|
|
 | | From: | admin | | Subject: | The Greek text opf Westcott & Hort #2 | | Date: | Mon, 15 Nov 2004 00:08:24 GMT |
|
|
 | The following is a continuing post from the Book "Which Version is the
Bible" by Floyd Nolen Jones. Chapter 5, pages 61-63
All Rights Reserved. This book may be freely reproduced in any form as long
as it is not distributed for any material gain or profit;
ORIGEN'S BELIEFS The following is a composite gleaned from many sources
depicting the beliefs of Origen. Let us examine them to see if he was in
fact a "great early Father of the Church" as we are often told.
This Greek philosopher had been taught by the founder of Neo-Platonism
(Ammonius Saccas 170-243 A.D.). Neo-Platonism is a strange combination of
Aristotelian logic and Oriental cult teachings. It conceives the world as
being an emanation from "the one" - the impersonal one (not the personal
"Abba" [Daddy or even the more intimate "Dada"] of the Bible) with whom the
soul is capable of being reunited while in some sort of trance or ecstasy.
As a follower of that philosophy, Origen attempted to amalgamate its views
to Christianity. The problem with Origen, as with many who profess
Christianity today, was that he tried to take "the best" of the world system
(that which he had learned in school - his old philosophic views etc.) and
incorporate them into Christianity; but they do not mix. It will be noted
that many of Origen's beliefs coincide with Roman Catholic and Jehovah's
Witness doctrine, both of which are "Christian" cults. Origen believed:
in soul sleep (that the soul "sleeps" in the grave until the resurrection).
However, the Bible teaches that to be absent from the body is to be present
with the Lord (II Cor.5:8); in baptismal regeneration (belief that one is
saved by water baptism). Although Satan was the originator, Origen is the
first man we can find who was a strong proponent of this doctrine; in
universal salvation, i.e., the ultimate reconciliation of all things
including Satan and the demons; that the Father was God with a capital "G"
and Jesus was God with a little "g" - that Jesus was only a created being.
Thus, Origen was not Christian in the most basic of all doctrine, namely the
person of the Lord Jesus the Christ; to become sinless, one had to go to
purgatory . This doctrine is nowhere to be found in Scripture; in
transubstantiation (that at communion the bread and wine actually turn to
the body and blood of Christ); and in transmigration and reincarnation of
the soul. (The resurrection of Jesus corrects that error as He came back to
life as the same Jesus. Hebrews 9:27 says "And it is appointed unto men once
to die, but after this the judgment." Thus the Bible teaches there is no
reincarnation.); and would not concede that any intelligent person could
believe that the temptations of Jesus as recorded in the Scriptures actually
happened; the Scriptures were not literal (Origen was the "father of
allegories"); neither in an actual "Adam" nor the fall of man and that
Genesis 1-3 was not literal or historical; the correct intrepretation of
Matthew 19 was that a man of God should be casterated and thereby proceded
to emasculate himself; and taught eternal life was not a gift, rather that
one must seize hold on and retain it (but Eph.2:8 says "By faith are ye
saved through grace; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.");
that "Christ enters no man until he grasps mentally the doctrine of the
consummation of the ages" (that would eliminate about 99% at most typical
Christian gatherings); or intimated that non baptized infants were hell
bound; and the redeemed would not experience a physical resurrection (yet I
Cor.15 teaches the physical resurrection, as do many other Scriptures).
Moreover, around 200 A.D. Alexandrian "Christians" taught that Mary was the
second person of the Trinity ("Quarterly Journal of Prophecy" [July, 1852],
p. 329).
Origen is often depicted as a "man of God", especially because he "died for
his beliefs". That is certainly a commendable character trait, but
Mussulini, Karl Marx and Hitler also died for their beliefs. That does not
mean they were Christians. Many people have believed in a cause enough to
give their lives for it, but it does not follow that they were Christian.
Origen's beliefs clearly show that he was a religious gnostic Greek
philosopher and not truly a born again son of God.
Before closing this section it must be noted that the frame of reference
taken in selecting the correct text from among the variant readings during
the 1870-1881 revision was said to be that of a "neutral" approach. This
meant that the problem was to be approached with the mind set that said
readings should not be chosen which "reflect a doctrinal bias" - that
Scripture displaying a doctrinal bias should be viewed suspiciously. Thus if
the variant being examined read to the effect that Jesus Christ is God come
in the flesh, that should be viewed as highly suspicious for it is very
doctrinal. The problem with such a priori is that the Bible is a book of
doctrine (II Tim.3:17).
Most modern scholars who work on Bible revision also like to think of
themselves as being "neutral" maintaining that they translated or chose a
reading having come to the problem with a "neutral" approach. But do we
really believe that God would take a "neutral" point of view toward His Son
and upon His finished work of redemption? When we read the letters of Paul
and John, do we conclude that they were neutral? The standpoint that Jesus
is Jehovah God - the Creator - come in the flesh is not a neutral position.
Neither Peter nor Luke took a neutral position! Indeed, there is no such
thing as a neutral position concerning the deity of Christ Jesus.
Westcott and Hort championed the so-called "neutral" method and it has been
with us ever since. The question that must be faced is - would a man who
fits the spiritual description of Origen as outlined on the two previous
pages (whose work W&H used) ever produce a neutral text? Some of these
textual critics are sincere but deceived. However, most are wolves in
sheep's clothing. Origen was the first wolf in this cult and the fifth
column of his Hexapla along with his edited N.T. are the fruits of that wolf
cult. This concludes the first installment in our exposé of this great
horror.
|
|
|
