Created Monday, Nov. 4, 2002

I have gathered the writings of various early Christian Writers of the early centuries of the church on the matter of the resurrection and the soul. My goal is to be able to demonstrate the origin of the beliefs about the soul and resurrection. To give this the full treatment, we also need to consider the writings and teachings of the heretics of the time, too.

It is my opinion that both sides had misunderstood many things and that neither side was entirely wrong or entirely right, as could be said about the arguments for and against the trinity, too. In addition, we will see how Greek ideas invaded the world of Christianity with time, displaying it self as "science" and therefore taken for granted by the Christian community. But it certainly was not science but merely Greek philosophy which had no scientific basis. The Christians got fooled, just as some have got fooled today by things presented to them as science but with no scientific basis such as evolution and the dating sciences for man and his civilization.

Most of the writings have been modernized by me for an easier reading without changing any meaning. I do not believe disagreements can be ironed out without considering the "evolution" of this teaching from its earliest origins. I have already presented my article on the resurrection in detail and among several related articles, as well, which shall be listed at the end in "Related Articles."

You will find Justin's section is the longest as he wrote the most on the subjects I cover here. Origen would be the 2nd longest. It gets much shorter with the. Various writers each had their own particular focus and things to accomplish. Some concerned with the pagan Greeks and their philosophy. Others were concerned with the Jews and refuting the law. Some were concerned mainly with the heretics of the times. This is why some do not give the same amount of attention to certain subject matter that we might like.

Given what I feel is the Biblically supported view, the teachings that come about are rather puzzling but do have an easy explanation. The perplexing part is how they could make the mistakes they do in view of the fact that they seemed to understand the rather symbolic nature of many passages in the scriptures. So lets get things going with Clement, said to the Clement mentioned by Paul which would make him the most reliable source, having been a witness of Paul and a co-worker with him.

My comments shall appear in doubt brackets like these [{}] in the color green from here on in to distinguish them from the early writers text.

CLEMENT
Back to Top

To the Corinthians

CHAP. XXVI (26) --WE SHALL RISE AGAIN, THEN, AS THE SCRIPTURE ALSO TESTIFIES.

Do we then deem it any great and wonderful thing for the Maker of all things to raise up again those that have piously served Him in the assurance of a good faith, when even by a bird He shows us the mightiness of His power to fulfill His promise ? For [the Scripture] says in a certain place, "You shall raise me up, and I shall confess unto You; " and again, "I laid me down, and slept; I awaked, because you are with me; " and again, Job says, "You shall raise up this flesh of mine, which has suffered all these things."

[{Here Clement presents the resurrection doctrine unpolluted. Too cool, no? No going to heaven but rising again someday. The next chapter's verse will clear up the timing more.}]

Chap. 50

All the generations from Adam even unto this day have passed away; but those who, through the grace of God, have been made perfect in love, now possess a place among the godly, and shall be made manifest at the revelation of the kingdom of Christ. For it is written, [{From Isaiah 26}] "Enter into thy secret chambers for a little time, until my wrath and fury pass away; and I will remember a propitious day, and will raise you up out of your graves." Blessed are we, beloved, if we keep the commandments of God in the harmony of love; that so through love our sins may be forgiven us.

[{What is most remarkable and refreshing here is the Clement makes it clear the resurrection shall occur at the revelation of the kingdom or Christ, his 2nd return, the last day, Armageddon. There is no going to heaven beforehand as a soul. This is exactly as the Bible points out. What a trip, eh? Here is a genuine witness not even coming close to the teachings that are soon to appear.

What is baffling is Justin, who appears to be just slightly removed form the time of John. Of course, John long survived the other Apostles, most of who died at the hand of Nero around 68 AD no the least of which were Peter and Paul at Rome. So for many years, John was nearly the only Apostle around and part of that time was in prison. So many churches were not directly acquainted with John and were on their own for perhaps 30 years before John finally died. John was a very old man and likely did not get around much and spent his last years in Asia Minor around Ephesus.

So Justin was likely one of those who did not know John or his teaching, but had mainly the written words of the Apostles and the Old Testament to base his understanding on. In view of this, we can hardly hold it against him if he was mistaken or misunderstood some things. It as likely innocent but it was a mistake all the same.}]

THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN

CHAP. 18

For reflect upon the end of each of the preceding kings, how they died the death common to all, which, if it issued in insensibility, would be a godsend to all the wicked. But since sensation remains to all who have ever lived, and eternal punishment is laid up (i.e., for the wicked), see that you neglect not to be convinced, and to hold as your belief, that these things are true. For let even necromancy, and the divinations you practice by immaculate children, and the evoking of departed human souls, and those who are called among the magi, Dream-senders and Assistant-spirits (Familiars), and all that is done by those who are skilled in such matters--let these persuade you that even after death souls are in a state of sensation; and those who are seized and cast about by the spirits of the dead, whom all call daemoniacs or madmen; and what you repute as oracles, both of Amphilochus, Dodana, Pytho, and as many other such as exist; and the opinions of your authors, Empedocles and Pythagoras, Plato and Socrates, and the pit of Homer, and the descent of Ulysses to inspect these things, and all that has been uttered of a like kind. Such favor as you grant to these, grant also to us, who not less but more firmly than they believe in God; since we expect to receive again our own bodies, though they be dead and cast into the earth, for we maintain that with God nothing is impossible.

[{Justin definitely seems to indicate that we continue to maintain sensation after death and that for some eternal punishment is waiting. Of course, we could assume that his writings were tampered with but I do not think this likely since so many other writers seem to express a similar sentiment and if they had corrupted all of these, why didn't they also corrupt more texts to favor the trinity since most of them do not favor the trinity. I think they are genuine but surprising, given what came from Clement. But even Justin confirms that our bodies are to rise again. I must point out that this is an Old Testament. Old Covenant teaching.

Jesus taught as resurrection in heaven and the kingdom of the heavens so Justin seems to have missed this point. Justin was very well read and knowledgeable of the Old Testament teachings since he wrote an excellent piece to the Hebrews by way of an argument he had with a Jew named Trypho in his 2nd apology. So Justin may have gotten the two different hopes and covenants confused as I think he did. More on this as we go along.}]

CHAP. 20 (he believes in hell)

For while we say that all things have been produced and arranged into a world by God, we shall seem to utter the doctrine of Plato; and while we say that there will be a burning up of all, we shall seem to utter the doctrine of the Stoics: and while we affirm that the souls of the wicked, being endowed with sensation even after death, are punished, and that those of the good being delivered from punishment spend a blessed existence, we shall seem to say the same things as the poets and philosophers; and while we maintain that men ought not to worship the works of their hands, we say the very things which have been said by the comic poet Menander, and other similar writers, for they have declared that the workman is greater than the work.

[{Yes, he does believe in hell. May I point out the pagans also believed in a torment of the wicked as well. It was a teaching that had been around and one has to ask, which one came first and were they influenced by each other. Justin also had a thorough education of the Greek philosophers and literature so he well knew their beliefs and this is more evidence that this writing and teaching of his is genuine and not someone who later tampered with his text.}]

CHAP. 28

For among us the prince of the wicked spirits is called the serpent, and Satan, and the devil, as you can learn by looking into our writings. And that he would be sent into the fire with his host, and the men who follow him, and would be punished for an endless duration, Christ foretold. For the reason why God has delayed to do this, is His regard for the human race. For He fore-knows that some are to be saved by repentance, some even that are perhaps not yet born. In the beginning He made the human race with the power of thought and of choosing the truth and doing right, so that all men are without excuse before God; for they have been born rational and contemplative.

[{I gather that the delay in doing this refers to throwing Satan into this hell. But why throw all his followers in but not him? Are they also to wait? But if they are still sensible and conscious after having died, then what are they doing till then? I think he has not thought this through very well.}]

CHAP. 44

And the holy Spirit of prophecy taught us this, telling us by Moses that God spoke thus to the man first created: "Behold, before your face are good and evil: choose the good."

And whatever both philosophers and poets have said concerning the immortality of the soul, or punishments after death, or contemplation of things heavenly, or doctrines of the like kind, they have received such suggestions from the prophets as have enabled them to understand and interpret these things. And hence there seem to be seeds of truth among all men; but they are charged with not accurately understanding [the truth] when they assert contradictories.

[{Here it would appear that the Christian (Old Testament Hebrew) teaching came first and was adopted by others. I do not agree but that will come later. But as regards the nature of the soul, that was a Greek invention as I shall show later.}]

CHAP. 52

Since, then, we prove that all things which have already happened had been predicted by the prophets before they came to pass, we must necessarily believe also that those things which are in like manner predicted, but are yet to come to pass, shall certainly happen. For as the things which have already taken place came to pass when foretold, and even though unknown, so shall the things that remain, even though they be unknown and disbelieved, yet come to pass.

For the prophets have proclaimed two advents of His: the one, that which is already past, when He came as a dishonored and suffering Man; but the second, when, according to prophecy, He shall come from heaven with glory, accompanied by His angelic host, when also He shall raise the bodies of all men who have lived, and shall clothe those of the worthy with immortality, and shall send those of the wicked, endued with eternal sensibility, into everlasting fire with the wicked devils.

[{It would appear here that he does suggest that the judgement of the wicked will come when Christ returns the 2nd time. If they are to be judged, it would certainly be at the 2nd coming so he has that much right. It is not as soon as we die. But then I still ask, do they still feel or exist in some manner in the spirit world until judgement, or are they completely dead until the judgement and then be given over to eternal suffering?}]

And in what kind of sensation and punishment the wicked are to be, hear from what was said in like manner with reference to this; it is as follows: (Isaiah 66:24) "Their worm shall not rest, and their fire shall not be quenched;" and then shall they repent, when it profits them not.

[{Now we are beginning to see why Justin believes as he does. He quotes from the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament as do the Apostles and all early writers after them. That was the official version of early Christianity and I believe it should be now but that is another argument. Justin takes Isaiah 66:24 very literally. But if we take a look at that scripture translated from the Hebrew, it reveals some interesting things.

Isaiah 66:24 And they shall go out and see the dead bodies of the men who have transgressed against Me; for their worm shall not die, nor shall their fire be put out; and they shall be an object of disgust to all flesh.

The Jews have been accused by some of leaving out certain phrases by none other than Justin or possibly Tertullian. But the translation of the Greek Old Testament comes out different from the Hebrew. Justin may have quoted the scripture from memory rather than copying it from an actual page of text. Also, most early writers tended to blend two separate scriptures together as they both speak of the same thing. This is likely the case. Tertullian does this quite a bit. So he could have gotten it wrong or the original translators may have done some creative interpreting.

But in the Hebrew version, we are having described to us the aftermath of Armageddon where we see the dead bodies before us. So them being an object of disgust sounds more likely. Justin may be confusing or mixing two scriptures. I have come across that more than once among the early writers.

It seems to me that the worm and fire are figurative language to express the total destruction these people experience, never to return again.

Many cities were prophesied against and the degree of destruction is no where near what they actually experienced, such as the destruction of Tyre or Egypt. It was merely figurative language to emphasize a serious destruction. I believe that is the case here where it is their bodies being describe so it would not fit in the context of hell, which is not visible from earth by the living.

What strikes me as odd is that Justin did know about the tendency of prophecy to be symbolic and figurative, yet here he makes the mistake of interpreting it in such literal fashion that doe not make sense given the scenario involved.}]

by Zechariah the prophet: "I will command the four winds to gather the scattered children; I will command the north wind to bring them, and the south wind, that it keep not back. And then in Jerusalem there shall be great lamentation, not the lamentation of mouths or of lips, but the lamentation of the heart; and they shall rend not their garments, but their hearts. Tribe by tribe they shall mourn, and then they shall look on Him whom they have pierced; and they shall say, Why, O Lord, have You made us to err from Your way? The glory which our fathers blessed, has for us been turned into shame."

[{This strikes me odd as it merely describes a sort of regret they would be figuratively having but not really having in a literal way. They were and are too stubborn. It would be the same as the scene in Revelation when the whole world is said to "see" Jesus and they ask the rocks to fall on them and the mountains to hide them from Jesus. They are not literally going to say that. It is symbolic or representative of how they would feel. Justin seems to miss this. More later.}]

FRAGMENTS OF THE LOST WORK OF JUSTIN ON THE RESURRECTION

[TRANSLATED BY THE REV. M. DODS, M.A.]

CHAP. II.--OBJECTIONS TO THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH.

They who maintain the wrong opinion say that there is no resurrection of the flesh; giving as their reason that it is impossible that what is corrupted and dissolved should be restored to the same as it had been. And besides the impossibility, they say that the salvation of the flesh is disadvantageous; and they abuse the flesh, adducing its infirmities, and declare that it only is the cause of our sins, so that if the flesh, say they, rise again, our infirmities also rise with it. And such sophistical reasons as the following they elaborate: If the flesh rise again, it must rise either entire and possessed of all its parts, or imperfect. But its rising imperfect argues a want of power on God's part, if some parts could be saved, and others not; but if all the parts are saved, then the body will manifestly have all its members.

[{The ones who maintain the wrong, as Justin puts it, are the Gnostics and the Nicolatians who maintained that those resurrected would not be resurrected in the flesh. This is exactly the teaching Jesus gave to all, the resurrection of the new covenant, where everyone would go to heaven. That is exactly what the Bible says and most Christians understand that today. They all expect to go to heaven. Resurrection on earth was only held out in the old law covenant that we call the Old Testament.

So the heretics were actually right when they insisted we would be resurrected as angels in heaven even as Jesus plainly declared and as Justin is about to quote. But where the heretics go wrong is in suggesting that there will not be a resurrection of flesh on earth as well. It will not be made up of those in heaven, but there will be good people on earth, just as the Old Testament said. Both sides miss the fact that there are two resurrections, just as there are two advents or comings of Jesus.}]

But is it not absurd to say that these members will exist after the resurrection from the dead, since the Savior said, "They neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but shall be as the angels in heaven?" And the angels, say they, have neither flesh, nor do they eat, nor have sexual intercourse; therefore there shall be no resurrection of the flesh. By these and such like arguments, they attempt to distract men from the faith.

