In article <094.13.09.05.852037000@srcbs.org>, basicallyblues says...
>
>
>
>The Testimony of Origen

I see, once more you are quoting without attribution, without naming your
sources for all your nonsense. As long as you insist on this dishonesty, you
have no right to expect a courteous reply.

>Origen was perhaps the greatest shining light of the Alexandrian school
>of the early church, the pupil of Clement, and was noted for his
>brilliant scholarship. He put together the Hexapla, a combination of
>six early translations of the Scriptures, including our modem copy of
>the Septuagint.

Where _do_ you get this nonsense? "Modem copy"? Even if I do you the charity of
correcting your typo and reading it as "modern copy", this is wrong in many
ways!

It is not _possible_ for Origen to have done "our modern copy", since the last
manuscript to leave his pen did so many centuries before the printing press. And
in the meantime, his Hexapla has suffered so much corruption, that it takes a
great deal of scholarly detective work to preserve anything from it at all. For
the Moslems destroyed his original manuscript when they burned Cesarea, and the
copyists did not understand his text-critical marks, so that the copies are
hopelessly garbled.

So Origen's influence on our "modern copies" is indirect and garbled.

> At one point in his career, Origen was demoted and
>stripped of all ministerial authority by the bishop of Alexandria, out
>of jealousy and a vengeful spirit, but he was still admired and
>accepted by the Asian churches.

This too, paints a very prejudicial picture of a complicated situation. Origen,
though a great scholar, fell to the temptation of many great minds -- into
heresy. But despite that, he made many great contributions to the Church --
unlike most other heretics since.

> He moved to Caesarea, and completed his
>life's work there. Origen lived from A.D. 185 to 254, we are told.

>Origen said that "the Father and Son are two substances . . . two
>things as to their essence," and that "compared with the Father,
>[the Son] is a very small light."

What _are_ you quoting? And are you aware of the textual and linguistic issues
behind this biased citation?

>This CLEARLY contradicts the Nicene Trinity.

It _also_ clearly contradicts what Origen himself says about the Trinity
elsewhere, even in the SAME BOOK! So you have proved nothing at all.

In fact, I doubt your translation is even correct. For as I said, elsewhere in
the very same work, Origen says:

QRHSKEYOMEN OYN TON PATERA THS ALHQEIAS KAI TON YION THN ALHQEIAN, ONTA
DUO THI YPOSTASE