Joseph F Badir

"...in my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect.” -G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy 

One of the prominent themes that emerged in Russian theological thought in the last two centuries was the concept of Sophia, or Divine Wisdom. Personified as a woman, loosely associated with the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity as well as with the Theotokos and the Church. Speculation on the nature of Sophia was often controversial, and some theologians incurred ecclesiastical condemnation due to the perception of sophianic thought  similarity  to Gnosticism, German transcendental idealism, and  Protestant theosophy.

The purpose of this article is to explain the main concepts and terms of Russian Sophiology in a manner to show that its proclamation as Orthodox, despite condemning phrasing on the part of the authors in question. 
https://byzantinechesterton.blogspot.com/2012/05/sophia-in-russian-theology-as.html

The protagonist is arguing that Sophia, under the aspect conceived especially by two theologians Fr. Sergei Bulgakov and Fr. Pavel Florensky (New-Martyr), is not an actual fourth "Divine hypostasis” or a feminized member of the Three Hypostases, but rather a manner of viewing "God's uncreated energies" being described and enshrined in Gregory Palamas' debated dogma. The Palamite council of Constantinople/Blachernae is considered authoritative in the East by the inclusion of their canons in the Synodicon of "Holy Orthodoxy," sung on the first Sunday of the Great Lent and by the introduction of the feast of "St. Gregory Palamas," on the following Sunday as an extension of the Feast of Holy Orthodoxy. 

Palamas holds a liturgical place of authority as a Pillar of Orthodoxy in some Eastern (Greek/ Russian) Orthodox churches, both in communion with and those separated from Rome. Bulgakov doctrine was condemned by both the Moscow Patriarchate and by concordats of Russian Orthodoxy in exile. The Moscow Patriarchate issued a decree in 1935 which declared “Bulgakov’s doctrine of the being of God does not belong to the Orthodox Church,” demanding the “repudiation of his Sophiological interpretation of the faith doctrines, and his mistaken teaching of faith and a declaration of fidelity to the Orthodox Church teaching.”-- Quoted in M. Sergeev, Sophiology in Russian Orthodoxy.
The decree was asserted by Bulgakov's  condemnation by the Church in Exile, using the term heresy.
https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/47730/Giragosian_JG_D_2014.pdf   

Because of God’s simplicity. He is a Trinity, not a set of three gods – there is but one divinity and  one Sophia, consequently. Because of the inseparability of energy and essence, it is impossible for multiple essences to have the same energy or for one essence to have multiple energies. Fr. Bulgakov teaches that the Holy Trinity "possesses one Wisdom, not three; one Glory, not three." Sophiology becomes thus, more tricky when we approach the question of the relation of Sophia to the created world. Since God created the world by Christ, "All things came into being through Him." john 1: 3, Christ is then God's energy, or energies! Bulgakov says that it is by Sophia that the world is created, His energies (“energy” by definition refers to the ontological being of an action within the doer), and His presence in the world and indeed the very being of the world are through His energies}

The Problem of Pantheism in the Sophiology of Sergii Bulgakov: A Panentheistic Solution in the Process Trinitarianism of Joseph Bracken? by Brandon Gallaher

This essay explores Bulgakov’s thought as an alternative form of panentheism to Bracken’s‘The Problem of Pantheism in the Sophiology of Sergii Bulgakov: A Panentheistic Solution in the…academia.edu

To be amended, and expanded

Preface
"Origen died about 254, but his spirit lived on in theological discussion. . . Origen had been deeply opposed to Monarchianism, either in its 'modalist' form that Father, Son, and Spirit are mere names which do not correspond to any distinctions within the Godhead, or in its 'dynamic' form that Christ was a holy man and wise teacher filled to a unique degree with the Spirit of God."--Henry Chadwick, Dionysius of Alexandria..., (The Early Church) 

"The orthodox  had insisted that there is no first principle other than God the creator (Pantocrator), no coequal devil, no coeternal matter, but a single monarchia. The Monarchian critics of the Logos theology had two courses open to them. Either they could say that God who created the world was so incarnate in Jesus that there is no difference to be discerned between the Son and the Father; or they could say that Jesus was a man like other men. differentiated in being indwelt by the Spirit of God to an absolute and unique degree."--Henry Chadwick, The monarchian controversy (The Early Church)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction by J. Zachhuber
Scholarly interest in patristic ideas about personhood has had a somewhat curious history. It is arguable that its point of origin was denial: theological heavy weights Karl Barth and Karl Rahner both argued, albeit in different ways, that Trinitarian faith  today would do well to dispose of the formula 'one God in three Persons' given its apparent  tritheistic overtones. This demand was not meant as a late correction to the language of late fourth-century Nicenism according to which the Trinity was one ousia in three hypostases.  Instead, the twentieth-century theologians claimed that 'three Persons' was unhelpful as a translation of Treis Hupostaseis. The Church Fathers, in other words, had never meant to confess a Godheadin “three Persons” in our own meaning of the term. Hypostases for them were 'modes of existence' and not 'independent centers of self-consciousness.