[{The full degree of what Justin is suggesting will be clear in the next chapter. But he does make it clear that the so called heretics believed and justly so, that we would be angels in heaven. Not only did Jesus make this clear in the passage he cited, Matthew 22:30. The heretics were actually right and in fact, agree with most Christianity today. The exception to this would be that many Christians believe it will be a physical existence in heaven, which is also what Justin will suggest but he would clearly be wrong as I show in an article linked at the end on resurrection. But the heretics would go too far by suggesting that all things spiritual were good and that all things fleshly were bad. They were initially created good by God, which the heretics fail to admit. And they do not also admit a fleshly resurrection, too.}]

And there are some who maintain that even Jesus Himself appeared only as spiritual, and not in flesh, but presented merely the appearance of flesh: these persons seek to rob the flesh of the promise. First, then, let us solve those things which seem to them to be insoluble; then we will introduce in an orderly manner the demonstration concerning the flesh, proving that it partakes of salvation.

[{Now this one gets interesting. Really, this is what the trinitarians basically claim when they say that Jesus was both fully God and man while on earth, inhabiting the body of a man but really being God. But that Jesus was fully flesh in all aspects was necessary in order to compensate for the sins of Adam, also fully flesh. Justin does promise to show that the flesh partakes of salvation. If he is referring to Christians and I would say that he is, then I would say he is wrong since all Christians are promised heaven as spirits just as God and the angels are.}]

CHAP. III.--IF THE MEMBERS RISE, MUST THEY DISCHARGE THE SAME FUNCTIONS AS NOW?

They say, then, if the body shall rise entire, and in possession of all its members, it necessarily follows that the functions of the members shall also be in existence; that the womb shall become pregnant, and the male also discharge his function of generation, and the rest of the members in like manner.

[{Yes, that is correct. If the physical bodies are brought back, they will have everything they had before, including our favorites, those genital areas. Again, here, the heretics are right.}]

Now let this argument stand or fall by this one assertion. For this being proved false, their whole objection will be removed.

[{Not true but we will let him proceed.}]

Now it is indeed evident that the members which discharge functions discharge those functions which in the present life we see but it does not follow that they necessarily discharge the same functions from the beginning.

[{It doesn't? How do you figure?}]

And that this may be more clearly seen, let us consider it thus. The function of the womb is to become pregnant; and of the member of the male to impregnate. But as, though these members are destined to discharge such functions, it is not therefore necessary that they from the beginning discharge them (since we see many women who do not become pregnant, as those that are barren, even though they have wombs), so pregnancy is not the immediate and necessary consequence of having a womb; but those even who are not barren abstain from sexual intercourse, some being virgins from the first, and others from a certain time.

And we see men also keeping themselves virgins, some from the first, and some from a certain time; so that by their means, marriage, made lawless through lust, is destroyed. And we find that some even of the lower animals, though possessed of wombs, do not bear, such as the mule; and the male mules do not beget their kind. So that both in the case of men and the irrational animals we can see sexual intercourse abolished; and this, too, before the future world. And our Lord Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, for no other reason than that He might destroy the begetting by lawless desire, and might show to the ruler that the formation of man was possible to God without human intervention. And when He had been born, and had submitted to the other conditions of the flesh,--I mean food, drink, and clothing,--this one condition only of discharging the sexual function He did not submit to; for, regarding the desires of the flesh, He accepted some as necessary, while others, which were unnecessary, He did not submit to.

For if the flesh were deprived of food, drink, and clothing, it would be destroyed; but being deprived of lawless desire, it suffers no harm. And at the same time He foretold that, in the future world, sexual intercourse should be done away with; as He says, "The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage; but the children of the world to come neither marry nor are given in marriage, but shall be like the angels in heaven." Let not, then, those that are unbelieving marvel, if in the world to come, He do away with those acts of our fleshly members which even in this present life are abolished.

[{I got all kinds of problems with this one. First, though some men or women may chose to forego marriage and sex, does not mean it is due be done away with. They neglected marriage, not because it was unpleasant or not desirable, but because they had other things t do that were more important to them as it was with Jesus, who came, not to have a good time but to teach people and prepare them for the sacrifice he would offer in their behalf. He did not have time or necessity to marry and breed. That does not mean sex was bad or to be done away with. Justin was assuming way too much. Further, Justin really blows it when he suggests that sexual desire is lawless desire. That is most absurd. Adam and Eve were told to marry and have kids. It was made to be very enjoyable so as to encourage breeding.

To call it lawless is to make the same mistake the heretics made in suggesting that all physical fleshly things are evil. God made it good not bad or evil. How can they miss that?

Justin makes his next mistake when he quotes the same scripture the heretics quote, but interprets it differently, seeing heaven as not the place where they would live as angels or spirits but as simply signifying that they will not breed, just as angels do not breed. But Jesus was not talking about the physical fleshly resurrection but the promise of going to heaven and reigning with Jesus in heaven as kings and priests over the earth.

I am assuming you have read my articles first, dealing with the Bible's view of the resurrections so that you understand there is both a resurrection of people on earth and of Christians in heaven as angels. This is what both the heretics and Justin were missing. Jesus was only preaching the kingdom of the heavens and not the Old Testament Old Covenant promise of a fleshly resurrection on earth whereby the meek would inherit the earth and live forever on it.}]

CHAP. IV.--MUST THE DEFORMED RISE DEFORMED?

Well, they say, if then the flesh rise, it must rise the same as it falls; so that if it die with one eye, it must rise one-eyed; if lame, lame; if defective in any part of the body, in this part the man must rise deficient. How truly blinded are they in the eyes of their hearts! For they have not seen on the earth blind men seeing again, and the lame walking by His word. All things which the Savior did, He did in the first place in order that what was spoken concerning Him in the prophets might be fulfilled, "that the blind should receive sight, and the deaf hear," and so on; but also to induce the belief that in the resurrection the flesh shall rise entire. For if on earth He healed the sicknesses of the flesh, and made the body whole, much more will He do this in the resurrection, so that the flesh shall rise perfect and entire. In this manner, then, shall those dreaded difficulties of theirs be healed.

[{Justin is right here. When those destined for resurrection on earth rise, the will be made whole, complete, and perfect, and not as they were before, with all their maladies and imperfections, old age, etc. This is rather stupid and silly for even the Bible in Isaiah 65 speaks of rejuvenation, as do other passages in Isaiah as well. Neither side in this argument is being very intelligent at times.}]

CHAP. V.--THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE.

But again, of those who maintain that the flesh has no resurrection, some assert that it is impossible; others that, considering how vile and despicable the flesh is, it is not fit that God should raise it; and others, that it did not at the first receive the promise. First, then, in respect of those who say that it is impossible for God to raise it, it seems to me that I should show that they are ignorant, professing as they do in word that they are believers, yet by their works proving themselves to be unbelieving, even more unbelieving than the unbelievers. For, seeing that all the heathen believe in their idols, and are persuaded that to them all things are possible (as even their poet Homer says, "The gods can do all things, and that easily;" and he added the word "easily" that he might bring out the greatness of the power of the gods), many do seem to be more unbelieving than they. For if the heathen believe in their gods, which are idols ("which have ears, and they hear not; they have eyes, and they see not"), that they can do all things, though they be but devils, as says the Scripture, "The gods of the nations are devils," much more ought we, who hold the right, excellent, and true faith, to believe in our God, since also we have proofs [of His power], first in the creation of the first man, for he was made from the earth by God; and this is sufficient evidence of God's power; and then they who observe things can see how men are generated one by another, and can marvel in a still greater degree that from a little drop of moisture so grand a living creature is formed.

[{Justin is right here, too. God certainly is capable enough and if a man can be produced by a drop of semen, most surely he can be made again. And if God made man once as He obviously did with Adam, certainly He can do it again. The next paragraph is sound, too. He will point out that even Jesus brought people back to life.}]

And certainly if this were only recorded in a promise, and not seen accomplished, this too would be much more incredible than the other; but it is rendered more credible by accomplishment. But even in the case of the resurrection the Savior has shown us accomplishments, of which we will in a little speak. But now we are demonstrating that the resurrection of the flesh is possible, asking pardon of the children of the Church if we adduce arguments which seem to be secular s and physical: first, because to God nothing is secular, not even the world itself, for it is His workmanship; and secondly, because we are conducting our argument so as to meet unbelievers. For if we argued with believers, it were enough to say that we believe; but now we must proceed by demonstrations. The foregoing proofs are indeed quite sufficient to evince the possibility of the resurrection of the flesh; but since these men are exceedingly unbelieving, we will further adduce a more convincing argument still,--an argument drawn not from faith, for they are not within its scope, but from their own mother unbelief,--I mean, of course, from physical reasons. For if by such arguments we prove to them that the resurrection of the flesh is possible, they are certainly worthy of great contempt if they can be persuaded neither by the deliverances of faith nor by the arguments of the world.

CHAP. VI.--THE RESURRECTION CONSISTENT WITH THE OPINIONS OF THE PHILOSOPHERS.

Those, then, who are called natural philosophers, say, some of them, as Plato, that the universe is matter and God; others, as Epicurus, that it is atoms and the void; others, like the Stoics, that it is these four--fire, water, air, earth. For it is sufficient to mention the most prevalent opinions. And Plato says that all things are made from matter by God, and according to His design; but Epicures and his followers say that all things are made from the atom and the void by some kind of self-regulating action of the natural movement of the bodies; and the Stoics, that all are made of the four elements, God pervading them.

But while there is such discrepancy among them, there are some doctrines acknowledged by them all in common, one of which is that neither can anything be produced from what is not in being, nor anything be destroyed or dissolved into what has not any being, and that the elements exist indestructible out of which all things are generated. And this being so, the regeneration of the flesh will, according to all these philosophers, appear to be possible. For if, according to Plato, it is matter and God, both these are indestructible and God; and God indeed occupies the position of an artificer, to wit, a potter; and matter occupies the place of clay or wax, or some such thing. That, then, which is formed of matter, be it an image or a statue, is destructible; but the matter itself is indestructible, such as clay or wax, or any other such kind of matter.

Thus the artist designs in the clay or wax, and makes the form of a living animal; and again, if his handiwork be destroyed, it is not impossible for him to make the same form, by working up the same material, and fashioning it anew. So that, according to Plato, neither will it be impossible for God, who is Himself indestructible, and has also indestructible material, even after that which has been first formed of it has been destroyed, to make it anew again, and to make the same form just as it was before.

[{A point well taken by Justin as are the next to follow.}]

But according to the Stoics even, the body being produced by the mixture of the four elementary substances, when this body has been dissolved into the four elements, these remaining indestructible, it is possible that they receive a second time the same fusion and composition, from God pervading them, and so re-make the body which they formerly made. Like as if a man shall make a composition of gold and silver, and brass and tin, and then shall wish to dissolve it again, so that each element exist separately, having again mixed them, he may, if he pleases, make the very same composition as he had formerly made.

Again, according to Epicurus, the atoms and the void being indestructible, it is by a definite arrangement and adjustment of the atoms as they come together, that both all other formations are produced, and the body itself; and it being in course of time dissolved, is dissolved again into those atoms from which it was also produced. And as these remain indestructible, it is not at all impossible, that by coming together again, and receiving the same arrangement and position, they should make a body of like nature to what was formerly produced by them; as if a jeweller should make in mosaic the form of an animal, and the stones should be scattered by time or by the man himself who made them, he having still in his possession the scattered stones, may gather them together again, and having gathered, may dispose them in the same way, and make the same form of an animal. And shall not God be able to collect again the decomposed members of the flesh, and make the same body as was formerly produced by Him?

CHAP. VII.--THE BODY VALUABLE IN GOD'S SIGHT.

But the proof of the possibility of the resurrection of the flesh I have sufficiently demonstrated, in answer to men of the world. And if the resurrection of the flesh is not found impossible on the principles even of unbelievers, how much more will it be found in accordance with the mind of believers! But following our order, we must now speak with respect to those who think meanly of the flesh, and say that it is not worthy of the resurrection nor of the heavenly economy, because, first, its substance is earth; and besides, because it is full of all wickedness, so that it forces the soul to sin along with it. But these persons seem to be ignorant of the whole work of God, both of the genesis and formation of man at the first, and why the things in the world were made. For does not the word say, "Let Us make man in our image, and after our likeness?" What kind of man? Manifestly He means fleshly man, For the word says, "And God took dust of the earth, and made man." It is evident, therefore, that man made in the image of God was of flesh. Is it not, then, absurd to say, that the flesh made by God in His own image is contemptible, and worth nothing? But that the flesh is with God a precious possession is manifest, first from its being formed by Him, if at least the image is valuable to the former and artist; and besides, its value can be gathered from the creation of the rest of the world. For that on account of which the rest is made, is the most precious of all to the maker.

[{Justin points out another weakness in the arguments of the heretics. If man is made in god's image by God, how can he be wicked or evil. Is God wicked or evil. And God said it was good. That says it all.}]

CHAP. VIII.--DOES THE BODY CAUSE THE SOUL TO SIN?

Quite true, say they; yet the flesh is a sinner, so much so, that it forces the soul to sin along with it. And thus they vainly accuse it, and lay to its charge alone the sins of both. But in what instance can the flesh possibly sin by itself, if it have not the soul going before it and inciting it? For as in the case of a yoke of oxen, if one or other is loosed from the yoke, neither of them can plough alone; so neither can soul or body alone effect anything, if they be unyoked from their communion. And if it is the flesh that is the sinner, then on its account alone did the Savior come, as He says, "I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Since, then, the flesh has been proved to be valuable in the sight of God, and glorious above all His works, it would very justly be saved by Him.

[{I gather that Justin may be suggesting that the soul and body are nothing without each other. But I agree with the heretics in that the body, the flesh, causes our sin. But I say that our body in a living state is our soul. When our bodies die, so do our souls, our entities. We cease being entities or living, thinking rational beings. A soul is a living being. That argument will come along soon.}]

We must meet, therefore, those who say, that even though it be the special handiwork of God, and beyond all else valued by Him, it would not immediately follow that it has the promise of the resurrection. Yet is it not absurd, that that which has been produced with such circumstance, and which is beyond all else valuable, should be so neglected by its Maker, as to pass to nonentity? Then the sculptor and painter, if they wish the works they have made to endure, that they may win glory by them, renew them when they begin to decay; but God would so neglect His own possession and work, that it becomes annihilated, and no longer exists. Should we not call this labor in vain? As if a man who has built a house should forthwith destroy it, or should neglect it, though he sees it falling into decay, and is able to repair it: we would blame him for laboring in vain; and should we not so blame God? But not such an one is the Incorruptible,--not senseless is the Intelligence of the universe. Let the unbelieving be silent, even though they themselves do not believe.

