[Bill]

Paul's letter to the Galatians gives instructions regarding the freedom of trust in Christ versus the bondage of works, including the consideration of Jewish promoters imposing the jewish law on Christians. These promoters had apparently had some success in intimidating Christians, even Peter. The legal requirement that was prominent in their effort was circumcision, which Paul informed them was not necessary for the practice of Christianity. The manipulation by the proponents of circumcision as a requirement for Christian living had been causing trouble worthy of judgement (Gal. 5:10) and Paul says in verse 12; "I wish they were even cut off which trouble you." The term "cut off" is used in other places in the Bible as the removal of people from fellowship (excommunication) when referring to people. The NIV along with the NAS, ESV and The Message ignore the established meaning and change this verse to mean sexual mutilation of the type used by Origen (the Textual Critic of Alexandria) to make himself physically androgynous and give himself higher authority than God the Creator so "he?" could revise and edit God's communication. This change makes no sense because the people were being troubled by humans who will be judged, not by an anatomical part, but this change would fit the intent of the Gnostic followers of Origen who believe that the way to improve people is by making them androgynous.
When Origen had his sex organs surgically removed, he was practicing the requirements of the priests of the goddess-worshipping cults. The Church authorities of the time refused to ordain Origen because of his sexually perverted action but contemporary religious leaders consider Origen as a great "Church Father."

[stephanos]

Yeah, even my Mennonite brethren view him as a Church Father. I always wonder if Origen read what the Law says about what he did.

He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD. (Deuteronomy 23:1 KJV)

Another thing people fail to mention about the Judaizers is that the reason they emphasise circumcision in their teachings is because they believed no one is even fit to practice the entirety of the Law unless that person is circumcised. But this makes me wonder why they never meditated upon this:

At that time the LORD said unto Joshua, Make thee sharp knives, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time. And Joshua made him sharp knives, and circumcised the children of Israel at the hill of the foreskins. And this is the cause why Joshua did circumcise: All the people that came out of Egypt, that were males, even all the men of war, died in the wilderness by the way, after they came out of Egypt. Now all the people that came out were circumcised: but all the people that were born in the wilderness by the way as they came forth out of Egypt, them they had not circumcised. For the children of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, till all the people that were men of war, which came out of Egypt, were consumed, because they obeyed not the voice of the LORD: unto whom the LORD sware that he would not shew them the land, which the LORD sware unto their fathers that he would give us, a land that floweth with milk and honey. And their children, whom he raised up in their stead, them Joshua circumcised: for they were uncircumcised, because they had not circumcised them by the way. And it came to pass, when they had done circumcising all the people, that they abode in their places in the camp, till they were whole. (Joshua 5:2-8 KJV)

So those people that offered sacrifices, wave offerings, free will offerings, burnt offerings, etc etc... in the desert those 40 years were practicing the Law when they weren't even circumcised.

Another thing that convinces me that only born-again Christians can understand Scriptures, is the fact that the majority of Scriptures that mention circumcision in the OT are mentioned within a couple words of the word "heart". Uncanny isn't it?

Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked. (Deuteronomy 10:16 KJV)

And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. (Deuteronomy 30:6 KJV)

Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings. (Jeremiah 4:4 KJV)

And then, the first mention of circumcision describes it as a "token" (perhaps a shadow of the work God would do?):

And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. (Genesis 17:11 KJV)

Peace and Love,
Stephen

Interesting. Where can I read this about Origen?

Shalom,

Tandi

[Bill]

Origen is mentioned in most historical accounts of his time period. Put the name into Google and usually several sites will come up. The practices of the priests of the pagan Goddess-worshipping cults can be found by researching the names of Diana, Ishtar, Cybele, Aphrodite. The priests of these religions during the Greek/Roman time were called Galli. Comparison of the action of Origen with the other Galli will show what Origen's real religious beliefs were. Origen also developed a method of interpreting scripture in which he classifies any part he doesn't like as allegory, where the Bible itself doesn't indicate it is allegory, and by that way it is possible to get rid of any teaching of scripture that you don't want.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

It may be proper to mention that the report of Origen and sexual self-mutilation is from 100 years later (Eusebius about 325 AD and then Jerome around 400 AD). Afaik it has no direct confirmation in his writings (he did write a Commentary on Matthew) or other writings of his times and thus some scholar/historians question its accuracy, conjecturing it could have been a story spread or embellished by his opponents.

