For those who support the idea of reincarnation, Origen is cited again and again as an early Christian theologian who upheld a doctrine of reincarnation, and was condemned by the Church for so doing.
Origen's teaching of reincarnation is put forward in "Reincarnation in Christianity", by the theosophist Geddes MacGregor in 1978, and again in "Out On A Limb" by Shirley MacLaine in 1984.
A glance at Google returns "about 35,800" entries. Not all of these will support the thesis, of course, but enough to make the point that many people assume he did.
Sites like The Reluctant Messenger state:
"Despite the edict of the Emperor Justinian and the counter reaction to Origen, there is firm and explicit testimony for preexistence in both the Old and the New Testament."
and
"Indeed, the ban against Origen notwithstanding, contemporary Christian scholarship acknowledges preexistence as one of the elements of Judeo-Christian theology."
The site then goes on, at great length, to offer its own exegesis of Scripture, thus making sweeping claims implying the support of orthodoxy without offering one shred of evidence to support it.
+++
Near Death.com says:
"During the period from A.D. 250 to 553 controversy raged, at least intermittently, around the name of Origen, and from this controversy emerged the major objections that orthodox Christianity raises against reincarnation. Origen of Alexandria, one of Christianity's greatest systematic theologians, was a believer in reincarnation."
Just not true. At best we must assume the owner has copied data without checking his sources (if indeed any are referenced in the source he copied) or he's just lying, on the assumption that no one will check.
Often the claim is made that Origen said so in one of his books, with no exact reference to precisely where, on the assumption that no-one's going to wade through Against Celsus and On First Principles to make sure.
Indeed, when pushed, Geddes MacGregor stated that because there is no reference of Origen ever having taught reincarnation, that does not mean he didn't, therefore we can assume he did.
Someone on this very forum, responding to a question of definitions, posted the comment "everybody knows that ... " and then offered a completely spurious definition of the term as if that was the common and 'orthodox' definition.
So, for a start, by 'authority' then, I propose:
1 Someone who doesn't make things up as he goes along;
2 Someone who does not lie to put forward his own cause;
3 Someone who does not assume anything without checking;
There's a start.
Appendix:
A good example of proper scholarship is found at this site which shows the spurious nature of these so-called attributions.
Thomas
Origen's teaching of reincarnation is put forward in "Reincarnation in Christianity", by the theosophist Geddes MacGregor in 1978, and again in "Out On A Limb" by Shirley MacLaine in 1984.
A glance at Google returns "about 35,800" entries. Not all of these will support the thesis, of course, but enough to make the point that many people assume he did.
Sites like The Reluctant Messenger state:
"Despite the edict of the Emperor Justinian and the counter reaction to Origen, there is firm and explicit testimony for preexistence in both the Old and the New Testament."
and
"Indeed, the ban against Origen notwithstanding, contemporary Christian scholarship acknowledges preexistence as one of the elements of Judeo-Christian theology."
The site then goes on, at great length, to offer its own exegesis of Scripture, thus making sweeping claims implying the support of orthodoxy without offering one shred of evidence to support it.
+++
Near Death.com says:
"During the period from A.D. 250 to 553 controversy raged, at least intermittently, around the name of Origen, and from this controversy emerged the major objections that orthodox Christianity raises against reincarnation. Origen of Alexandria, one of Christianity's greatest systematic theologians, was a believer in reincarnation."
Just not true. At best we must assume the owner has copied data without checking his sources (if indeed any are referenced in the source he copied) or he's just lying, on the assumption that no one will check.
Often the claim is made that Origen said so in one of his books, with no exact reference to precisely where, on the assumption that no-one's going to wade through Against Celsus and On First Principles to make sure.
Indeed, when pushed, Geddes MacGregor stated that because there is no reference of Origen ever having taught reincarnation, that does not mean he didn't, therefore we can assume he did.
Someone on this very forum, responding to a question of definitions, posted the comment "everybody knows that ... " and then offered a completely spurious definition of the term as if that was the common and 'orthodox' definition.
So, for a start, by 'authority' then, I propose:
1 Someone who doesn't make things up as he goes along;
2 Someone who does not lie to put forward his own cause;
3 Someone who does not assume anything without checking;
There's a start.
Appendix:
A good example of proper scholarship is found at this site which shows the spurious nature of these so-called attributions.
Thomas