But, in truth, He has even called the flesh to the resurrection, and promises to it everlasting life. For where He promises to save man, there He gives the promise to the flesh. For what is man but the reasonable animal composed of body and soul? Is the soul by itself man? No; but the soul of man. Would the body be called man? No, but it is called the body of man. If, then, neither of these is by itself man, but that which is made up of the two together is called man, and God has called man to life and resurrection, He has called not a part, but the whole, which is the soul and the body.

[{Justin and I would appear to be in agreement here but others will not be.}]

Since would it not be unquestionably absurd, if, while these two are in the same being and according to the same law, the one were saved and the other not? And if it be not impossible, as has already been proved, that the flesh be regenerated, what is the distinction on the ground of which the soul is saved and the body not? Do they make God a grudging God? But He is good, and will have all to be saved. And by God and His proclamation, not only has your soul heard and believed on Jesus Christ, and with it the flesh, but both were washed, and both wrought righteousness. They make God, then ungrateful and unjust, if, while both believe on Him, He desires to save one and not the other. Well, they say, but the soul is incorruptible, being a part of God and inspired by Him, and therefore He desires to save what is peculiarly His own and akin to Himself; but the flesh is corruptible, and not from Him, as the soul is.

Then what thanks are due to Him, and what manifestation of His power and goodness is it, if He purposed to save what is by nature saved and exists as a part of Himself? For it had its salvation from itself; so that in saving the soul, God does no great thing. For to be saved is its natural destiny, because it is a part of Himself, being His inspiration. But no thanks are due to one who saves what is his own; for this is to save himself. For he who saves a part himself, saves himself by his own means, lest he become defective in that part; and this is not the act of a good man. For not even when a man does good to his children and offspring, does one call him a good man; for even the most savage of the wild beasts do so, and indeed willingly endure death, if need be, for the sake of their cubs. But if a man were to perform the same acts in behalf of his slaves, that man would justly be called good. Wherefore the Savior also taught us to love our enemies, since, says He, what thank have you? So that He has shown us that it is a good work not only to love those that are begotten of Him, but also those that are without. And what He enjoins upon us, He Himself first of all does.

CHAP. IX.--THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST PROVES THAT THE BODY RISES.

If He had no need of the flesh, why did He heal it? And what is most forcible of all, He raised the dead. Why? Was it not to show what the resurrection should be? How then did He raise the dead? Their souls or their bodies? Manifestly both. If the resurrection were only spiritual, it was requisite that He, in raising the dead, should show the body lying apart by itself, and the soul living apart by itself.

[{Paul give quite the discourse about how we continue to live and exist as spirits in 1 Corinthians 15. Our souls being given spiritual "bodies" as he calls them, or a spiritual existence, anyway. God is able to take our consciousness, what we might call our souls, and give them a spiritual existence or "body" as we might understand it in our fleshly understanding of things. Some Paul wrote to probably did not understand it but Paul sort of explained it as our bodies having the seed or germ of life that could grow another body or type of existence. But it was no extraordinary thing for God to be able to retain our consciousness and give us a different "body" so to speak. After all, how is it that spirits/ angels can take on physical fleshly bodies? If they can come from the spiritual realm into the physical one, why can't the reverse be true? So we can be confident that it is possible to go from one realm to the other.}]

But now He did not do so, but raised the body, confirming in it the promise of life. Why did He rise in the flesh in which He suffered, unless to show the resurrection of the flesh? And wishing to confirm this, when His disciples did not know whether to believe He had truly risen in the body, and were looking upon Him and doubting, He said to them, "You have not yet faith, see that it is I;" and He let them handle Him, and showed them the prints of the nails in His hands. And when they were by every kind of proof persuaded that it was Himself, and in the body, they asked Him to eat with them, that they might thus still more accurately ascertain that He had in verity risen bodily; and He did eat honey-comb and fish. And when He had thus shown them that there is truly a resurrection of the flesh, wishing to show them this also, that it is not impossible for flesh to ascend into heaven (as He had said that our dwelling-place is in heaven), "He was taken up into heaven while they beheld," as He was in the flesh. If, therefore, after all that has been said, any one demand demonstration of the resurrection, he is in no respect different from the Sadducees, since the resurrection of the flesh is the power of God, and, being above all reasoning, is established by faith, and seen in works.

[{Jesus rose in the spirit. The flesh had indeed, been put to death. But he took on a physical body so as to be able to prove to fleshly creatures, his disciples, that he had truly been resurrected, in case they should doubt. And after having been a little while with his disciples, he did rise to heaven. Now when they say he went up into the clouds, it may have been that he rose physically or it may have been the gospel writers' way of describing how he dissolved in the air to, up into the clouds so to speak, even as we speak of God as residing in heaven, though not so much literally but as a way of indicating His being removed from the earthly realm that we live in.

Recall that when an angel appeared to Samson's parents telling them about the birth of Samson, what happened. It is a very important account to consider for what we are discussing.

Judges 13:8 Then Manoah prayed to Jehovah, and said, O my Lord, the Man of God whom You sent, please let Him come again to us and direct us what we shall do to the boy being born. 9 And God listened to the voice of Manoah, and the Angel of God came again to the woman. And she was sitting in a field; and her husband Manoah was not with her. 10 And the woman hurried and ran, and told her husband, and said to him, Behold, He has appeared to me, the Man who came to me that day.

11 And Manoah rose up and went after his wife, and came to the Man. And he said to Him, Are You the Man who spoke to the woman? And He said, I am. 12 And Manoah said, Then let Your words come about. What shall be the way of the boy, and his undertaking? 13 And the Angel of Jehovah said to Manoah, Let her take heed of all that I said to the woman; 14 she shall not eat of anything that came forth from the grapevine; and she shall not drink wine or fermented drink; and she shall not eat any unclean thing. She shall be careful of all that I commanded her.

15 And Manoah said to the Angel of Jehovah, Please let us keep You, and prepare before You a kid of the goats. 16 And the Angel of Jehovah said to Manoah, If you keep Me, I will not eat of your bread. And if you prepare a burnt offering, you shall offer it to Jehovah. For Manoah did not know that He was the Angel of Jehovah. 17 And Manoah said to the Angel of Jehovah, What is Your name? When Your words come about, then we shall honor You.

18 And the Angel of Jehovah said to him, Why do you ask this about My name? Yea, it is Wonderful. 19 And Manoah took the kid of the goats, and the food offering, and offered on the rock to Jehovah. And He did wonderfully, and Manoah and his wife were watching. 20 And it happened as the flame from off the altar was going up to the heavens, that the Angel of Jehovah went up in the flame of the altar. And Manoah and his wife were watching. And they fell on their faces to the ground. 21 And the Angel of Jehovah did not appear any more to Manoah, or to his wife. Then Manoah knew that He was the Angel of Jehovah. 22 And Manoah said to his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God. 23 And his wife said to him, If Jehovah desired to put us to death, He would not have received a burnt offering and a food offering from our hands, nor declared to us all these things; nor would He at this time have caused us to hear such things as these.

24 And the woman bore a son, and called his name Samson. And the youth grew, and Jehovah blessed him.

*Now it sounds to me as if the angel dissolved or went up in the flame of the alter and offering. This is how I suspect Jesus went up. And when the scripture says that he will return as you saw him leave, it meant he would return invisibly, as if in the clouds, that is, concealed, hidden, invisible. Further, there can be no doubt about the angel who appeared to Samson's father, Manoah, that the angel was from heaven and went back to heaven. He was a spirit who did appear as a person and so was the case with Jesus. After all, humans can not see spirits in their spirit form so the only way they can be seen is to form some sort of apparition and they seem to prefer to appear in physical bodies such as we have, for our benefit, no doubt. We might get scared if they chose another form.

Consider that the Apostles got quite scared on the water sailing and catching sight of Jesus walking on the water, they imagined it was an apparition and cried out in fear till Jesus made it clear it was he and not an ghostly apparition such as the demons sometimes appear in.

So it is not at all hard to imagine that Jesus was a spirit who took on a body to convince the Apostles that he had indeed risen and could converse and eat with them as he always had. Being able to take on a body would be a convincing move, given that they had seen him die. So Justin fails to realize these possibilities.}]

CHAP. X.--THE BODY SAVED, AND WILL THEREFORE RISE.

The resurrection is a resurrection of the flesh which died. For the spirit dies not; the soul is in the body, and without a soul it cannot live.

[{Justin makes another error here. The scriptures say that God gave Adam the breath of life, the Hebrew word of which is typically translated as spirit, and Adam "became" a living soul. Translation: Body + Spirit (life force) = soul/ living entity of consciousness. A soul is the product of the animating of the flesh by God's spirit. The soul is not separate or distinct from the other two, but it can be transferred and given a spiritual existence, afterward, by God, if He so will and for some, He does, in time.}]

The body, when the soul forsakes it, is not. [{True! In that the soul is a product of spirit as well as flesh or body. That is to say, I assume he means that when the soul forsakes, he is speaking of the spirit of life departing. If he is not and he may not be, then he is wrong.}]

For the body is the house of the soul; [{True!}]

and the soul the house of the spirit.

[{False! The soul does not house the spirit. It is the result of the spirit "inhabiting" the body or animating it to produce a living conscious being. There is where they make their mistake and fail to understand.}]

These three, in all those who cherish a sincere hope and unquestioning faith in God, will be saved.

[{There are not 3, there are two, which combined, make a 3rd. For instance, if I blend red and yellow paint, I get orange. There were two which become one. So it is with the body and spirit. They become a living soul. But a soul can also be the result of an intelligent being existing as a spirit. How this can be is beyond our understanding since we have never been in that realm. But God's servant Paul assures us it can be so and will be so and Jesus also confirms this so we need not doubt it.}]

Considering, therefore, even such arguments as are suited to this world, and finding that, even according to them, it is not impossible that the flesh be regenerated; and seeing that, besides all these proofs, the Savior in the whole Gospel shows that there is salvation for the flesh, why do we any longer endure those unbelieving and dangerous arguments, and fail to see that we are retrograding when we listen to such an argument as this: that the soul is immortal, but the body mortal, and incapable of being revived?

[{Justin acknowledges that the soul is not immortal. That is a good start but he makes plenty of other mistakes, due to not understanding two different resurrections.}]

For this we used to hear from Pythagoras and Plato, even before we learned the truth. If then the Savior said this, and proclaimed salvation to the soul alone, what new thing, beyond what we heard from Pythagoras and Plato and all their band, did He bring us? But now He has come proclaiming the glad tidings of a new and strange hope to men. For indeed it was a strange and new thing for God to promise that He would not keep incorruption in incorruption, but would make corruption incorruption.

[{Odd that he should quote this passage from 1 Corinthians 15, the very chapter that makes it clear that we will be spirits in the heavenly realm.}]

But because the prince of wickedness could in no other way corrupt the truth, he sent forth his apostles (evil men who introduced pestilent doctrines), choosing them from among those who crucified our Savior; and these men bore the name of the Savior, but did the works of him that sent them, through whom the name itself has been spoken against. But if the flesh do not rise, why is it also guarded, and why do we not rather suffer it to indulge its desires? Why do we not imitate physicians, who, it is said, when they get a patient that is despaired of and incurable, allow him to indulge his desires? For they know that he is dying; and this indeed those who hate the flesh surely do, casting it out of its inheritance, so far as they can; for on this account they also despise it, because it is shortly to become a corpse. But if our physician Christ, God, having rescued us from our desires, regulates our flesh with His own wise and temperate rule, it is evident that He guards it from sins because it possesses a hope of salvation, as physicians do not suffer men whom they hope to save to indulge in what pleasures they please.

[{Though the heretics did reject many things about the true God, it is ironic that Justin, and many of his contemporaries, though quite unintentionally, introduce nearly as many errors as the heretics, do. After so many years (about 40 t0 50, at least) without the Apostles, the laziness and carelessness of the people in general causes them to cease to carefully pass on the understanding given them by the Apostles and so when left to discern the scriptures for themselves, they make errors and those get compounded over time as we shall see.

What I feel is important to recognize is that error comes about not just by bad intent, but also be mere laziness. Consider that even today, Christian parents have failed over the years to instill and maintain what was given to them so that over time we have experienced a total break down in control of our kids. Our whole country in the USA has gone to hell and it would not have done that if Christians hadn't been totally asleep and falling down on the job. The same things happened back in the first and 2nd centuries AD and has happened over the last 200 years, too. We learned nothing. Are we learning now or are we beyond learning? Now on to Ignatius.}]

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE SMYRAEANS LONGER VERSION.

Chap. 3

For, say the [holy] oracles, "This same Jesus, who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come, in like manner as you have seen Him go unto heaven." But if they say that He will come at the end of the world without a body, how shall those "see Him that pierced Him," and when they recognize Him, "mourn for themselves?" For incorporeal beings have neither form nor figure, nor the aspect of an animal possessed of shape, because their nature is in itself simple.

[{Ignatius admits an interpretation going around among some that Jesus is interpreted as returning invisibly as I suggest. But how can that be he asks, if his enemies "see" him. Even Origen speaks of how we can see visually or "see" as in understand or perceive. It is a well known figure of speech so I am surprised Ignatius can be so unaware of a literary technique that Jesus himself used many times. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?}]

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE TARSIANS

Chap. 7

And that our bodies are to rise again, He shows when He says, "Verily I say unto you, that the hour comes, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live." And [says] the apostle, "For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." And that we must live soberly and righteously, he [shows when he] says again, "Be not deceived: neither adulterers, nor effeminate persons, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor fornicators, nor revilers, nor drunkards, nor thieves, can inherit the kingdom of God." And again, "If the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised; our preaching therefore is vain, and your faith is also vain: you are yet in your sins. Then they also that are fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. If the dead rise not, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." But if such be our condition and feelings, wherein shall we differ from asses and dogs, who have no care about the future, but think only of eating, and of indulging such appetites as follow after eating? For they are unacquainted with any intelligence moving within them.