Rahner's Dictum
The ground-breaking treatment of the doctrine of the Trinity by one of the most important theologians of the century is here reprinted on the 30th anniversary of its original publication. In this treatise, Karl Rahner analyzes the place of the doctrine of the Trinity within Catholic theology and develops his own highly original and innovative reading of the doctrine, including his now-famous dictum.  

In a previous article I have commented that Rahner follows Didymus the Blind, the eminent Origenist Dean of the Catechetical School, who taught most Church fathers of his time including Gregory Naziansen and Jerome.  But the seer did not follow master Origen, he thought the Holy Trinity is in a fusing Ousia. John Philoponus elucidted in  "De trinitate," the Alexandrian Personhood theology of Dionysius the Great. [Files: 1-4]

Karl Rahner, SJ (1904 — 84) was a German Jesuit and theologian who, alongside Hans Urs von Balthasar, is one of the most influential Roman Catholic theologians of the 20th century. Before Vatican-II Council, Rahner joined Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac and Dominique Chenu, associated with the Nouvelle Théologie, elements of which had been criticized in the encyclical Humani Generis of Pope Pius XII. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Philoponus Doctrine of the Holy Trinity:
'Thus if people say that the divinities are of a different nature, their talk is pagan and Arian. if however, they say one (divinity) according to number and in one hypostasis, they become Sabillians. John Philoponus holds throughout that with his explanation he is in agreement with the fathers.Thus he says that Gregory was against three non-consubstantial and by nature alien ousiai in the Trinity, but not against three consubstantial substances."--Theresia Hainthaler

John Philoponus engagement in the Tritheist Dabate
The inspiring genius of John Philoponus, dictated to be involved in the late phase of the Tritheism debate, by his student, Athanasius, the grandson of Empress Theodora. Young Athanasius was an admirer of John Askotzanges, the founder of the sect. John Philoponus confessed that Father; Son and holy Spirit are three consubstantial divine persons. God's unity is in the ousia general substance. John holds throughout that with his thesis he is in agreement with the church fathers.

Philoponus ontological vision
More than two hundred years after the Nicene Council, another form of Tritheism was suspected in the writing of John Philoponus, who stressed the distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Spirit in "hypostatic co-existence," debating that there are three hypostases in the one common divine essence (ousia) of the Godhead. This was virtually read as Tritheism. John of Damascus, who is noted for his stress on the the co-inherence among the Godhead, supplemented this alleged tritheism by his renewed emphasis on the divine fusion (absolute unity).

Non est Natura sine Persona
"Philoponus lends to the Cappadocians a precise thesis on the existence of specific and generic universals, this thesis is philosophical in nature and is expressed in philosophical language. Species have existence (hyparxis) in individuals and don't have any being separate from individuals. The fact that Philoponus presents the Aristotelian thesis of the immanent existence of universals as being the position of the church is very telling as to the importance of logic in Christological discussions." -- Christophe  Erismann

Christophe  Erismann made it clear that Philoponus, tended to describe the crucial term ‘hypóstasis’ as meaning something like ‘primary substance’ in the sense of Aristotle's Categories, i.e. an individual organic being. The fragments of his treatise On the Trinity confirm this. Since hypóstasis is certainly not an accident of divinity, Philoponus argues, it must be the case that the three hypostáseis of the Trinity are three particular divine substances with distinct properties. It is thus reasonable to speak of the consubstantiality of the three Persons, for if there were only one divine substance, what sense would it make to speak of consubstantiality at all?

". . . in the Eastern church, tritheism was little more than a hostile label given to certain intellectuals who tried to make the mystery of the Trinity intelligible in philosophical language. Philoponus was one such intellectual who, again, resorted to Aristotelian terminology to clarify and settle the trinitarian dispute."-- C. Wildberg, Stanford E. P.

