Married only on Earth ???

[BJRumph]

Actually, I agree that ultimately it comes down to what is actually True.

However, my “absolutist” conclusion still stands, that Origen’s discourse does not make any sort of positive support for the literalist doctrines being condemned by him.

It poses no difficulty for me. I no longer believe that Truth is subjective, and I, by extension, do not hold Doctrine (which is to be an expression of theological Truth) to be subjective either. This is not to be confused with “literalism”, but even allegorical teachings have their “correct” (or “True” if you preferr) meaning.

Even if Origen is ultimately proven “wrong”; nothing that he says here supports the alternate positon. All it does is show a man in opposition to a doctrine.

No one needs this text to suggest that there were those in any point of history that held to very literalistic and “physical” understandings of the life expected during the Resurrection. We both could easily point out such in any religion we visit. To use a non christian example, there are Buddhists who are, in practice, Theists (some poly, some pan), despite the overall “true” nature of the Path as being non-theistic (some even say simply “philosophical”).

Thus, even if God proves Origen wrong, his words here do not provide any support for the doctrines he refuted. The New Testament is a constant source of evidence as to how the literal-minded “jewish influence” kept the isrealites from recognizing the messiahship of Jesus. Do you really want to assert that this same mindset supports your assertion that it is a more true expression of the Christian Gospel than what the NT says, and what your church believes (that Jesus is the Christ)?

Is it not obvious to you that the very influence you are defending is the development of the same one used to reject the “suffering servant” Christ, instead holding out for the “warrior King-Preist” that was the literal expression of the messiah that was then looked for?

As you are the one to use Origen as a source of support, the only authority given him in this discourse is from you. I am merely sticking to the “evidences” utilized in this discussion. Frankly their individual authorities are irrelevant in the context of this discussion, though they may play a significant role in a different one. But, if Origen’s position is ultimately the same as Paul’s, then in your fluid veiw of certainty and authority, is it not possible to assert that Origen is speaking by (or “with”) Paul’s authority?

Interestingly enough, I do not see a particularly notible difference in the language used by Paul and Origen in their respective mentions of disputed doctrine discussed here to suggest that Paul was acting under any influence of revelation or inspiration that would be significantly different than that of Origen. As argued by nonlds, the only reason Paul is not discounting the group in Corinthians is simply that his concern at that point was about the Reurrection, not baptism. Or to use TOm’s plea, Paul was comparing “best to best” to make a far more, contextually, important point. This does not create a support for endorsing the mentioned practice, any more than my mentioning Buddhists above as an example supports a claim that Buddhists are theologically consistent with the theology of Christianity in my veiw.

 

[BJRumph]

1. Why would Origen waste his time disputing the view of a very small minority?

Perhaps these “certain people” are a local group, making their veiws of an immediate concern that has a need for addressing a veiw that is not in direct proportion to the larger fold.

2. In general Early Christianity was dominated by Jewish converts who read scriptures through a Jewish lens.

This is true of pre-Pauline Christianity. However, it is only by rejecting the basis of that jewish lens that would allow the isrealite convert to accept Jesus as their messiah.

3. There would have been little or no resistance to reading the scriptures in a Jewish lens until philosophical concepts were imported to systematize church teachings. This doesn’t occur until Origen.

Wrong. Greek influence is easily seen prior to Origen. History provides that it was the because of the greek influence that Christianity was making such inroads, and therefore why the remaining jewish community rejected any scripture that was not solidly based in hebraic editions when finally codifying their own canon.

4. Backing up a bit, marriage in heaven was presumably the popular belief among the Jews in Jesus’s time. Like Origen, the Sadducees question alerts us to this. Their question more or less presumes marriage in heaven is an automatic consequence of resurrection.

And in Jesus’ answer you find the strongest refutation of such literalist readings of marriage. The sadducces didn’t even believe in a Resurrection, so their literalist question was hypocritical to begin with, but Jesus did not stop with such a point, but expressed a Heaven where such literal earthly passions and conventions do not apply. In this He was certainly clear. It is only with additional material that His clear positoin is lost, and transformed into the current lds veiw of this passage.

5. Origen doesn’t use Jesus’ words about no “marriage in heaven” as far as I am aware of to rebut what he considers wrong. If he didn’t appeal to that, it shows me that this particular interpretation was not held by a vast majority of Christians.

That is because it was self evident, nor did these literalist people apparently use it to their own defence. Origen clearly used sample scriptures that gave this errant group a claim to their interpretaion. Your concluding statement is quite a rational leap. His lack of reference is not evidence to any sort of widespread belief; it supports no application to reference any size of body, large or small. It is incorrect to use it as such a proof (or evidence as you preferr).