[{Like Justin, he does not discern two different resurrections and does not discern what Paul relates at 1 Corinthians 15 at all. Now on to Irenaeus.}]

Against the Heresies, Book 2

Chap. 34

1. By these things, then, it is plainly declared that souls continue to exist, that they do not pass from body to body, that they possess the form of a man, so that they may be recognized, and retain the memory of things in this world; moreover, that the gift of prophecy was possessed by Abraham, and that each class of souls] receives a habitation such as it has deserved, even before the judgment.

[{If souls continue to exist and I am missing something, what scripture would he suggest to prove that? They do not possess the form of a man, they are men. Each of us is rewarded according to our deeds.}]

2. But if any persons at this point maintain that those souls, which only began a little while ago to exist, cannot endure for any length of time; but that they must, on the one hand, either be unborn, in order that they may be immortal, or if they have had a beginning in the way of generation, that they should die with the body itself--let them learn that God alone, who is Lord of all, is without beginning and without end, being truly and for ever the same, and always remaining the same unchangeable Being. But all things which proceed from Him, whatsoever have been made, and are made, do indeed receive their own beginning of generation, and on this account are inferior to Him who formed them, inasmuch as they are not unbegotten. Nevertheless they endure, and extend their existence into a long series of ages in accordance with the will of God their Creator; so that He grants them that they should be thus formed at the beginning, and that they should so exist afterwards.

[{It seems he is suggesting that the soul is immortal, which can not be shown from any scripture. Those clearly state that we all rise on the last day if we had been dead. Irenaeus has really gone off the deep end and we will see why in later writers.}]

3. For as the heaven which is above us, the firmament, the sun, the moon, the rest of the stars, and all their grandeur, although they had no previous existence, were called into being, and continue throughout a long course of time according to the will of God, so also any one who thinks thus respecting souls and spirits, and, in fact, respecting all created things, will not by any means go far astray, inasmuch as all things that have been made had a beginning when they were formed, but endure as long as God wills that they should have an existence and continuance. The prophetic Spirit bears testimony to these opinions, when He declares, "For He spoke, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created: He hath established them for ever, yea, forever and ever."

[{Death is not forever and our resurrection is dependant on our obedience to God. And even after resurrection, we must obey or we die. But there is an interruption between our deaths and our resurrections. Next writer!}]

THE WRITINGS OF

CHAP. XXXVI. (36) --BEARING OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION ON THE PRACTICES OF THE CHRISTIANS.

On the contrary, it is reasonable to suppose, that those who think they shall have no account to give of the present life, ill or well spent, and that there is no resurrection, but calculate on the soul perishing with the body, and being as it were quenched in it, will refrain from no deed of daring; but as for those who are persuaded that nothing will escape the scrutiny of God, but that even the body which has ministered to the irrational impulses of the soul, and to its desires, will be punished along with it, it is not likely that they will commit even the smallest sin.

[{Athenagoras make the foolish presumption that if we are only to die and lose all consciousness and existence, that is, if we completely cease to exist after a life of sin, that we will not be deterred from sinning as the punishment of non-existence is not enough to deter us. That is what the Catholic Church has long declared so they came up with all these ridiculous visions of what hell was like.

On the other hand, he believes if our bodies and senses have a future punishment to suffer, I assume, forever, that we will be deterred. That is not likely. But even if it is, we still need proof that God intends to do that and that what was given in figure in prophecy and from Jesus, was just that, a figure and not something very literal.}]

CHAP. VII. --THE RESURRECTION-BODY DIFFERENT FROM THE PRESENT.

Nay, suppose we were to grant that the nourishment coming from these things (let it be so called, as more accordant with the common way of speaking), although against nature, is yet separated and changed into some one of the moist or dry, or warm or cold, matters which the body contains, our opponents would gain nothing by the concession: for the bodies that rise again are reconstituted from the parts which properly belong to them, whereas no one of the things mentioned is such a part, nor has it the form or place of a part; nay, it does not remain always with the parts of the body which are nourished, or rise again with the parts that rise, since no longer does blood, or phlegm, or bile, or breath, contribute anything to the life. Neither, again, will the bodies nourished then require the things they once required, seeing that, along with the want and corruption of the bodies nourished, the need also of those things by which they were nourished is taken away.

[{Now he is stepping off into really deep water. He states that bodies will not longer require the same nourishment, food, water, whatever, that they formerly did. Where is that in the Bible? See how one misstep/error is built upon with another error until it is loaded with errors? None of these guys have been saying the same thing. Each one adds something different.}]

CHAP. XII.--ARGUMENT FOR THE RESURRECTION FROM THE PURPOSE CONTEMPLATED IN MAN'S CREATION.

The argument from the cause will appear, if we consider whether man was made at random and in vain, or for some purpose; and if for some purpose, whether simply that he might live and continue in the natural condition in which he was created, or for the use of another; and if with a view to use, whether for that of the Creator Himself, or of some one of the beings who belong to Him, and are by Him deemed worthy Of greater care. Now, if we consider this in the most general way, we find that a person of sound mind, and who is moved by a rational judgment to do anything, does nothing in vain which he does intentionally, but either for his own use, or for the use of some other person for whom he cares, or for the sake of the work itself, being moved by some natural inclination and affection towards its production. For instance (to make use of an illustration, that our meaning may be clear), a man makes a house for his own use, but for cattle and camels and other animals of which he has need he makes the shelter suitable for each of them; not for his own use, if we regard the appearance only, though for that, if we look at the end he has in view, but as regards the immediate object, from concern for those for whom he cares. He has children, too, not for his own use, nor for the sake of anything else belonging to him, but that those who spring from him may exist and continue as long as possible, thus by the succession of children and grandchildren comforting himself respecting the close of his own life, and hoping in this way to immortalize the mortal. Such is the procedure of men.

But God can neither have made man in vain, for He is wise, and no work of wisdom is in vain; nor for His own use, for He is in want of nothing. But to a Being absolutely in need of nothing, no one of His works can contribute anything to His own use. Neither, again, did He make man for the sake of any of the other works which He has made. For nothing that is endowed with reason and judgment has been created, or is created, for the use of another, whether greater or less than itself, but for the sake of the life and continuance of the being itself so created. For reason cannot discover any use which might be deemed a cause for the creation of men, since immortals are free from want, and in need of no help from men in order to their existence; and irrational beings are by nature in a state of subjection, and perform those services for men for which each of them was intended, but are not intended in their turn to make use of men: for it neither was nor is right to lower that which rules and takes the lead to the use of the inferior, or to subject the rational to the irrational, which is not suited to rule.

Therefore, if man has been created neither without cause and in vain (for none of God's works is in vain, so far at least as the purpose of their Maker is concerned), nor for the use of the Maker Himself, or of any of the works which have proceeded from Him, it is quite clear that although, according to the first and more general view of the subject, God made man for Himself, and in pursuance of the goodness and wisdom which are conspicuous throughout the creation, yet, according to the view which more nearly touches the beings created, He made him for the sake of the life of those created, which is not kindled for a little while and then extinguished. For to creeping things, I suppose, and birds, and fishes, or, to speak more generally, all irrational creatures, God has assigned such a life as that; but to those who bear upon them the image of the Creator Himself, and are endowed with understanding, and blessed with a rational judgment, the Creator has assigned perpetual duration, in order that, recognizing their own Maker, and His power and skill, and obeying law and justice, they may pass their whole existence free from suffering, in the possession of those qualifies with which they have bravely borne their preceding life, although they lived in corruptible and earthly bodies.

For whatever has been created for the sake of something else, when that has ceased to be for the sake of which it was created, will itself also fitly cease to be, and will not continue to exist in vain, since, among the works of God, that which is useless can have no place; but that which was created for the very purpose of existing and living a life naturally suited to it, since the cause itself is bound up with its nature, and is recognized only in connection with existence itself, can never admit of any cause which shall utterly annihilate its existence. But since this cause is seen to lie in perpetual existence, the being so created must be preserved for ever, doing and experiencing what is suitable to its nature, each of the two parts of which it consists contributing what belongs to it, so that the soul may exist and remain without change in the nature in which it was made, and discharge its appropriate functions (such as presiding over the impulses of the body, and judging of and measuring that which occurs from time to time by the proper standards and measures), and the body be moved according to its nature towards its appropriate objects, and undergo the changes allotted to it, and, among the rest (relating to age, or appearance, or size), the resurrection. For the resurrection is a species of change, and the last of all, and a change for the better of what still remains in existence at that time.

[{Well, can you see the problem? Athenagoras gives us all sorts of philosophical reasoning, not bad in itself, I suppose, but without one scripture to go with it. Then he asserts after all that hot air that resurrection is a species of change and a change for the better. But I do not see any scriptures for his assertions. And I don't follow his reasoning very well, either.}]

CHAP. XIII.--CONTINUATION OF THE ARGUMENT.

[1] Confident of these things, no less than of those which have already come to pass, and reflecting on our own nature, we are content with a life associated with neediness and corruption, as suited to our present state of existence, and we steadfastly hope for a continuance of being in immortality; and this we do not take without foundation from the inventions of men, feeding ourselves on false hopes, but our belief rests on a most infallible guarantee--the purpose of Him who fashioned us, according to which He made man of an immortal soul and a body, and furnished him with understanding and an innate law for the preservation and safeguard of the things given by Him as suitable to an intelligent existence and a rational life: for we know well that He would not have fashioned such a being, and furnished him with everything belonging to perpetuity, had He not intended that what was so created should continue in perpetuity.

[{There you have it. Now the soul is immortal. If he means immortal after having a resurrection, it could be acceptable. But if he suggests that the soul never truly dies, then he is a heretic.}]

If, therefore, the Maker of this universe made man with a view to his partaking of an intelligent life, and that, having become a spectator of His grandeur, and of the wisdom which is manifest in all things, he might continue always in the contemplation of these; then, according to the purpose of his Author, and the nature which he has received, the cause of his creation is a pledge of his continuance for ever, and this continuance is a pledge of the resurrection, without which man could not continue. So that, from what has been said, it is quite clear that the resurrection is plainly proved by the cause of man's creation, and the purpose of Him who made him. Such being the nature of the cause for which man has been brought into this world, the next thing will be to consider that which immediately follows, naturally or in the order proposed; and in our investigation the cause of their creation is followed by the nature of the men so created, and the nature of those created by the just judgment of their Maker upon them, and all these by the end of their existence. Having investigated therefore the point placed first in order, we must now go on to consider the nature of men.

[{What he has been suggesting all along is that the resurrected form of man was the intention of God in the first place and that God made man for this purpose. B#%% S*&#! God made the earth and man to be forever and had they not sinned, that is what would have happened. Athenagoras is an idiot. He doesn't even know or understand what took place in the first 3 chapters of Genesis. See how far off track this whole thing is going?}]

CHAP. XIV.--THE RESURRECTION DOES NOT REST SOLELY ON THE FACT OF A FUTURE JUDGMENT.

but seeing that all are to rise again, those who have died in infancy as well as others, they too justify our conclusion that the resurrection takes place not for the sake of the judgment as the primary reason, but in consequence of the purpose of God in forming men, and the nature of the beings so formed.

[{Are you seeing this? He says the primary purpose of the judgement but is a result of men being formed for that purpose. I will declare to you that the resurrection takes place because of the judgement, to restore those who did not have a choice in the Garden of Eden but had that choice made for them by Adam. See, he knows nothing about Genesis. He is a phony.}]

CHAP. XV.--ARGUMENT FOR THE RESURRECTION FROM THE NATURE OF MAN.

But while the cause discoverable in the creation of men is of itself sufficient to prove that the resurrection follows by natural sequence on the dissolution of bodies, yet it is perhaps right not to shrink from adducing either of the proposed arguments, but, agreeably to what has been said, to point out to those who are not able of themselves to discern them, the arguments from each of the truths evolved from the primary; and first and foremost, the nature of the men created, which conducts us to the same notion, and has the same force as evidence of the resurrection.

For if the whole nature of men in general is composed of an immortal soul and a body which was fitted to it in the creation, and if neither to the nature of the soul by itself, nor to the nature of the body separately, has God assigned such a creation or such a life and entire course of existence as this, but to men compounded of the two, in order that they may, when they have passed through their present existence, arrive at one common end, with the same elements of which they are composed at their birth and during life, it unavoidably follows, since one living-being is formed from the two, experiencing whatever the soul experiences and whatever the body experiences, doing and performing whatever requires the judgment of the senses or of the reason, that the whole series of these things must be referred to some one end, in order that they all, and by means of all, namely, man's creation, man's nature, man's life, man's doings and sufferings, his course of existence, and the end suitable to his nature,--may concur in one harmony and the same common experience.

[{He makes the mistake of seeing the soul and body as distinct, and yet inseparable. They must always remain together. But the Bible says God has a soul as does Christ. And those destined for heaven will retain their souls, their consciousness, but not their bodies. But a soul can not exist without either a bodily form or a spirit form. It requires one or the other. It is not something all by itself that remains apart from the other two. Soul is an abstract term for entity and consciousness that all living beings have, whether of the spirit or of the flesh/ body.}]

But if there is some one harmony and community of experience belonging to the whole being, whether of the things which spring from the soul or of those which are accomplished by means of the body, the end for all these must also be one. And the end will be in strictness one, if the being whose end that end is remains the same in its constitution; and the being, will be exactly the same, if all those things of which the being consists as parts are the same. And they will be the same in respect of their peculiar union, if the parts dissolved are again united for the constitution of the being. And the constitution of the same men of necessity proves that a resurrection will follow of the dead and dissolved bodies; for without this, neither could the same parts be united according to nature with one another, nor could the nature of the same men be reconstituted.

And if both understanding and reason have been given to men for the discernment of things which are perceived by the understanding, and not of existences only, but also of the goodness and wisdom and rectitude of their Giver, it necessarily follows that, since those things continue for the sake of which the rational judgment is given, the judgment given for these things should also continue. But it is impossible for this to continue, unless the nature which has received it, and in which it adheres, continues. But that which has received both understanding and reason is man, not the soul by itself. Man, therefore, who consists of the two parts, must continue for ever.

But it is impossible for him to continue unless he rise again. For if no resurrection were to take place, the nature of men as men would not continue. And if the nature of men does not continue, in vain has the soul been fitted to the need of the body and to its experiences; in vain has the body been lettered so that it cannot obtain what it longs for, obedient to the reins of the soul, and guided by it as with a bridle; in vain is the understanding, in vain is wisdom, and the observance of rectitude, or even the practice of every virtue, and the enactment and enforcement of laws,--to say all in a word, whatever is noble in men or for men's sake, or rather the very creation and nature of men. But if vanity is utterly excluded from all the works of God, and from all the gifts bestowed by Him, the conclusion is unavoidable, that, along with the interminable duration of the soul, there will be a perpetual continuance of the body according to its proper nature.