The story may well be true, and it is hard to get the full details on the net (there is a reference to a German paper that probably has the various references and non-references) however I think it is only proper to point out that there is some uncertainty, ie. unless someone has some strong indicators from the time of Origen.

=====

On the general issue:

As false as many of his doctrines are I think there is a tendency to overpaint his darkness, even at times by Dean John Burgon and maybe Peter Ruckman. To try and make him the source of virtually all error and Bible textual corruption. There are some Bible verse issues (e.g. geographical verses - including the correct names Gergesenes and Bethabara beyond the Jordan) where Origen is actually quite significant historically on the true and accurate side. Maybe only a couple, a few. However the idea that he grossly tampered with the text personally (rather than bumbling alexandrian and gnostic scribes generally mucking up the text unto the abject corruption of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) is one I have not seen demonstrated. With his proper understanding and explanations on some verses being at least a mitigation towards a level, a measure, of Bible text sincerity.

Shalom,
Steven

[Bill]

I appreciate your concern for historical accuracy. There are several corroborating evidences that I noticed during research. 1. Contemporaries of Origen in daily contact noticed physical changes which correspond to the operation and became suspicious. 2.Demetrius gave Origen's operation as reason for refusing ordination to an otherwise well qualified person. 3. Origen later explained that he did it in order to be able to teach women. 4. Origen gave descriptions of the physical problems associated with this condition that are consistent with reality and extensive enough to suggest personal experience. In considerattion of my point #3: A Russian religious group called the Skoptsky, which practiced the same sexual mutilation as Origen and the Galli, were spiritual consultants to the Romanov family before the Bolshevik revolution (the most famous member of this group was named Rasputin). The Skoptsky were known to be enthusiastically favored by the women in the Romanov family. After the execution of the Romanovs by the Bolsheviks a piece of jewelry worn by one of the women was found to contain a picture of a Skoptsky member. It seems relevant to me, on the day that we have the most openly socialist leader of our country, that the religious instruction being received by the Romanovs immediately prior to the Communist government comes through the same type of people as the religious instruction contained in our Alexandrian Bibles most prominent in the Christian churches.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Bill,

I would like to read the corroborating evidences from primary sources (in translation). Perhaps the earliest of which is Eusebius ? (ie. There may be earlier records about the disputes with Demtrius that do not mention such details.) If Eusebius goes into such detail as you mention that increases the likelihood of accuracy, although even then it would help immensely to read his exact words.

Have you been able to track down any primary sources ? Do we have the words directly from Origen from #3 and #4 ? If so, of course that would seal the issue. If not, then why do you think not ?

Shalom,
Steven

[Bill]

My information comes from essays available on the internet and a few history books. When I was coming across this information I was looking for other topics or just reading out of general interest in church history and didn't bother to write down any given sources, as this particular topic is gruesome and repugnant enough to ignore whenever possible. I only remembered about Origen's adventures in androgyny when I noticed changes in Gal. 5:12, 1Cor.6:9, etc. that would be consistent with gnostic androgyny. I'll see if I can find the sources I used and get the bibliography references. I doubt that very much original writing from that time still exists. One comment concerning Eusebius's reporting on Origen is that since Eusebius was a follower of Origen it seems unlikely that he would say anything uncomplimentary obout his hero, but it can happen that a person claims to be an admiring follower and then changes their truth to fit another agenda.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

This next page gives a short summary of the evidence of the action, from the Eusebius history, counterposed to the direct reference from Origen in his Commentary on Matthew.

http://books.google.com/books?id=KjmQt_mYxGUC&pg=PA6
The Westminster Handbook to Origen - John Anthony McGuckin (2004)

There is an article in German by Christoph Markschies of which some of the pages are on the Net (preview mode in Google).

So far I tend to agree with the conclusion of McGuckin:

"Origen's text ought always to be preferred as a historical source over and above Eusebius."

Despite the fact that many authors simply write about this as a fact.

Shalom,
Steven

[Bill]

The Westminster handbook you reference is an extensive account, I haven't seen that before. I'm having problems trying to post a complete reply with sources I've used so I may have to try again tomorrow.