6. I find Origen’s rejection of marriage in heaven, highly related to his rejection of reading anthromorphism out of scriptural passages about God. Tracing beliefs on marriage may be sketchy, but the records on the development away from anthromorphism are telling and trend setting.

Ironically, the Isrealites were clearly not supportive of an anthropormorphic God, and recognized any such attributes were entirely allegorical, and it was NOT the Christians that did this. Origen’s lack of applying an earthy veiw onto a higher spiritual veiw is not without basis in what is, even at his time, the legitimate understanding of the judeochristian God. Even at the creation of the Ark of the Covenant it is aknowledged that God would be present at the “mercy seat”, but would in no means need a “chair”. Even the dimensions of the Temple do not allow for the space to include an anthropormorphic God who has the bodily dimentions given Him in the OT.

7. In addition to those “certain people” considered orthodox, we can add to list any number of gnostic Christians that trace their beliefs in eternal marriage to the post-assension teachings of Jesus that are not recorded in the Bible,

If they were fully considered “orthodox”, then Origen would have no reason to correct their erroneous doctrine! But then I discussed this on an earlier post. Yes, you can claim that all this is found in the post resurrection (but pre-ascension) teachings of Jesus, but then, I could claim the same thing in regards to Origen’s pov, and be more supported when you consider that the group taught by Jesus during this time was very large, and so it is unrealistic, logically, to assert that a single person could later impose a wholly different veiw to such an effect that he personally overcame the personal witnesses of all of Jesus’ disciples and their spiritual progeny.

Fun discussion, as always, MormonFool.

God Bless…

Caritas numquam excidit
Inter arma caritas

 

[BJRumph]

Comparing Origen to Paul, fails in at least one important respect. I don’t doubt Paul’s authority or correctness like I do Origen’s. I do trust Origen to the extent that he can report on the beliefs of some of his fellow Christians, which unlike current day Baptists, were in full fellowship of the church.

Ah. But see, you are missing the point I was trying to make.

Both the RCC and you would call a Baptist a Christian, but in neither case does this basic aknowledgement suggest that either the RCC or you would consider them as being in “full fellowship” with either of our Churches. If you, “allow” that a Baptist is a “Christian”, it does not suggest to me that you find Baptists to be in communion with your church. Indeed, as your church does not recognize the efficacy of any Baptist rite (such as baptism); you are not in a postion to make any suggestion that any said hypothetical Baptist is in communion with your church.

And yet, this is precisely the claim you are making for Origen.

It is in this point that the ellipsis do become a detriment and ungenuine hiding of intent, as his full sentence introducing the “certain people” strongly suggests that they were not “true” christians (ie, were not in communion with the Church). The omitted text refutes in context, if not expressly, the very point you wish to make.

Origen, in simply aknowledging their professed belief in Christ does not make any assertion that they are in communion with the Church. Indeed, careful reading of his discourse provides evidence to the contrary. In fact, he is expressly stating that these doctrinal beliefs that are held by this group are not consistent with Church teaching.

 

[mormon_fool]

1. Why would Origen waste his time disputing the view of a very small minority?

Perhaps these “certain people” are a local group, making their veiws of an immediate concern that has a need for addressing a veiw that is not in direct proportion to the larger fold.

Your alternative scenario is not particularly more plausible. Origen was part of the Greek dominated Alexandrian school. Even the non-Christian Jews there as evidenced by Philo, the first century fore-runner of anti-anthromorphism, were heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. If Origen was only aware of a local contingent of marriage in heaven advocates then arguably they were much more widespread in areas that had considerbly less Greek influence and more Jewish influence.

2. In general Early Christianity was dominated by Jewish converts who read scriptures through a Jewish lens.

This is true of pre-Pauline Christianity. However, it is only by rejecting the basis of that jewish lens that would allow the isrealite convert to accept Jesus as their messiah.

Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles and his missionary work and writings were more aimed at them. The Jewish converts may have needed to adjust their worldview to accept Christ but they did not completely reform it. As Clement, Origen’s teacher, points out that philosophy acted as the Greek “school master” just like the law and the OT and NT acted as the same for the Jews:For God is the cause of all good things; but of some primarily, as of the Old and the New Testament; and of others by consequence, as philosophy. Perchance, too, philosophy was given to the Greeks directly and primarily, till the Lord should call the Greeks. For this was a schoolmaster to bring “the Hellenic mind,” as the law, the Hebrews, “to Christ.” Philosophy, therefore, was a preparation, paving the way for him who is perfected in Christ.