[{It must be explained at this point, though it will become evident later, that the Greeks understood two aspects of thinking. There was our appetites, urges, desires and the like. And then there was that aspect of us that Socrates and Plato called the soul, which was thinking and discernment apart from our bodily functions and cravings. They considered this knowledge and thinking to be innate and distinct from much of the rest of our thinking. It made decisions apart from any distractions of undue influences. This to them indicated separate rational entity known as the soul. They considered this knowledge and ability to discern as something inherited in the soul and separate from the body.

But in truth, I do not believe this at all. I believe that all thinking derives from the brain. The difference is that the brain has the ability to separate the various types of thinking and desires. It can, if it wants to, ask deep serious questions about it self and come up with honest objective answers, even if they are self incriminating. It is our ability to analyze ourselves and contemplate our own actions, thinking, and motivations. It is not some distinct separate being. It is a natural ability of the brain we all possess. Aristotle believed this and denied their teaching of the soul as separate and distinct with its own natural ability, an innate ability, to sense and know right and wrong and things of a spiritual or incorporeal nature. And he rightly should have.

But early Christians really fell for this Platonic idea and adopted it, thinking it to make perfect sense. They knew there was a constant battle between the flesh and the "spirit" so they confused the spirit and soul of Platonic definition came to see the spirit and soul mean pretty much the same thing. Only problem was that Paul was not speaking of a literal spirit but of an attitude and way of thinking about things. I discuss this much more in my article about Tolerance and Individual Thinking that I link to at the end of this article. From this, everything got mixed up and got way off course.

They did not strictly stick to the Bible and that is how you get off course to begin with, when you don't strictly adhere precisely to what is said and nothing more. Now more of Athenagoras.}]

CHAP. XVI--ANALOGY OF DEATH AND SLEEP, AND CONSEQUENT ARGUMENT FOR THE RESURRECTION.

For although the relaxation of the senses and of the physical powers, which naturally takes place in sleep, seems to interrupt the sensational life when men sleep at equal intervals of time, and, as it were, come back to life again, yet we do not refuse to call it life; and for this reason, I suppose, some call sleep the brother of death, not as deriving their origin from the same ancestors and fathers, but because those who are dead and those who sleep are subject to similar states, as regards at least the stillness and the absence of all sense of the present or the past, or rather of existence itself and their own life. If, therefore, we do not refuse to call by the name of life the life of men full of such inequality from birth to dissolution, and interrupted by all those things which we have before mentioned, neither ought we to despair of the life succeeding to dissolution, such as involves the resurrection, although for a time it is interrupted by the separation of the soul from the body.

[{Again, he separates the soul from the body. The soul is made up of the body and dies when the body dies. They both die. Death is not sleep though is said to be sleep in that there will be a time when we come to life again, as if we had been in a sleep. That is to say, the death is only temporary as sleep is. Aren't you glad this is the end of Athenagoras? Tatian is next.}]

ADDRESS OF TATIAN TO THE GREEKS.

[{I have to pay Tatian some compliments. He truly understands many things the others do not. He is called an apostate or heretic by some in his later days, but not of the well known sects that truly were heretics. Tatian was no such thing. He was often right when others were not. Was he perfect? Obviously not. He had errors and short-comings as well. But he gets a good deal right, too, as we shall see.}]

CHAP. VI.--CHRISTIANS' BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION.

And on this account we believe that there will be a resurrection of bodies after the consummation of all things; not, as the Stoics affirm, according to the return of certain cycles, the same things being produced and destroyed for no useful purpose, but a resurrection once for all, when our periods of existence are completed, and in consequence solely of the constitution of things under which men alone live, for the purpose of passing judgment upon them. Nor is sentence upon us passed by Minos or Rhadamanthus, before whose decease not a single soul, according to the mythic tales, was judged; but the Creator, God Himself, becomes the arbiter. And, although you regard us as mere triflers and babblers, it troubles us not, since we have faith in this doctrine. For just as, not existing before I was born, I knew not who I was, and only existed in the potentiality (<greek>upostasis</greek>) Of fleshly matter, but being born, after a former state of nothingness, I have obtained through my birth a certainty of my existence; in the same way, having been born, and through death existing no longer, and seen no longer, I shall exist again, just as before I was not, but was afterwards born. Even though fire destroy all traces of my flesh, the world receives the vaporized matter ; and though dispersed through rivers and seas, or torn in pieces by wild beasts, I am laid up in the storehouses of a wealthy Lord. And, although the poor and the godless know not what is stored up, yet God the Sovereign, when He pleases, will restore the substance that is visible to Him alone to its pristine condition.

[{Tatian is right on target. "Through death existing no longer." He got it. And he will be restored exactly as before. Exactly! What a guy!}]

CHAP. VII.--CONCERNING THE FALL OF MAN.

For the heavenly Logos, a spirit emanating from the Father and a Logos from the Logos-power, in imitation of the Father who begot Him made man an image of immortality, so that, as incorruption is with God, in like manner, man, sharing in a part of God, might have the immortal principle also.

[{Precisely. Man was made to be immortal and incorrupt, even though he was in physical fleshly form. You can have your cake and eat it, too. Tatian is so coherent and clear. Love that guy!}]

The Logos, too, before the creation of men, was the Framer of angels. And each of these two orders of creatures was made free to act as it pleased, not having the nature of good, which again is with God alone, but is brought to perfection in men through their freedom of choice, in order that the bad man may be justly punished, having become depraved through his own fault, but the just man be deservedly praised for his virtuous deeds, since in the exercise of his free choice he refrained from transgressing the will of God.

[{He has a clear understanding of free will and free choice and how they take place in men and angels.}]

Such is the constitution of things in reference to angels and men. And the power of the Logos, having in itself a faculty to foresee future events, not as fated, but as taking place by the choice of free agents, foretold from time to time the issues of things to come; it also became a forbidder of wickedness by means of prohibitions, and the encomiast of those who remained good. And, when men attached themselves to one who was more subtle than the rest, having regard to his being the first-born, and declared him to be God, though he was resisting' the law of God, then the power of the Logos excluded the beginner of the folly and his adherents from all fellowship with Himself. And so he who was made in the likeness of God, since the more powerful spirit is separated from him, becomes mortal; but that first-begotten one through his transgression and ignorance becomes a demon; and they who imitated him, that is his illusions, have become a host of demons, and through their freedom of choice have been given up to their own infatuation.

[{Tatian refers to the fact that we are all free moral agents, free to choose as we will, either good or bad. And we chose bad in the Garden of Eden and joined league with Satan, who is also referred to though not be name. Tatian has a more firm grasp of the things that went down in the garden of Eden then anyone else of his time or any time after. Many suggested that Adam could and would be resurrected again but Tatian said he would not, as he had a reasonable choice of either good or bad and simply made a bad choice. I will deal with that more in another article.}]

CHAP. XII.--THE TWO KINDS OF SPIRITS.

We recognise two varieties of spirit, one of which is called the soul (<greek>yukh</greek>), but the other is greater than the soul, an image and likeness of God: both existed in the first men, that in one sense they might be material (<greek>ulikoi</greek>), and in another superior to matter.

[{Tatian does continue to make the error here that others make. the soul is not a spirit or a kind of spirit. The spirit is another matter altogether! Their ability to rise above their flesh, mind over matter you might say, to distinguish the desires of the flesh from higher principles and to be able to analyze and judge themselves objectively, if they so chose, was not some separate higher being, but simply a part of the brain, a brain much superior to what the animals had. They all seem to literalize the functions of our brains and make them two separate beings.

We are not separate but it would appear that we have two different ways of discerning things, one instinctual, impressionistic, intuitive, and the other analytical. the Brain hemispheres are highly specialized, almost like two persons within one, but not separated from the material being or body. The Latin word "conscience" recognizes this. Con-science where Con means two or dual, and science meaning to know. There were two ways of knowing and understanding and this was recognized. But it did not indicate two separate substances, a soul and a body. More on this later.}]

Therefore the demons, as you call them, having received their structure from matter and obtained the spirit which inheres in it, became intemperate and greedy; some few, indeed, turning to what was purer, but others choosing what was inferior in matter, and conforming their manner of life to it. These beings, produced from matter, but very remote from right conduct, you, O Greeks, worship.

[{Tatian speaks of the angels that came down to earth and took bodily form to mate with earthly women. It is in Genesis 6 and receives much attention from all the early writers dealing with pagan Greek religion. The argument Tatian is fighting is that the angels that came down were not disturbed until they took on bodies, which corrupted their nature. But their decision to come down and take human form was their sin to begin with. The body was not necessary. The difference between spirits sinning and humans sinning is that spirits do not break down and die when they sin. God must actively destroy spirits in order for them to die. The day is coming when He will do that.}]

For, being turned by their own folly to vaingloriousness, and shaking off the reins [of authority], they have been forward to become robbers of Deity; and the Lord of all has suffered them to besport themselves, till the world, coming to an end, be dissolved, and the Judge appear, and all those men who, while assailed by the demons, strive after the knowledge of the perfect God obtain as the result of their conflicts a more perfect testimony in the day of judgment.

Hearken to us when we speak, if only as you would to an oracular oak.

[{Tatian sort of mocks their vain worship of the oak tree, a rather common form of worship among the ancients of many races. He wished that they would listen to him as much as they did an oak. It is kind of funny.}]

CHAP. XIII.--THEORY OF THE SOUL'S IMMORTALITY.

The soul is not in itself immortal, O Greeks, but mortal.

[{Did you see what he said?}]

Yet it is possible for it not to die. If, indeed, it knows not the truth, it dies, and is dissolved with the body, but rises again at last at the end of the world with the body, receiving death by punishment in immortality. But, again, if it acquires the knowledge of God, it dies not, although for a time it be dissolved.

[{He points out here that it can be considered immortal in that it eventually is resurrected to immortality. But in between it is not conscious. It seems as though he also believes that the wicked will be brought back to be punished by immortality if I understand him right. Or he could just be saying they are punished with death as a permanent condition, this is, in immortality. There is no mention of suffering or torment. I wish it was more clear. Most of the early writers seem to take Jesus quite literally, even though the scriptures tell (warn) us that Jesus usually spoke in figures and parables. Speaking, writing, and thinking in this symbolic style was one of the main goals of Jesus while on earth so that he could speak to us all in code in the prophecies he was to deliver.

The Bible promises the day when Jesus will speak all things clearly and plainly to us but for now he can not for our enemies would then know what was said about them and they would ban the Bible. So the Bible speaks in veiled terms that could and are misinterpreted as senseless, meaningless, ambiguous babbling. That is exactly what was intended. But for now, most of God's servants have not done well at discerning the goals and intentions of His literary style as delivered through prophets, His Son, and Apostles.}]

In itself it is darkness, and there is nothing luminous in it. And this is the meaning of the saying, "The darkness comprehends not the light." For the soul does not preserve the spirit, but is preserved by it, and the light comprehends the darkness. The Logos, in truth, is the light of God, but the ignorant soul is darkness. On this account, if it continues solitary, it tends downward towards matter, and dies with the flesh; but, if it enters into union with the Divine Spirit, it is no longer helpless, but ascends to the regions whither the Spirit guides it: for the dwelling-place of the spirit is above, but the origin of the soul is from beneath. Now, in the beginning the spirit was a constant companion of the soul, but the spirit forsook it because it was not willing to follow.

[{I assume he speaks of the soul while it is yet alive or otherwise he is contradicting himself. The next paragraph does make it more clear. Still, it seem to me he is coming dangerously close to sounding like Greeks rather than a Christian for very little is ever said about the soul in the Bible. It was not a big deal. The focus was always on the flesh/ body and the spirit. Somewhere, because of the Greeks, they got way off track.}]

Yet, retaining as it were a spark of its power, though unable by reason of the separation to discern the perfect, while seeking for God it fashioned to itself in its wandering many gods, following the sophistries of the demons. But the Spirit of God is not with all, but, taking up its abode with those who live justly, and intimately combining with the soul, by prophecies it announced hidden things to other souls. And the souls that are obedient to wisdom have attracted to themselves the cognate spirit; but the disobedient, rejecting the minister of the suffering God, have shown themselves to be fighters against God, rather than His worshippers.

[{He simply replaces people or humans with the word soul. But I believe it was not healthy to do so. It was not commonly done in the scriptures. Rather than refer to them as souls, they were usually referred to by gender or as a nation or something like that. The practice should have been continued to some degree, in my thinking. We are not only given ideas in the Bible, but also the pattern by which we should express ourselves to some degree. It is not that it is rigid and inflexible, but straying too far leads to what we see among these writers, giving all sorts of attention to something hardly mentioned in scripture. That is wrong.}]

CHAP. XV.--NECESSITY OF A UNION WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT.

The perfect God is without flesh; but man is flesh. The bond of the flesh is the soul; that which encloses the soul is the flesh. Such is the nature of man's constitution; and, if it be like a temple, God is pleased to dwell in it by the spirit, His representative; but, if it be not such a habitation, man excels the wild beasts in articulate language only,--in other respects his manner of life is like theirs, as one who is not a likeness of God. But none of the demons possess flesh; their structure is spiritual, like that of fire or air. And only by those whom the Spirit of God dwells in and fortifies are the bodies of the demons easily seen, not at all by others,--I mean those who possess only soul; for the inferior has not the ability to apprehend the superior. On this account the nature of the demons has no place for repentance.

[{Tatian does make a mild error here, maybe. It could be just a misunderstanding of what he is saying. But I say the soul is not enclosed or bonded to the flesh, it is the flesh in an animated state, given spirit, the breath of life. It is not something in some way distinct from the flesh. But I might be splitting hairs, too. Now Tatian says that the spirit of God does not inhabit those who reject him. Well, the more pronounced and outstanding part of the spirit does not but all men, all humans beings are said to have the spirit, which was translated as the breath of life. It is not the same spirit as the one that produces miracles and prophecy, for sure, but it is said to be spirit according to the Hebrew scriptures. Because we understand it to be different from the more outstanding holy spirit of God, we call it the breath of life since the Hebrews also used the word spirit to signify such things. You might want to check out my article on Spirit at the end of this article.}]

CHAP. XXV.--BOASTINGS AND QUARRELS OF THE PHILOSOPHERS.

but Aristotle impugns the immortality of the soul.

