the light is the Church, and the world those others who call on the Name. The words which follow the above in Matthew will point out to the careful enquirer the proper interpretation. “You,” it is said, “are the salt of the earth,” the rest of mankind being conceived as the earth, and believers are their salt; it is because they believe that the earth is preserved. For the end will come if the salt loses its savour, and ceases to salt and preserve the earth, since it is clear that if iniquity is multiplied and love waxes cold upon the earth,3 as the Saviour Himself uttered an expression of doubt as to those who would witness His coming, saying,4 “When the Son of man cometh, shall He find faith upon the earth?” then the end of the age will come. Supposing, then, the Church to be called the world, since the Saviour’s light shines on it–we have to ask in connection with the text, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world,” whether the world here is to be taken intellectually of the Church, and the taking away of sin is limited to the Church. In that case what are we to make of the saying of the same disciple with regard to the Saviour, as the propitiation for sin? “If any man sin,” we read, “we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world?” Paul’s dictum appears to me to be to the same effect, when he says,5 “Who is the Saviour of all men, especially of the faithful.” Again, Heracleon, dealing with our passage, declares, without any proof or any citation of witnesses to that effect, that the words, “Lamb of God,” are spoken by John as a prophet, but the words, “who taketh away the sin of the world,” by John as more than a prophet. The former expression he considers to be used of His body, but the latter of Him who was in that body, because the lamb is an imperfect member of the genus sheep; the same being true of the body as compared with the dweller in it. Had he meant to attribute perfection to the body he would have spoken of a ram as about to be sacrificed. After the careful discussions given above, I do not think it necessary to enter into repetitions on this passage, or to controvert Heracleon’s careless utterances. One point only may be noted, that as the world was scarcely able to contain Him who had emptied Himself, it required a lamb and not a ram, that its sin might be taken away.
Gregory of Nyssa writes,
If, then, every good thing and every good name, depending on that power and purpose which is without beginning, is brought to perfection in the power of the Spirit through the Only-begotten God, without mark of time or distinction (since there is no delay, existent or conceived, in the motion of the Divine will from the Father, through the Son, to the Spirit): and if Godhead also is one of the good names and concepts, it would not be proper to divide the name into a plurality, since the unity existing in the action prevents plural enumeration. And as the Saviour of all men, specially of them that believe3 , is spoken of by the Apostle as one, and no one from this phrase argues either that the Son does not save them who believe, or that salvation is given to those who receive it without the intervention of the Spirit; but God who is over all, is the Saviour of all, while the Son works salvation by means of the grace of the Spirit, and yet they are not on this account called in Scripture three Saviours (although salvation is confessed to proceed from the Holy Trinity): so neither are they called three Gods, according to the signification assigned to the term “Godhead,” even though the aforesaid appellation attaches to the Holy Trinity.
It is necessary, therefore, to the proclamation of Jesus as Christ, that He should be proclaimed as crucified; and the proclamation that Jesus was the Christ does not seem to me so defective when any of His other miracles is passed over in silence, as when the fact of His crucifixion is passed over. Wherefore, reserving the more perfect proclamation of the things concerning Him by the Apostles, He commanded His disciples that they should tell no man that He was the Christ; and He prepared them to say that He was the Christ crucified and risen from the dead, “when He began” not only to say, nor even to advance to the point of teaching merely, but “to show”8 to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, etc.; for attend to the expression “show”; because just as sensible things are said to be shown so the things spoken by Him to His disciples are said to be shown by Jesus. And I do not think that each of the things seen was shown to those who saw Him suffering many things in body from the elders of the people, with such clearness as was the rational demonstration about Him to the disciples. – Commentary on Matthew
Origen’s construal of the Bible as a textual incarnation of the Word encourages an assimilationist interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures as a proto-Christian gospel. Although in partial agreement with this thesis, this study suggests a non-assimilationist reading of Origen’s biblical exegesis.
I must admit that this has been one of the most difficult books to read, and before one approaches it, the reader should have some knowledge of linguistics and Greek rhetoric. In this book, the author attempts to take an in-depth examination not so much of Origen, but his pedogogical style and, very much, his goal in discourse. He presents Origen in a much better, and indeed, conservative light than must scholarship, showcasing the ancient preacher as a skilled and masterful orator who carefully choose and investigated words, investing in them the belief that the deliverance of the gospel message was in of itself a saving power.