3. There would have been little or no resistance to reading the scriptures in a Jewish lens until philosophical concepts were imported to systematize church teachings. This doesn’t occur until Origen.

Wrong. Greek influence is easily seen prior to Origen. History provides that it was the because of the greek influence that Christianity was making such inroads, and therefore why the remaining jewish community rejected any scripture that was not solidly based in hebraic editions when finally codifying their own canon.

I was being rather specific about the use of Greek philosophy to systematize doctrines and not so much on other Greek contributions.

Let us say it is pretty straight forward to document shifts in the use of Greek philosophy,

Paul warns against Greek thought in 1 Cor 22-27 and Col 2:8:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
I summarized an essay on the infusion of philosophy into ECFs’ writings elsewhere as:Next up is Daniel W. Graham and James L. Siebach’s The Introduction of Philosophy into Early Christianity. This essay described the gradual infusion of philosophy into the church in charitable terms, saving critical evaluation for the very end. We learn that philsophy was first prominently used with Justin Martyr as primarily as a way to defend the church to critics. Later Tertullian took a hardline stance against Christians using philosophy, but this was impracticle because of the scientific advances that were enabled by it. The Alexandrian school was more embracing of philosophy, envisioning it as the “Greek schoolmaster” like the Law of Moses was the Jewish schoolmaster. Here the authors suggest that Clement and Origen looked to philosophy for eclectic insights, for systematic tools to expound doctrine, for rephrasing biblical concepts, but not as an independent source for doctrine. By the time of Augustine the church became more dependent on philosophy, particularly Platonism, to be the foundation of Christian doctrine. The authors opine that philosophy was used to compensate for the loss of revelation.

[cont]

 

[mormon_fool]

BJ,

This has indeed been a fun discussion. OK back to critique mode.

BJRumph:

4. Backing up a bit, marriage in heaven was presumably the popular belief among the Jews in Jesus’s time. Like Origen, the Sadducees question alerts us to this. Their question more or less presumes marriage in heaven is an automatic consequence of resurrection.

And in Jesus’ answer you find the strongest refutation of such literalist readings of marriage. The sadducces didn’t even believe in a Resurrection, so their literalist question was hypocritical to begin with, but Jesus did not stop with such a point, but expressed a Heaven where such literal earthly passions and conventions do not apply. In this He was certainly clear. It is only with additional material that His clear positoin is lost, and transformed into the current lds veiw of this passage.

I disagree that your interpretation is straight forward. You are making logical leaps that Jesus was explicitly expressing heavenly conditions. Marriage in Heaven is an esoteric teaching. Clearly “they” or the “one among” the Sadducees would not be worthy to learn how marriages could be sealed on earth for eternity with out accepting more basic doctrines first.

5. Origen doesn’t use Jesus’ words about no “marriage in heaven” as far as I am aware of to rebut what he considers wrong. If he didn’t appeal to that, it shows me that this particular interpretation was not held by a vast majority of Christians.

That is because it was self evident, nor did these literalist people apparently use it to their own defence. Origen clearly used sample scriptures that gave this errant group a claim to their interpretaion. Your concluding statement is quite a rational leap. His lack of reference is not evidence to any sort of widespread belief; it supports no application to reference any size of body, large or small. It is incorrect to use it as such a proof (or evidence as you preferr).

This point was more for Arieh, anyway, who feels that ECFs confirm a particular interpretation of Jesus words. Here is the perfect opportunity for one of them to do so to bolster his argument, so the silence in my “argument from silence” is quite deafening.

6. I find Origen’s rejection of marriage in heaven, highly related to his rejection of reading anthromorphism out of scriptural passages about God. Tracing beliefs on marriage may be sketchy, but the records on the development away from anthromorphism are telling and trend setting.

Ironically, the Isrealites were clearly not supportive of an anthropormorphic God, and recognized any such attributes were entirely allegorical, and it was NOT the Christians that did this. Origen’s lack of applying an earthy veiw onto a higher spiritual veiw is not without basis in what is, even at his time, the legitimate understanding of the judeochristian God. Even at the creation of the Ark of the Covenant it is aknowledged that God would be present at the “mercy seat”, but would in no means need a “chair”. Even the dimensions of the Temple do not allow for the space to include an anthropormorphic God who has the bodily dimentions given Him in the OT.