[{Well, what do you know! Aristotle was a pretty smart guy. Aristotle, sticking much more closely to logic and observation and avoiding things he can not know or discern, such as heavenly or spiritual things, comes to the conclusion that the soul is in the body, the flesh, and not something distinct or separate. This is a drastic departure from what Plato or Socrates had declared. But in the early centuries, Plato was the rage and Aristotle was not in fashion. That would change about 1000 y ears later. Aristotle was a bit ahead of his time but very much in harmony with scriptural declaration.}]

CHAP. XXVII.- THE CHRISTIANS ARE HATED UNJUSTLY .

And what avails the Attic style, the sophistries of philosophers, the plausibilities of syllogisms, the measurements of the earth, the positions of the stars, and the course of the sun? To be occupied in such inquiries is the work of one who imposes opinions on himself as if they were laws.

[{This is an interesting passage for many reasons only indirectly related to the discussion of the soul. Tatian sort of laughs as the musings of philosophers, whose words are accepted as physical laws. But in doing so, he also discredits things that were legitimate. The Greeks had measured the circumference of the earth. They were not by any means the first to do so and they did not do as good a job as some earlier peoples, but it was close. They, like the earlier peoples, understood the earth was round and rotated around the sun. This would only be lost in the dark ages which Christians would help to bring in.

Most early Christians were skeptical of many things Greek. But it is puzzling that while they rejected may of those things which could be mathematically proven, not being students of math, they seemed to embrace the talk of the soul as if it was from God. Tatian did not! He laughed at it all and thought philosophers a joke when they attempted to explain the spiritual or heavenly and he would be right in those cases.}]

CHAP. XXXII. --THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHRISTIANS, IS OPPOSED TO DISSENSIONS, AND FITTED FOR ALL.

But with us there is no desire of vainglory, nor do we indulge in a variety of opinions.

[{This is nice to say but there were already a variety of opinions among Christians, as is in evidence, just in the subject of the soul and resurrection, as well as the heretics that had formed. Tatian would himself come to be called a heretic when actually, he was in the right. Amusing, isn't it?}]

For having renounced the popular and earthly, and obeying the commands of God, and following the law of the Father of immortality, we reject everything which rests upon human opinion. Not only do the rich among us pursue our philosophy, but the poor enjoy instruction gratuitously; for the things which come from God surpass the requital of worldly gifts. Thus we admit all who desire to hear, even old women and striplings; and, in short, persons of every age are treated by us with respect, but every kind of licentiousness is kept at a distance.

[{Thus ends the testimony of Tatian who does a somewhat adequate job of stating the truth. At times, he seems to go back and forth between two different ideas but comes closer to the truth than many do. Origen is next.}]

First Principles
Book 1

Preface to Book 1

9. We shall inquire, however, whether the thing which Greek philosophers call <greek>aswmaton</greek>, or "incorporeal," is found in holy Scripture under another name. For it is also to be a subject of investigation how God himself is to be understood,--whether as corporeal, and formed according to some shape, or of a different nature from bodies,--a point which is not clearly indicated in our teaching. And the same inquiries have to be made regarding Christ and the Holy Spirit, as well as respecting every soul, and everything possessed of a rational nature.

[{Origen freely admits to the existence of Greek terms which do not exist in the Bible. So he wants to see if the ideas exist in other terms in the Bible. That is fair enough but I believe Origen does go beyond the scriptures and is too enamored of the Greeks to see it. He admits there are things discussed by Greeks about god which are "not clearly indicated in our teaching." Soul is also one of those subjects. So we know he is going off into uncharted territory. Can he do so without getting off course? He will later admit that none of this should be accepted as official teaching or dogma but only opinions. We shall see!}]

First Principles

Book 1

7. If there are any now who think that the mind itself and the soul is a body, I wish they Would tell me by way of answer how it receives reasons and assertions on subjects of such importance - of such difficulty and such subtlety? Whence does it derive the power of memory? and whence comes the contemplation of invisible things? How does the body possess the faculty of understanding incorporeal existences? How does a bodily nature investigate the processes of the various arts, and contemplate the reasons of things? How, also, is it able to perceive and understand divine truths, which are manifestly incorporeal?

[{These questions are perfect. How does the process of thinking and existing take place in the body. We know, today! But they didn't know back then but the Greeks took a shot at it anyway but blew it. But Origen does not seem to think so. He is already showing a heavy favoring of the ideas of Plato, who believes that only the separate and distinct soul could comprehend the spiritual or the heavenly, what they call invisible or incorporeal. Plato believes that only the soul can comprehend such things and that the soul could not be part of the body. Aristotle would disagree and Origen no doubt has him and Tatian in mind when he writes about the mind and soul being in the body and not being separate and distinct.

As regards understanding divine truths and incorporeal things, that is easy. God explains things to us in terms we can understand. He describes Himself as having hands, but not literally so, and doing things as we do them. But we are expected to understand that God is a spirit who does not eat or have a physical body or live in a physical place. Jesus describes the spirit as being like the wind. We see its effects but we do not see the wind itself. Besides, thinking in the abstract is not that difficult at all and does not require a separate soul to discern such concepts. After all, what is language but abstract sounds to describe thoughts, feelings, and experiences. Really, the question Origen poses is even a little silly and childish.}]

Unless, indeed, some should happen to be of opinion, that as the very bodily shape and form of the ears or eyes contributes something to hearing and to sight, and as the individual members, formed by God, have some adaptation, even from the very quality of their form, to the end for which they were naturally appointed; so also he may think that the shape of the soul or mind is to be understood as if created purposely and designedly for perceiving and understanding individual things, and for being set in motion by vital movements.

[{Clearly, Origen is thoroughly persuaded by the thoughts of Plato. He can not fathom how the mind could be a function of the body. Whether he can comprehend it or not, it is true. But he has his mind made up and now is going to try and tell us it is fact and gospel. But we shall see if there is any Biblical support to go with that.}]

I do not perceive, however, who shall be able to describe or state what is the color of the mind, in respect of its being mind, and acting as an intelligent existence. Moreover, in confirmation and explanation of what we have already advanced regarding the mind or soul--to the effect that it is better than the whole bodily nature--the following remarks may be added. There underlies every bodily sense a certain peculiar sensible substance, on which the bodily sense exerts itself. For example, colors, form, size, underlie vision; voices and sound, the sense of hearing; odors, good or bad, that of smell; savors, that of taste; heat or cold, hardness or softness, roughness or smoothness, that of touch. Now, of those senses enumerated above, it is manifest to all that the sense of mind is much the best. How, then, should it not appear absurd, that under those senses which are inferior, substances should have been placed on which to exert their powers, but that under this power, which is far better than any other, i.e., the sense of mind, nothing at all of the nature of a substance should be placed, but that a power of an intellectual nature should be an accident, or consequent upon bodies?

[{Origen perceives, correctly, that there are intellectual powers and perceptions that are separate and distinct from many of our physical senses, such as taste, touch, hearing, and appetites as well. Yes, we have that unique ability to contemplate ourselves, examine ourselves, be aware of our selves, watch ourselves, and analyze our thinking and behavior. We are remarkable and different form the animals in that special way. We were created in the image of God, right? He and we both understand this well. We are in agreement here. In fact even we and the Greeks are in agreement here. Where we obviously differ in the 21st century is in how this is accomplished.

Origen, and many fans of Plato in those times believed a separate and distinct soul was the seat of such higher abilities in thinking. Abilities that could rise above appetite and desire to see something objectively and morally, considering principle, concluding right and wrong, and contemplating long term advantages over short term ones, and discerning the sipritual, the invisible, the incorporeal as they called it. They believed we were born with this innate knowledge and just had to dig it up from deep within ourselves. In fact, Plato and Socrates subscribed to (invented) reincarnation and most today accept the general beliefs about reincarnation today the same as Plato handed them down over 2000 years ago.

Aristotle concluded that such abilities were within the physical mind and the physical body. Accidents, birth defects, and experimentation of the last 200 years have shown us that such things do take place within the physical brain. We need not doubt any longer. But a careful examination of Bible doctrine would have also revealed that. But people, including most Christians, fell for Greek crap, not even the best of it, and accepted it as the word of God.

Paul described this war or antagonism as being between the flesh and the spirit. But Origen and others decide it is not that, but the soul. Why? The Bible and Paul were perfectly clear that it was a war of the flesh and the spirit. But Paul was referring to something of an abstract nature. Paul, due to the Holy Spirit of which he was possessed, no doubt knew that both types of thinking, that which favored the flesh and that which favored the spirit, both came from the same place. His point was that there were to kinds of objectives to be aware of, one of whose objective was to mind the flesh and cater to our immediate appetites and the other, whose objective was to mind the things of God, said to be of the spirit, things which were more long term and took precedence over the flesh and instinctive survival.

We can over-ride our instincts with our rational minds and we need to do so to please God. That is what Paul discusses and I discuss him in my articles, Tolerance and Individual Thinking, and Our Sinfulness, linked at the end of this article in Related Articles. In my thinking, Christians, because of not discerning the figurative, symbolic style of writing employed in much of the Bible, have failed to see this and made mistakes in interpretation. But not understanding literary techniques was not their only failure.

As I said, Paul discussed the flesh and the spirit, not the flesh and the soul. The soul never ever got mentioned by any apostle in such a discussion. The focus was always on the spirit. This spirit was symbolic of pure thoughts, divorced from the sensations and appetites of the body, much as Asceticism focuses on such a divorce of the mind from such distractions. Asceticism helped take the Gnostics down the wrong trail, too. But I am surprised more didn't go down that trail as it seems more logical to me than the Greek's ideas of the soul does.

Ezekiel speaks of the soul that is sinning and can die (chapters 3 and 33 of that book). The soul has always been able to die because it is nothing more than a word to describe consciousness and existence, being, if you will. It is not separate or distinct from our bodies. We can ignore our sensual aspects and our appetites and consider only principles and ethics apart from self interests and the immediate cravings our the soul, that is, the flesh. The Bible often uses the two terms interchangeably. They are pretty much the same because the flesh without a spirit (breath of life) soon decays and is irrelevant.

You will note that Origen does not consider even one scripture to support any of his arguments. Only Greek reasoning. Lets go back to Origen and we can talk more later.}]

Those who assert this, doubtless do so to the disparagement of that better substance which is within them; nay, by so doing, they even do wrong to God Himself, when they imagine He may be understood by means of a bodily nature, so that according to their view He is a body, and that which may be understood or perceived by means of a body; and they are unwilling to have it understood that the mind bears a certain relationship to God, of whom the mind itself is an intellectual image, and that by means of this it may come to some knowledge of the nature of divinity, especially if it be purified and separated from bodily matter.

[{Origen is correct in my mind, when he connects our minds as being that which is truly in the image of God, and not our bodies. He is wrong when he asserts that those who favor the soul being an aspect of the body do not discern this.}]

9. Here, if any one lay before us the passage where it is said, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God," from that very passage, in my opinion, will our position derive additional strength; for what else is seeing God in heart, but, according to our exposition as above, understanding and knowing Him with the mind? For the names of the organs of sense are frequently applied to the soul, so that it may be said to see with the eyes of the heart, i.e., to perform an intellectual act by means of the power of intelligence. So also it is said to hear with the ears when it perceives the deeper meaning of a statement.

[{It completely baffles me that Origen can show that he understands the often symbolic style of the Bible, and how words are used in symbolic ways and yet he can not understand a simple concept such as the higher powers of the brain merely indicate a different focus, one away from the minding of the body and flesh and one towards the things of God and principle. You got to be kidding me, right?!

It seems to me that Ocham's razor could and should be applied here in that the simplest and most direct explanation is the correct one, the war between the flesh and the spirit is one of focus, not some distinct entity called a soul.}]

So also we say that it makes use of teeth, when it chews and eats the bread of life which comes down from heaven. In like manner, also, it is said to employ the services of other members, which are transferred from their bodily appellations, and applied to the powers of the soul, according to the words of Solomon, "You will find a divine sense." For he knew that there were within us two kinds of senses: the one mortal, corruptible, human; the other immortal and intellectual, which he now termed divine. By this divine sense, therefore, not of the eyes, but of a pure heart, which is the mind, God may be seen by those who are worthy. For you will certainly find in all the Scriptures, both old and new, the term "heart" repeatedly used instead of "mind," i.e., intellectual power. In this manner, therefore, although far below the dignity of the subject, have we spoken of the nature of God, as those who understand it under the limitation of the human understanding. In the next place, let us see what is meant by the name of Christ.

[{Origen is correct when he observes how the mind and heart are used interchangeably in the Bible. But as to two different senses, he is wrong. It is not two different senses, it is two different types of focus or attention. We can give attention to our immediate cravings or we can think beyond them to the more important things, which is what Jesus always preached. Jesus always made it clear that the heavenly bread and food and heavenly water were always much more important than the literal food and water. Jesus always recommended leaving behind the material things and pursuing the spiritual and Godly things, treasures in heaven. It is a simple matter of focus and attention. There is no distinct soul involved. The only soul involved is vulnerable to the flesh and has to use good sense in order not to be overwhelmed and misguided by it.

Jesus recommends pure thinking, purifying your heart, giving attention to your thoughts and actions, using your head. Nothing magical or non-corporeal or incorporeal. Just good common sense and devotion to the teachings of God and His son and others who He sends to us to teach us. Origen seems to have completely lost his mind on this one, not comprehending the importance of thinking and learning, but concerning himself with something he can not prove, anyway, and would make no difference even if it were true. We still have to think and use our heads, regardless of whether it is in our minds or a separate soul. So why concern ourselves with the possibility of the soul?}]

CHAP. VII.--ON INCORPOREAL AND CORPOREAL BEINGS.

2. that they are unchangeable, and incapable of becoming the opposite of what they are? Not a few have held that view even regarding the holy angels, and certain heretics also regarding souls, which they call spiritual natures.

[{What he calls a soul, is a spiritual nature or focus. Who is the real heretic here? Paul says spirit, not soul. Who is Origen kidding. Again, where are the scriptures in this discussion?}]

4. How could his soul and its images be formed along with his body, who, before he was created in the womb, is said to be known to God, and was sanctified by Him before his birth? Some, perhaps, may think that God fills individuals with His Holy Spirit, and bestows upon them sanctification, not on grounds of justice and according to their deserts; but undeservedly.

