9.)the Scriptures were not literal (Origen was the "father of allegories");
10.)neither in an actual "Adam" nor the fall of man and that Genesis 1-3 was not literal or historical;
11.)the correct intrepretation of Matthew 19 was that a man of God should be casterated and thereby proceded to emasculate himself;2
12.)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.");
13.)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);
14.)or intimated that non baptized infants were hell bound; and
15.)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.3 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
2 In so doing, Origen mutilated that which supposedly was the temple of the Holy Spirit. Jesus was not so teaching. When Jesus gave an example about plucking out an eye or cutting off a hand rather than to enter hell - He was teaching how dreadful sin was, how terrible hell was and with how radically sin had to be dealt. Jesus knew that no man in his right mind would really pluck out his eye or cut off his hand. Jesus was speaking to that person who would rationalize and say "Oh, I didn't want to do it. I did not want to gaze at her with an adulterous eye but my eye just did so. I didn't want to seize the money but my hand simply took it. I am basically a fine person. The problem is that my hand (or eye, he, she or even the devil) made me do it. Anybody, everybody but it is not my fault!" Jesus was saying in effect - Oh, if that is the case, simply cut off your hand or pluck out your eye.
Jesus desired to jar mankind out of its complacent self-satisfied lifestyle into an honest appraisal of the situation to the intent that they might repent. Again, He knew that they would not really pluck out their eyes nor did He mean for them to do so. He was teaching the horror and reality of hell. In Matthew 12 and 15 and in Jeremiah 17:9, Jesus taught that sin was a matter of the heart. One can pluck out an eye or cut off a hand but still think about and long to sin.
3 From J.J. Griesbach: "When there are many variant readings in one place, that reading which more than the others manifestly favors the dogmas of the orthodox is deservedly regarded as suspicious." Novum Testamentum Graece (Halle: 1796), p. 62.