Well Jewish thought is more diverse than I have thought. However, during the relevant period, between 0 AD and Origen, the Jews were almost uniformly anthromorphic. One notable exception is Philo (20 BC - 40 AD) whose ideas were later transmitted by non-Christian Albinus (2nd century) to Origen.The philosophical horror of ‘anthropomorphisms’ which Philo and Maimonides entertained was unknown to the Palestinian schools. They endeavored to think of God worthily and to speak of him reverently; but their criterion was the Scripture and the instinct of piety, not an alien metaphysics. (Moore, George Foot. Judaism In the First Centuries of the Christian Era. 2 Vols. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1927) p. 438.
In all of rabbinic literature [covering the tannaitic(70-200 A.D.) and amoraic(220-500 A.D.) periods] there is not a single statement that categorically denies that God has body or form.

In my understanding, the question of whether the rabbis believed in God who has form is one that needs little discussion . . . . Instead of asking, "Does God have a body we should inquire, “What kind of body does God have?” (Gottshein, “The Body as Image of God in Rabbinic Literature,” Harvard Theological Review 87 (1994) as cited in Paulsen, ECiD p 249-250)
[cont]

 

[mormon_fool]

7. In addition to those “certain people” considered orthodox, we can add to list any number of gnostic Christians that trace their beliefs in eternal marriage to the post-assension teachings of Jesus that are not recorded in the Bible,

If they were fully considered “orthodox”, then Origen would have no reason to correct their erroneous doctrine!

These people were considered orthodox for their time. If we went back and excommunicated everyone that held an “erroneous” belief by today’s RCC stance, there would be no church left standing. It is my understanding the RCC church used used church-wide councils to officially define orthodox belief to resolve internal disputes. It would seem premature to post-hoc declare people heretics before such matters were settled.

But then I discussed this on an earlier post. Yes, you can claim that all this is found in the post resurrection (but pre-ascension) teachings of Jesus,

thanks for correcting my terms.

but then, I could claim the same thing in regards to Origen’s pov,

Not like I can. Origen does not appeal to the 40-day teachings of Christ like the gnostic literature containing marriage in heaven teachings.

and be more supported when you consider that the group taught by Jesus during this time was very large, and so it is unrealistic, logically, to assert that a single person could later impose a wholly different veiw to such an effect that he personally overcame the personal witnesses of all of Jesus’ disciples and their spiritual progeny.

Origen may be a single person, but he is a major influence, especially on later theologians. And I have not yet studied how much gnostic influence there was on him. The issue seems to me, that gnostics corrupted the 40-day esoteric teachings of Christ to the point of unacceptability and as a result the ECFs that emerged as “orthodox” like Irenaeus and others threw out the baby with the bath water.

Fun discussion, as always, MormonFool.

Yes, a hearty thanks for interacting with my viewpoints.

later,
fool

 

[mormon_fool]

BJRumph:

Ah. But see, you are missing the point I was trying to make.
[snip]]
is in communion with your church.

Show me where these people were not in full communion with the church and you would have a point. I see nothing by Origen demanding that they repent and get re-baptized. Between the “certain people” and Origen known to have gotten in trouble with the local bishop, only Origen was, although over another issue.

And yet, this is precisely the claim you are making for Origen.

The only claim I have made is that Origen’s beef with “certain people” appears to be an internal church disagreement and not an inter-church one.

It is in this point that the ellipsis do become a detriment and ungenuine hiding of intent, as his full sentence introducing the “certain people” strongly suggests that they were not “true” christians (ie, were not in communion with the Church). The omitted text refutes in context, if not expressly, the very point you wish to make.

Origen, in simply aknowledging their professed belief in Christ does not make any assertion that they are in communion with the Church. Indeed, careful reading of his discourse provides evidence to the contrary. In fact, he is expressly stating that these doctrinal beliefs that are held by this group are not consistent with Church teaching.

They make it clear that the beliefs are not consistent with Origen’s understanding. There is no need to conflate Origen’s views with the church’s view at the time. The omitted text only states why Origen disagrees with them, i.e., his opponents are Bible literalists. Nothing disingenuous with leaving that out, especially since I encouraged people to look up the quote which is easily accessible for themselves.

later,
fool

 

[BJRumph]

Why then was Origen not corrected on this matter by other ECF’s? Obviously there was someone capable of correcting him, as you correctly point out that he was censured for other issues.

Were this doctrine that he was refuting so widespread as is proposed, his writings could not have been the only evidence of these beliefs, nor would they have gone unanswered by what you are proposing to be the majority veiw.