[{Jeremiah was said to be known by God while in the womb. That is, God knew his future and destiny and what he would be like. God made DNA so I figure He ought to understand it pretty well. Again, for a guy who understands figures of speech in the Bible, how does he miss it here?}]

First Principles

Book 2

CHAP. II. -- ON THE PERPETUITY OF BODILY NATURE.

I. On this topic some are wont to inquire whether, as the Father generates an uncreated Son, and brings forth a Holy Spirit, not as if He had no previous existence, but because the Father is the origin and source of the Son or Holy Spirit, and no anteriority or posteriority can be understood as existing in them; so also a similar kind of union or relationship can be understood as subsisting between rational natures and bodily matter. And that this point may be more fully and thoroughly examined, the commencement of the discussion is generally directed to the inquiry whether this very bodily nature, which bears the lives and contains the movements of spiritual and rational minds, will be equally eternal with them, or will altogether perish and be destroyed. And that the question may be determined with greater precision, we have, in the first place, to inquire if it is possible for rational natures to remain altogether incorporeal after they have reached the summit of holiness and happiness (which seems to me a most difficult and almost impossible attainment), or whether they must always of necessity be united to bodies. If, then, any one could show a reason why it was possible for them to dispense wholly with bodies, it will appear to follow,: that as a bodily nature, created out of nothing after intervals of time, was produced when it did not exist, so also it must cease to be when the purposes which it served had no longer an existence.

2. If, however, it is impossible for this point to be at all maintained, viz., that any other nature than the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can live without a body,

[{Origen is going to discuss whether those born with bodies can later become incorporeal or always attached to bodies. We are told in the Bible that many will join Christ in heaven and be like the angels, that is, spirits, just as Christ and the Father are spirits. So what is there to discuss?}]

Chap. 3

2. "This corruptible must put on incorruption," is as if the apostle had said, "This corruptible nature of the body must receive the clothing of incorruption--a soul possessing in itself incorruptibility," because it has been clothed with Christ, who is the Wisdom and Word of God. But when this body, which at some future period we shall possess in a more glorious state, shall have become a partaker of life, it will then, in addition to being immortal, become also incorruptible.

[{He almost got right when he referred to Paul's 1 Corinthians 15 verse as receiving the clothing of incorruption. Yes, Christians were to become incorruptible spirits. Do you know what incorruptible means? Origen obviously did not. Incorruptible means it can not be corrupted as the flesh can. Flesh can never be incorruptible. It can be perfect, free from defect and have an absence of sin and death, but it can always be corrupted, that is to say, we can always elect to disobey and then become corrupted and eventually die. Incorruptible always refers to the spiritual world.

Paul in all that chapter speaks of how we will become spirits. I discuss that in my article on the Resurrections which will be at the end of this article.}]

"This mortal must put on immortality." Now, what else will incorruption and immortality be, save the wisdom, and the word, and the righteousness of God, which mould; and clothe, and adorn the soul? And hence it happens that it is said, "The corruptible will put on incorruption, and the mortal immortality." For although we may now make great proficiency, yet as we only know in part, and prophesy in part, and see through a glass, darkly, those very things which we seem to understand, this corruptible does not yet put on incorruption, nor is this mortal yet clothed with immorality;

[{Origen clearly does not have any idea what Paul is talking about. Paul was making it clear that we did not know or understand much about what it would be like to live in the spiritual realm as spirits with God. We only know in part and see darkly, dimly, into the future. There is so much we do not know about the future or heaven. We will know someday and will have to leave it at that. Origen misses the whole discussion. He does not just see darkly, he is completely blind.}]

3. But, nevertheless, those who think that rational creatures can at any time lead an existence out of the body, may here raise such questions as the following. If it is true that this corruptible shall put on incorruption, and this mortal put on immortality, and that death is swallowed up at the end; this shows that nothing else than a material nature is to be destroyed, on which death could operate, while the mental acumen of those who are in the body seems to be blunted by the nature of corporeal matter. If, however, they are out of the body, then they will altogether escape the annoyance arising from a disturbance of that kind.

[{There were those who believed we would be spirits as I have suggested. But some may have gone further and suggested that our spirits could leave our bodies, thinking that the spirit contained our intelligence and consciousness, just as some thought the soul did. They are both wrong. The spirit that gives us breath of life is an inanimate force from God, not to be confused with the Holy Spirit of God, perhaps a level, a portion, or a degree of spirit far above the animating force we all received from God, whether we are good or bad, relatively speaking, for we are all bad from an absolute standpoint.

When that spirit force leaves our bodies, we die. Our flesh ceases to function and our consciousness fades and dissolves. God retains the organization of what made us who we were and can recreate that pattern so that our consciousness is restored when we are resurrected in the body. Or if we are to join Christ in heaven, which was the primary hope given to those who Christ preached to in the new covenant, then our consciousness can be transferred to a new spiritual existence. We lose the desires of the flesh and perceive a whole new level and type of existence as spirits, for sure. But nothing of us survives death until we are brought back by God, either in spirit form or bodily form.

Some are not comfortable with this understanding, somehow fearing that God can not restore us exactly as we were without keeping something. I was once like this. But if we can truly appreciate that our consciousness is completely dependant upon our bodies and derives all function through our bodies, then there is nothing left when the body ceases to function. We did not exist before we were conceived and yet we gained a consciousness where we had none before. So if God can create consciousness from nothing once, He can do it again, I assure you.

But this would require faith on our parts. That is why Jesus came back after being resurrected. He could have stayed in the spiritual realm if he wanted. But it was important to him to show us how a resurrection can take place, even in spiritual form, and our same consciousness be retained. So he took on a body exactly like the one he had. He even retained his wounds he received from his crucifixion so they could fully appreciate God's attention to detail. However, when we who are destined for earth gain back our bodies, we will not retain scars and defects. But Jesus retained his so his disciples could be thoroughly convince it was he.

Jesus had also cured and resurrected people while on earth to show God's ability to do so. Angels had also taken on bodies in the past to show they can go back and forth between the spiritual realm and the earthly one. So can we if God wills it and He does.

So there does not need to be any doubt that God can make us spirits and yet retain our consciousness exactly as it was. The difference is that our minds will be liberated and empowered as never before. A new and improved version of ourselves, so to speak. Jesus gave us the proof. Those disciples never would have been able to endure what they did had they not be given ample proof of what Jesus said and Jesus knew it. So Jesus considered it essential that he go back, clothed in a resurrected body and spend some time with them so they could get to know him and be convinced that it truly was him exactly as they knew him while he was with them before he was killed. As many as 500 people were witness to him in his resurrected state.

Jesus wanted to be sure to have plenty of witnesses so that they cold believe and be worthy of receiving the spirit that would also be poured upon them shortly after. Then he went to heaven where he could present the sacrifice of his physical body to God at His real throne and later in heaven, whereby the sins of man were truly received and paid for, so that the spirit could truly be poured forth upon the followers. Origen was missing so much in his understanding.}]

6. That earth of ours, with its inhabitants, is also termed the world, as when Scripture says, "The whole world lies in wickedness." Clement indeed, a disciple of the apostles, makes mention of those whom the Greeks called 'A<greek>ntikqones</greek>, and other parts of the earth, to which no one of our people can approach, nor can any one of those who are there cross over to us, which he also termed worlds, saying, "The ocean is impassable to men; and those are words which are on the other side of it, which are governed by these same arrangements of the ruling God." That universe which is bounded by heaven and earth is also called a world, as Paul declares: "For the fashion of this world will pass away."

[{Again, Origen properly deduces the symbolic meaning of "world" and "ocean" and yet is blind to soul. Doesn't it get ya?}]

There is no doubt, however, that something more illustrious and excellent than this present world is pointed out by the Savior, at which He incites and encourages believers to aim. But whether that world to which He desires to allude be far separated and divided from this either by situation, or nature, or glory; or whether it be superior in glory and quality, but confined within the limits of this world (which seems to me more probable), is nevertheless uncertain, and in my opinion an unsuitable subject for human thought.

[{The Bible does not say much so Origen doesn't dare say much, either. Too bad he hadn't also done that in his discussion of soul, huh?}]

that in the beginning "God made the heavens and the earth." For another heaven and another earth are shown to exist besides that "firmament" which is said to have been made after the second day, or that "dry land" which was afterwards called "earth."

[{True!}]

And when he says elsewhere, "Because I shall see the heavens, the works of Your fingers," and when God said, regarding all things visible, by the mouth of His prophet, "My hand has formed all these things," He declares that that eternal house in the heavens which He promises to His saints was not made with hands, pointing out, doubtless, the difference of creation in things which are seen and in those which are not seen. For the same thing is not to be understood by the expressions, "those things which are not seen," and "those things which are invisible." For those things which are invisible are not only not seen, but do not even possess the property of visibility, being what the Greeks call <greek>aswmata</greek>, i.e., incorporeal; whereas those of which Paul says, "They are not seen," possess indeed the property of being seen, but, as he explains, are not yet beheld by those to whom they are promised.

[{Origen misses the obvious again. The eternal house in the heavens for God's saints, not made by hands, is exactly the same as the expression, "those things which are invisible." Origen just doesn't want to see the obvious. He can't. The spirit of God does not appear to be operating on him to open his eyes. He appears blinded. What a drag, huh?}]

will shine forth in splendor; or at least that when the fashion of those things which are seen passes away, and all corruption has been shaken off and cleansed away, and when the whole of the space occupied by this world, in which the spheres of the planets are said to be, has been left behind and beneath, then is reached the fixed abode of the pious and the good situated above that sphere, which is called non-wandering (<greek>aplanhs</greek>), as in a good land, in a land of the living, which will be inherited by the meek and gentle;

to which land belongs that heaven (which, with its more magnificent extent, surrounds and contains that land itself) which is called truly and chiefly heaven, in which heaven and earth, the end and perfection of all things, may be safely and most confidently placed,--where, viz., these, after their apprehension and their chastisement for the offences which they have undergone by way of purgation, may, after having fulfilled and discharged every obligation, deserve a habitation in that land;

while those who have been obedient to the word of God, and have henceforth by their obedience shown themselves capable of wisdom, are said to deserve the kingdom of that heaven or heavens; and thus the prediction is more worthily fulfilled, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth;" and, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for they shall inherit the kingdom of heaven;" and the declaration in the Psalm, "He shall exalt you, and you shall inherit the land."

For it is called a descent to this earth, but an exaltation to that which is on high. In this way, therefore, does a sort of road seem to be opened up by the departure of the saints from that earth to those heavens; so that they do not so much appear to abide in that land, as to inhabit it with an intention, viz., to pass on to the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven, when they have reached that degree of perfection also.

[{Origen drops of the edge of the world here. He believes that heaven is a place that we will inhabit with bodies as do others. So some will reside in heaven in their bodies and others will reside on earth with bodies. So he does see two promises, two destinations as I do, but both in some sort of physical existences whereas I see a spiritual existence for those in heaven and a physical existence only for those on earth. Who goes where gets attention in another article of mine, linked at the end. But Origen clearly can not see the spiritual existence. Yet, there were those at that time who clearly did see it and they are called heretics by him. I believe, though not intentionally, that he is as much a heretic as they were in some respects. Kind of ironic, no?}]

CHAP. VIII.--ON THE SOUL (ANIMA).

1. For soul is defined as follows: a substance <greek>fantastikh</greek> and <greek>ormhtikh</greek>, which may be rendered into Latin, although not so appropriately, sensibilis et mobilis. This certainly may be said appropriately of all living beings, even of those which abide in the waters; and of winged creatures too, this same definition of anima may be shown to hold good.

[{Oddly, the definition of soul here is somewhat accurate. Substance and mobilized senses. That is, the spirit or animation of the flesh. He may think he is adhering to the definition but he is not and Plato did not, either. Plato went way beyond the definition and added quite a bit to it.}]

Scripture also has added its authority to a second opinion, when it says, "You shall not eat the blood, because the life of all flesh is its blood; and you shall not eat the life with the flesh; " in which it intimates most clearly that the blood of every animal is its life.

yet holy Scripture declares that "God breathed into his countenance the breath of life, and man became a living soul."

[{Exactly! God made Adam out of the dust of the ground, some say clay, and then breathed into Adam the breath of life and Adam become a soul! Too bad Origen can't stick to that.}]

It remains that we inquire respecting the angelic order whether they also have souls, or are souls; and also respecting the other divine and celestial powers, as well as those of an opposite kind. We nowhere, indeed, find any authority in holy Scripture for asserting that either the angels, or any other divine spirits that are ministers of God, either possess souls or are called souls, and yet they are felt by very many persons to be endowed with life.

But with regard to God, we find it written as follows: "And I will put My soul upon that soul which has eaten blood, and I will root him out from among his people;" and also in another passage, "Your new moons, and sabbaths, and great days, I will not accept; your fasts, and holidays, and festal days, My soul hates."

[{God is a spirit declares Jesus. Yes, God is also a living entity, a soul, but in spiritual form, not fleshly or physical form. The spirit and the flesh are the forms that contain a sense of identity and consciousness, but the soul is not separate from the spirit or flesh. Soul was redefined by Plato and not for the better.}]

2. But the nature of the incarnation will render unnecessary any inquiry into the soul of Christ. For as He truly possessed flesh, so also He truly possessed a soul. It is difficult indeed both to feel and to state how that which is called in Scripture the soul of God is to be understood; for we acknowledge that nature to be simple, and without any intermixture or addition. In whatever way, however, it is to be understood, it seems, meanwhile, to be named the soul of God; whereas regarding Christ there is no doubt. And therefore there seems to me no absurdity in either understanding or asserting some such thing regarding the holy angels and the other heavenly powers, since that definition of soul appears applicable also to them.

[{Origen can't seem to accept the obvious. He does not know how to explain and does not understand how God is a soul. Then all I can say is the explanation he has given so far is not right or adequate and needs to be changed. My explanation is simple and makes sense and works. I at least get further than he does.}]

3. But perhaps this question is asked, If it be the understanding which prays and sings with the spirit, and if it be the same which receives both perfection and salvation, how is it that Peter says, "Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls?"