I would like to thank the kind folks at Gorgias press for this review copy,
Click to Order
If, as Origen believed, humanity’s hope for salvation has been answered by a divine Word, whose coming into the world has unfolded history according to a messianic intrigue, Origen’s messianic reading of world history as a soteriological discourse should not come as a surprise. How does Origen refer to this discourse? As a speech that spells the coming Word, this discourse would have to be soteriological in its very wording, it would have to happen soteriologically. The Word’s historical unfolding would have to be approached as a gospel, a good-news or a revelatory speech event, which, literally, spells salvation. Receiving this messianic Word would necessarily imply the believer’s application to the study of the Bible as Gospel. The task of this study is twofold. In addition to offering a detailed analysis of Origen’s understanding of exegesis as a liturgical attending to the Word’s evangelic advent in the Bible (a sort of textual redoubling of the incarnation), it also addresses a recent concern regarding the totalizing potential of Origen’s Logos-centered reading of history as evangelic or Christian. One may indeed wonder whether Origen’s exegetical spelling of the Word as universal Gospel can prevent the silencing of the speech of, let us say, the Greek or the Jew outside of Christianity? Ultimately, one may wonder whether it is possible to dissociate Origen’s Christian understanding of the Bible-incarnate Word from the totalizing rigor of a universalist metaphysics and what would be the consequences of such an attempt.
The Fourth Century Website is back up! And from them, we examine the next letter in the Arian series. It is a letter from Eusebius of Caesarea to a fellow Arian:
(1.) A letter of Eusebius of Pamphylia to Euphration, which begins: I confess to my lord by every grace…. And it continues later:
For we do not say that the Son is coexisting with the Father, but instead that the Father existed before the Son. For if they coexisted, how could the Father be a father, and the Son be a son? Or how could one indeed be the first, and the other second? And how could one be unbegotten and the other begotten? For the two, if they are equal, likewise exist mutually and are honored equally, one must conclude that either they are both unbegotten or both begotten, as I have said, but it is clear that neither of these is true. For they are neither both unbegotten nor both begotten. For one is indeed the first and best and leads to/precedes the second, both in order and in honor, so that he is the occasion for the second’s existing and for his existing in this particular way.
Why is it, the learned Church Historian, who is hailed by many, given this honor – especially when he, standing on the shoulders of Origen, denied the absolute deity of Christ? Of course, the particular doctrine of Eusebius focused a reality upon each title, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Doctrine is not seen, discussed, nor developed in a vacuum – and I have to wonder if development, even in language, would have been necessary if Arius had never been asked a question.
(2.) For the Son of God himself, who quite clearly knows all things, knows that he is different from, less, and inferior to the Father, and with full piety also teaches us this when he says, “The Father who sent me is greater than me” [John 14:28].
Except that as Marcellus would point out – the Reality of the Incarnation is different than the reality of pre-existence. The Father is greater than the Incarnated Son, having sent forth His Logos to tabernacle with men.
(3.) [And it is also written in the same letter:] But he teaches that that one [the Father] is alone true when he says, “that they may know you, the only true God” [John 17:3], not as if one only is God, but that one is the (only) true God, with the very necessary addition of true. For also he himself is Son of God, but not true, as God is. For there is but one true God, the one before whom nothing existed. But if the Son himself is true, it is simply as an image of the true God, and he is God, for [Scripture says] “and the Word was God” [John 1:1], but not as the only true God.
Yet, in 1st John 5:20 we read the same phrase as applied to Christ. For both Origen and the (semi-) Arians monotheism was defended by having God the Father as absolute, or one true God. Yet, while Christ spoke to the Father calling Him in heaven the one true God, John was able to say that to the ascended Christ.
(4.) For daring to divide the Word of God and to name the Word as another God, differing in essence and power from the Father, he has departed into as great a blasphemy, as is easily discerned from those very terms he uses. The following is an exact quote from his writings:
But surely the image and the one whose image it is are not considered one, but they are two Beings and two Things and two Powers, similarly with other titles [on image of God, see Col 1:15, 2 Cor 4:4].
A ‘Marcellian’ must have written the first, in italics, citing the Logoi of Justin, Origen, in which once the Logos was developed apart from the supercelestial God, there was of a necessity of several Logoi – one from the Father and one of the Father. The phrase ‘another God’ is direct from Justin’s works in describing the meeting at Mamri.
(5.)He writes as follows, wishing to show the savior as only a man, as the great unspoken mystery unveiled to us by the apostle:
For more clearly also the divine Apostle transmits to us the unspoken and mystical theology when he calls and cries out, “There is one God;” then after saying one God he continues to describe another, “One mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” [1 Tim 2:5].
How strange this talk of ‘another God’ must have sounded in the hears of the miahypostatics.