Like you said, the silence is deafening.

As much as I’d like to jump in on the gnostic issue, without specific reference to the specific groups, there is no means to discuss this aspect meaningfully, as to do so would require a level of detail not yet addressed. It also takes us too far off the topic at hand.

As to jumping to proclaim “heretic!”, again, you missed my point. You are asserting that merely because Origen mentions that they follow christ, that they are mainstream christians, and theirs is the dominant veiw. I pointed out to you that this is not a reasonable conclusion, especially in light of Origen’s unopposed position. As an example, I provided you with circumstances wherin you would call someone a christian, while never intending to convey a sense of communion with your religion.

Even given the proposition that this partcular group had not been expelled as heretics in an official manner, that he is denouncing their doctrine is indication of the inclination towards that sort of process. I am not familiar enough with Origen yet, but I do not believe that he was ever in any position capable of excommunicating anyone, so to expect for him to outright proclaim them heretics, I feel, is overreaching, without invalidating my position that their doctine was not the mainstream of christianity at that time.

Again, as Origen is not apparently responded to regarding what you consider to be a personal divergence of thought from the mainstream of doctrinal belief, it would seem that with the body of evidence presented here, that the Church did, as it does, agree with Origen, not with his “certain people” on these particular points.

I also refute your assumption that Jesus was speaking esoterically regarding the sadducces’ question, and rhetorically lying about post resurrection marriage. There are no hallmarks of esoteric speaking here. And, as one who has studied esotericism, I will make the personal observation that origen’s veiws far more coincide with an esoteric understanding of spiritual matters than the base expectation of fleshly relations anticipated by his “certain people”. An esoteric teaching always reveals an understanding of its base, exoteric, point in a manner that moves beyond the simple, observable level. The physical marriages and procreation in the Resurrection is not an esoteric principle; rather it is the debaseing, or exotericizing, of a spiritual principle regarding the Unity of the Christian Body. An esoteric teaching can always be found in an exoteric one, and indeed, the exoteric teachings, when properly communicated or formulated, are meant to be sufficient to lead one who already knows the “key” to garner the esoteric meaning. In the case of the “no marriage in heaven”, Jesus does not provide for an allegorical interpretation, leaving open the door for an esoteric principle, especially one that contradicts the exoteric discourse. An esoteric principle builds upon, not contradicts, its exoteric form.

Again, it is obvious that we will not agree on this, or many other points.

As I feel I have made what points are actually necessary, I will probably bow out of this discussion, unless some point is later made that needs addressing. Frankly, Mfool and my posts are getting too volumous, causing the obscuring of the original point of this thread. Sorry.

Caritas numquam excidit
Inter arma caritas

 

[mormon_fool]

BJ,

It seems we have hit a stand still on our expectations for the number and official standing of “certain people” in the church. I will keep my eyes open to see if there are any scholars who even marginally agree with your position.

much as I’d like to jump in on the gnostic issue, without specific reference to the specific groups, there is no means to discuss this aspect meaningfully, as to do so would require a level of detail not yet addressed. It also takes us too far off the topic at hand.

You might want to see Bickmore’s citations of gnostic sources.

I also refute your assumption that Jesus was speaking esoterically regarding the sadducces’ question, and rhetorically lying about post resurrection marriage.

I have not made an assumption that Jesus was rhetorically lying. That may be your characterization of my position but it is not actually mine. It goes without saying that a Sadducee’s marriage would not have been sealed by one holding the proper priesthood keys. Therefore “they” would not have enjoyed a marital bond in heaven as Jesus honestly and correctly points out.

There are no hallmarks of esoteric speaking here.

There are no clues in the New Testament, but big clues in gnostic literature claiming to derive from Jesus’s later esoteric teachings.

Interesting commentary on esoteric vs. exoteric. You find eternal marriage in heaven debasing. As you anticipated, I don’t.

As I feel I have made what points are actually necessary, I will probably bow out of this discussion, unless some point is later made that needs addressing.

Thanks for the discussion. When I get more informed about early church history I will probably look back at how stupid my arguments were here. I went back and edited out any new ideas. God bless you on your spiritual journey at RCIA.

later,
fool

 

[majick275]

what I gathered from this is that Origen didn’t believe in the LDS concept of eternal marriage but that the significance of that depends on your pre-existing beliefs.

to the LDS I would think of this as being further evidence of the great apostasy.

as a Catholic I find it further assurance that “celestial marriage” will not be found in heaven.

and while I disagree with his religious views I find that mormon fool is a pretty smart cookie.