[{Our souls are our consciousness. If we are to be spirits in heaven with Christ which was what all the Apostles were preaching, including Peter, then it would make no sense to say our bodies will be saved. But our consciousness will be saved and preserved, though in spirit form. So Origen's interpretation of us all receiving our bodies back would put Peter's statements beyond understanding. But knowing the truth enables a reasonable understanding of why Peter chose the word soul rather than life or body.}]

4. Our statement, however, that the understanding is converted into a soul, or whatever else seems to have such a meaning, the reader must carefully consider and settle for himself, as these views are not be regarded as advanced by us in a dogmatic manner, but simply as opinions, treated in the style of investigation and discussion.

[{Origen just resurrected his salvation. Though he is off into deep blue space, he let's himself off the hook by declaring wisely, that the reader must settle the matter for himself and that Origen's assertions should not be regarded dogma but as opinions. How this got transformed into dogma by later Christians is bewildering to me. I can only say that they must not be aware of this declaration by Origen or they might have reason to reconsider.}]

Let the reader take this also into consideration, that it is observed with regard to the soul of the Savior, that of those things which are written in the Gospel, some are ascribed to it under the name of soul, and others under that of spirit.

[{Of course, since his soul exists in spirit form, one could properly use either to get the message across.}]

For when it wishes to indicate any suffering or perturbation affecting Him, it indicates it under the name of soul; as when it says, "Now is My soul troubled; " and, "My soul is sorrowful, even unto death; " and, "No man takes My soul from Me, but I lay it down of Myself." Into the hands of His Father He commends not His soul, but His spirit; and when He says that the flesh is weak, He does not say that the soul is willing, but the spirit: whence it appears that the soul is something intermediate between the weak flesh and the willing spirit.

[{Origen is finally beginning to acknowledge what I have been saying about the spirit. But the soul is not some in between of the flesh and spirit. It was not mentioned at all in connection with the flesh and spirit nor does Paul do so or anyone else. The soul can exist as flesh or as a spirit but not apart from one or the other!}]

CHAP. X.--ON THE RESURRECTION, AND THE JUDGMENT, THE FIRE OF HELL, AND PUNISHMENTS.

1. But since the discourse has reminded us of the subjects of a future judgment and of retribution, and of the punishments of sinners, according to the threatenings of holy Scripture and the contents of the Church's teaching--viz., that when the time of judgment comes, everlasting fire, and outer darkness, and a prison, and a furnace, and other punishments of like nature, have been prepared for sinners--let us see what our opinions on these points ought to be.

3. We now turn our attention to some of our own (believers), who, either from feebleness of intellect or want of proper instruction, adopt a very low and abject view of the resurrection of the body. We ask these persons in what manner they understand that an animal body is to be changed by the grace of the resurrection, and to become a spiritual one; and how that which is sown in weakness will arise in power; how that which is planted in dishonor will arise in glory; and that which was sown in corruption, will be changed to a state of incorruption.

[{Again, his opponents are more correct than he is. But as Paul made plain, we can not fully understand it now at this time. We are not nor have ever been spirits so we can not begin to fully comprehend what it is like or how God does it. We only know that God did promise us that it could and would be done to us. We have to leave it at that.}]

4. so, when the soul has gathered together a multitude of evil works, and an abundance of sins against itself, at a suitable time all that assembly of evils boils up to punishment, and is set on fire to chastisements; when the mind itself, or conscience, receiving by divine power into the memory all those things of which it had stamped on itself certain signs and forms at the moment of sinning, will see a kind of history, as it were, of all the foul, and shameful, and unholy deeds which it has done, exposed before its eyes: then is the conscience itself harassed, and, pierced by its own goads, becomes an accuser and a witness against itself.

8. But the outer darkness, in nay judgment, is to be understood not so much of some dark atmosphere without any light, as of those persons who, being plunged in the darkness of profound ignorance, have been placed beyond the reach of any light of the understanding. We must see, also, lest this perhaps should be the meaning of the expression, that as the saints will receive those bodies in which they have lived in holiness and purity in the habitations of this life, bright and glorious after the resurrection, so the wicked also, who in this life have loved the darkness of error and the night of ignorance, may be clothed with dark and black bodies after the resurrection, that the very mist of ignorance which had in this life taken possession of their minds within them, may appear in the future as the external covering of the body. Similar is the view to be entertained regarding the prison. Let these remarks, which have been made as brief as possible, that the order of our discourse in the meantime might be preserved, suffice for the present occasion.

[{Origen, having made an big error in not discerning a spiritual resurrection and imagining everyone receiving bodies whether in heaven or on earth, compounds his error by thinking the wicked are also to be resurrected and kept alive, given bodies, and existing in darkness. No mention is made of fire, brimstone, and torment though others have subscribed to that. They all seem to be missing the figurative use of the language in thinking the wicked shall live. They are no longer to be found or will be found. Their death will be eternal and everlasting, not their suffering. That will be covered in another article forthcoming.}]

CHAP. XI.--ON COUNTER PROMISES.

2. Certain persons, then, refusing the labor of thinking, and adopting a superficial view of the letter of the law, and yielding rather in some measure to the indulgence of their own desires and lusts, being disciples of the letter alone, are of opinion that the fulfillment of the promises of the future are to be looked for in bodily pleasure and luxury; and therefore they especially desire to have again, after the resurrection, such bodily structures as may never be without the power of eating, and drinking, and performing all the functions of flesh and blood, not following the opinion of the Apostle Paul regarding the resurrection of a spiritual body.

[{I take it when he says spiritual body, he is still thinking a real body of some sort, but in harmony with the view of Justin, it no longer eats, drinks, has sex, or anything else. This is not the type of spiritual body Paul refers to. But as for those destined to live on earth again, they will have all bodily sensations, organs, and functions restored, including the sexual ones. Reproduction was a part of God's purpose from the beginning and has not, nor will not, change!}]

And consequently they say, that after the resurrection there will be marriages, and the begetting of children, imagining to themselves that the earthly city of Jerusalem is to be rebuilt, its foundations laid in precious stones, and its walls constructed of jasper, and its battlements of crystal; that it is to have a wall composed of many precious stones, as jasper, and sapphire, and chalcedony, and emerald, and sardonyx, and onyx, and chrysolite, and chrysoprase, and jacinth, and amethyst.

Moreover, they think that the natives of other countries are to be given them as the ministers of their pleasures, whom they are to employ either as tillers of the field or builders of walls, and by whom their ruined and fallen city is again to be raised up; and they think that they are to receive the wealth of the nations to live on, and that they will have control over their riches; that even the camels of Midian and Kedar will come, and bring to them gold, and incense, and precious stones. And these views they think to establish on the authority of the prophets by those promises which are written regarding Jerusalem; and by those passages also where it is said, that they who serve the Lord shall eat and drink, but that sinners shall hunger and thirst; that the righteous shall be joyful, but that sorrow shall possess the wicked.

They add, moreover, that declaration, in which the Savior calls those blessed who now hunger and thirst, promising them that they shall be satisfied; and many other scriptural illustrations are adduced by them, the meaning of which they do not perceive is to be taken figuratively.

[{Well, looky here! Even Origen suggests that many of those prophecies or aspects of them are figurative, of which I most heartily agree with. However, unlike many early writers, who suggest that some passages can not be understood in any way except a literal one, which I also agree with, he takes none of them as being literal. So Origen makes a double error, not discerning two resurrections with two different destinations.}]

Such are the views of those who, while believing in Christ, understand the divine Scriptures in a sort of Jewish sense, drawing from them nothing worthy of the divine promises.

[{Again, it is going over his head. He can't make the connection, which is such an obvious one. There is the promise of the law and prophets, the old covenant, and the promise of the new covenant. Both sets of promises were valid and still are. Both will be fulfilled for good reason.}]

4. And as, when our eye beholds the products of an artist's labor, the mind, immediately on perceiving anything of unusual artistic excellence, burns to know of what nature it is, or how it was formed, or to what purposes it was fashioned; so, in a much greater degree, and in one that is beyond all comparison, does the mind burn with an inexpressible desire to know the reason of those things which we see done by God. This desire, this longing, we believe to be unquestionably implanted within us by God; and as the eye naturally seeks the light and vision, and our body naturally desires food and drink, so our mind is possessed with a becoming and natural desire to become acquainted with the truth of God and the causes of things.

[{I do not hesitate to agree with Origen here. There is no doubt in my mind that God implanted in us not just an appetite for food, water, or sex, but also a deep hunger, thirst and longing for knowledge and understanding. Not only I, but Aristotle also believes this. And I believe it can be confirmed in the Bible and by Jesus who expresses that happy are those who hunger or thirst for righteousness and much more. They will be filled. The Knowledge of God will fill the whole Earth says Isaiah. Foolishly, many of us ignore this appetite in favor of others. This is the spiritual food and water that Jesus speaks of. Solomon continually promotes the benefits and value of knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. It is an article all by itself and I may get to it one day.}]

Now we have received this desire from God, not in order that it should never be gratified or be capable of gratification; otherwise the love of truth would appear to have been implanted by God into our minds to no purpose, if it were never to have an opportunity of satisfaction. Whence also, even in this life, those who devote themselves with great labor to the pursuits of piety and religion, although obtaining only some small fragments from the numerous and immense treasures of divine knowledge, yet, by the very circumstance that their mind and soul is engaged in these pursuits, and that in the eagerness of their desire they outstrip themselves, do they derive much advantage; and, because their minds are directed to the study and love of the investigation of truth, are they made fitter for receiving the instruction that is to come; as if, when one would paint an image, he were first with a light pencil to trace out the outlines of the coming picture, and prepare marks for the reception of the features that are to be afterwards added, this preliminary sketch in outline is found to prepare the way for the laying on of the true colors of the painting; so, in a measure, an outline and sketch may be traced on the tablets of our heart by the pencil of our Lord Jesus Christ. And therefore perhaps is it said, "Unto every one that has shall be given, and be added." By which it is established, that to those who possess in this life a kind of outline of truth and knowledge, shall be added the beauty of a perfect image in the future.

[{Absolutely no disagreements here! The more we learn now, the better prepared we are later, without a doubt. I agree with his interpretation of Jesus' parable as well. Amen!}]

6. We are therefore to suppose that the saints will remain there until they recognize the twofold mode of government in those things which are performed in the air.

[{How in the hell can he say in the air and not discern the spiritual existence they have with God when Jesus tells us we will behold the Father in all His glory. How can we do that if we are bodies?}]

And when I say "twofold mode," I mean this: When we were upon earth, we saw either animals or trees, and beheld the differences among them, and also the very great diversity among men; but although we saw these things, we did not understand the reason of them; and this only was suggested to us from the visible diversity, that we should examine and inquire upon what principle these things were either created or diversely arranged.

And a zeal or desire for knowledge of this kind being conceived by us on earth, the full understanding and comprehension of it will be granted after death, if indeed the result should follow according to our expectations. When, therefore, we shall have fully comprehended its nature, we shall understand in a twofold manner what we saw on earth.

[{This is what Paul referred to when he mentioned that we only behold the future dimly or darkly now, but in the resurrection all things will be made known and will be evident to us as we behold them directly.}]

Some such view, then, must we hold regarding this abode in the air. I think, therefore, that all the saints who depart from this life will remain in some place situated on the earth, which holy Scripture calls paradise, as in some place of instruction, and, so to speak, class-room or school of souls, in which they are to be instructed regarding all the things which they had seen on earth, and are to receive also some information respecting things that are to follow in the future, as even when in this life they had obtained in some degree indications of future events, although "through a glass darkly," all of which are revealed more clearly and distinctly to the saints in their proper time and place. If any one indeed be pure in heart, and holy in mind, and more practiced to a place in the air, and reach the kingdom of heaven, through those mansions, so to speak, in the various places which the Greeks have termed spheres, i.e., globes, but which holy Scripture has called heavens; in each of which he will first see clearly what is done there, and in the second place, will discover the reason why things are so done: and thus he will in order pass through all gradations.

[{Listen to the imaginations he comes up with. Preparatory schools and instruction on earth and then graduation to heaven? but Paul says we are caught up immediately into the air to live forever with the Lord. So Origen blows it here, too! Yes, we will be much more enlightened even though Origen may have some misunderstanding. As long as he is faithful onto death in the important things, his errors will not be so great as to make him unworthy of salvation. But he will have his errors made known to him, for sure. I am ending the brackets for my words now.}]

It is clear that early writers, with the possible exception of Clement who gave no indication of believing as the others after did, believed that the words spoken of eternal suffering and torment were absolutely literal or we must conclude that all their writings were tampered with. We can only hope they would not do that. Yet it is very obvious and evident that Ignatius had his letters forged as there are two versions of many of his letter and they are completely contradictory. I chose the versions that harmonized with the rest of his peers.

In addition, I have found a complete contradiction of teaching in the works of Irenaeus' Against the Heresies, where he says Satan is not the ruler of this world and yet in a fragment quoted from another writer, he definitely admits the scripture that speaks of the god f this world as being Satan. Did someone change the words of Irenaeus and not realize someone had quoted his pre-tampered version so as to expose their wicked deeds? Who knows. It is a definite possibility. But given that much of what they have written condemns later teachings, it makes no sense that the supposed forgers would not have also changed these as well. But they did not.

So for the most part, we can probably rely on their writings as a fair representation of what they believe and why they believe it. It is my opinion that they just couldn't discern the two covenants held out two different promises, one for an earthly resurrection to live forever on earth and another for those under the new covenant to go to heaven to rule as kings and priests with Christ as his brothers in heaven over the ones who live on earth to guide and shepherd them and bring their bodies to a state of being undefiled and free from sin and defect as was the intention from the beginning as my other articles make clear.

But what is also evident is how Greek ideas, those of Plato in particular, had such a profound influence on early writers that they could ignore the Bible in favor of something that apparently made a lot of sense to them But had no backing or support from the Bible in any direct way.

In addition, they did not always discern the figures used to describe the permanent death of the wicked. They took much literal when all of them in writing made it clear they understood many things to be in figures and parables. How odd that they could miss this when Jesus used figures and parables in his own words and in the prophecies given to John in Revelation. But odd or not, that is what happened and we need not wonder how or why anymore. Examining the past makes it clear and that is what we like, right?

Back to Home/Index/Main Page/Directory/Truth 1 - The best site on the internet!

Back to Top