Cyprian, Bishop of Catharge, writing about 250, stated his creed as this:
I believe in God the Father,
In His Son Jesus Christ,
In the Holy Spirit.
I believe in the forgiveness of sins,
And Eternal Life
Through the Holy Church
It is found Epistle to Magnus (Ep. 69, al. 76), the other in his synodical Epistle to Januarius and other Numidian bishops (Ep. 70). Both are in form interrogative, in answer to the question Credis? put to the baptismal candidate. ‘No salvation outside the church’, or in Latin, ‘Nullus salus extra ecclesiam’, is the doctrine accredited to Cyprian. It should be understand, however, that at this time, Cyprian was seeing fractions develop around him, generally associated with the lapsed of the persecutions and other heretics.
Cyprian’s counterpart, Novatian a schismatic of Rome, writing about the same time, writes,
The rule of truth demands that, first of all,
we believe in God the Father and Almighty Lord,
that is, the most perfect Maker of all things.…
The same rule of truth teaches us to believe, after the Father,
also in the Son of God, Christ Jesus,
our Lord God, but the Son of God.…
Moreover, the order of reason and the authority of faith, in due consideration of the words and Scriptures of the Lord, admonishes us, after this, to believe also
in the Holy Ghost
promised of old to the Church, but granted in the appointed and fitting time.
It is found in his writings (De Trinitate s. De Regula Fidei (Bibl. PP. ed. Gallandi, Tom. III. pp. 287 sqq.), but we have to note that Novatian was another of the long lines of schismatics that would later be called upon to support developed doctrine.
Immediately, we see Novatian, unlike Cyprian places the title of Lord God on the Son as well as the Father, calling Him the Son of God (as of yet, the phrase God the Son has not been found). Also seen is Novatian, unlike the others that preceded him, and many that came after him, actually gave more diligence to the holy Spirit. It was during this, it must be remembered, that Montanism was raging which focused more securely on the Spirit than it did anything else. The Spirit, for the followers of Montanus, was just now being given to the Church. Here, the echoes that doctrine is seen in Novatian.
Writings 20 years from Cyprian of Catharge and Novatian of Rome was Origen of Alexandria.His creed is preserved for us by Rufinius
The form of those things which are manifestly delivered by the preaching of the Apostles is this:
First, that there is one God, who created and framed every thing, and who, when nothing was, brought all things into being,—God from the first creation and forming of the world, the God of all the just—Adam, Abel, Seth, Enos, Enoch, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the twelve Patriarchs, Moses, and the Prophets: and that this God, in the last days, as he had before promised through his Prophets, sent our Lord Jesus Christ, to all Israel first, and then, after the unbelief of Israel, also to the Gentiles. This just and good God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, himself gave the Law and the Prophets and the Gospels, and he also is the God of the Apostles, and of the Old and New Testaments.
Then, secondly, that Jesus Christ himself, who came, was born of the Father before all creation. And when in the formation of all things he had served the Father (for by him all things were made), in these last times, emptying himself, he became man incarnate, while he was God, and though made man, remained God as he was before. He took a body like our body, differing in this point only, that it was born of the Virgin and the Holy Ghost. And since this Jesus Christ was born and suffered in truth, and not in appearance, he bore the death common to all men and truly died; for he truly rose from the dead, and after his resurrection, having conversed with his disciples, he was taken up.
They also delivered that the Holy Ghost was associated in honor and dignity with the Father and the Son.
Origen then goes on to say that ‘such questions, as to whether the Holy Spirit was born or unborn (natus an innatus), whether he was also to be regarded as a Son of God or not, are left for inquiry and investigation out of the holy Scriptures, according to the best of our ability; but it was most clearly preached in the churches that the Holy Spirit inspired every one of the saints and prophets and apostles, and that there was not one Spirit given to the ancients and another to the Christians.’ Then he mentions (§ 5) as part of apostolic preaching (ecclesiastica prædicatio) the future resurrection and judgment, the freedom of will (omnem animam rationabilem esse liberi arbitrii et voluntatis), the struggle of the soul with the devil and his angels, the inspiration of the Scriptures, and their deeper meaning known only to those to whom the Holy Spirit gives wisdom and understanding.
Throughout this passage Origen makes an important distinction between ecclesiastical preaching and theological science, and confines the former to fundamental facts, while to the latter belongs the investigation of the why and wherefore, and the deeper mysteries.
Origen speaks plainly – Christ was not eternal, but a creature of the creation by the Father. Further, while Origen could not assign the same statements to the Spirit, he thought that the Spirit was associated with the Father and Son a symphonia of wills.