Rahner on Summa Theologiæ
Rahner says that there is a distinction introduced by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiæ. He is critical of what he describes as, "an unfortunate Thomistic distinction between treatises that first deal with God’s unity, essence, attributes and names, and then with the tri-personal God as such (i.e. processions, relations, persons, proper roles, missions). Rahner states that he wishes to link every dogmatic treatise, especially the mystery of our salvation, to the Trinity itself, in this way, rather than the Trinity existing in ‘splendid isolation’

Vincent Battaglia Concludes
Karl Rahner’s The Trinity reminds us that we are called to share in the life of God (cf. 2 Pet 1:4) both now in the life of the grace of the Spirit and the liberating truth of the Incarnate Word, and in the future, when we shall see Him as He really is (cf. 1 Jn 3:2). The mysterium Trinitatis is thus the mysterium salutis because the Father sent His Son to save us and His Spirit to divinise us. This connection between the Trinity and salvation is explicit when Rahner’s works on the doctrine of God, grace and the incarnation, explicitly linked by him in The Trinity, are considered in toto, and this interconnection is a theological commonplace today.

Rahner’s contribution reminds us that there is a single saving plan encompassing creation, redemption and eschatological plenitude, whose order and possibility is the work of the triune God. Despite some significant limitations, if The Trinity can help us know, love and praise the tri-personal God by considering what He does for us in Truth and Love, then this short work of Rahner has achieved much.

What is the impact on thinking lay Christians

Good Read Reviewers 
Please read more, comment or write  On "Good Read"
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/762915.The_Trinity

Among the Copts, the Christian Sons and Daughters of the Pharaohs

Introduction, by Hapixii 
This is a well written, informative, and easy to read book for readers, who may or may not be familiar with the Christians of Egypt, the Copts. Egypt is home for the largest indigenous Christian population in the Middle East that by some estimates is about 15-20% of the total population. The book provides a good and critical review for the history and status of the Copts. Saint Mark the Evangelist baptized the Egyptian Church with his martyrdom in the first century AD. Historical tradition recognizes Saint Mark as the first Patriarch of the Coptic Church.

The book starts by the definition of who is a Copt, however it excludes the Roman Catholic and Protestant Copts from its definition, and concentrates primarily on the followers of the Coptic Orthodox Church. This is unfortunate, as regardless of the denomination, the Copts collectively face similar challenges. The author may have elected to focus on the Orthodox Copts, as the most ancient Christian group or the one with largest population. However, the author provides a brief review for some of the Protestant and Catholic influences on the modern Coptic Orthodox Church, such as the introduction of Sunday schools and the modest interactions of the Orthodox Coptic Church with the Catholic and Anglican Churches, and other international Christian Churches and communities.   

The Miracle of Coptic Servival,
Review by TheoGnostus, Vine Voice, August 20, 2004 

Introducing Coptic Life
Being myself a Coptologist, at least by my birthright and devotion, did not give me any ultra qualification to read this insightful analysis that Dr. John Watson, an ecumenist, Minster, and theologian combined his talents to expose the Coptic Noia. Fr. Watson, who enjoys being Abouna (our Abba), did not intend to only introduce you to Coptic life and culture, but also to encourage you retrieve a part of you in Oriental Orthodoxy.

Coptic History, a Reading
The Copts find their greatest identity in their faith, represented by an ancient Church that lead Christianity and put its people's fingerprints on its development through its great early and recent martyrs, its saints and their monastic vocation, its Didaskalia from Clement& Origen to Athanasius & Cyril, its Catechetical scholia. John Watson tries to assure the Copts first and other Christians second that the Copts may be in a coma, that they do not realize, but are not yet dead. He takes the pains to describe life in the 'great and solitary submerged Egyptian temple' presented by the late outstanding Coptoligst and historian Dr. Aziz Atiya (Distsinguished. Professor of History, University of Utah.) In his own words; "The Orthodox church in Egypt led its lonely life unnoticed on the fringe of Christian civilization, buried in the sands of time and oblivion. The Coptic Orthodox Church, like the same immense temple, has proved itself to be indestructible though battered and much buffeted by the winds of change."

Among the Mystics
In the state of angels, is the mystical devotion of abba Watson, to those which shall be accounted worthy, 'for they are equal unto angels, and are the children of God,' as per our Lord's description. Here you meet with very different types of Christians, fools for Christ, and more.'When Coptic Monasticism is discussed it is examined not only as the most important Egyptian contribution to the Christian world, which it certainly is, but as a living Christian witness, embodied in the life of one of the greatest though least known mystics of the twentieth century.' (At the sources of Christian civilization, Introduction)

Genuine Ancient Christianity
Some outstanding western scholars are actively busy in a widespread rediscovery of the faith and doctrine of the ancient churches from Barth's Neo-Orthodoxy, C. S. Lewis Mere Christianity and more recently Oden's Paleo-Orthodoxy, but it is through John Watson's hands on experience, with his analytical explanation of this phenomenon of 'Coptic Orthodoxy' that the reader can experience a real feeling of being in contact with ancient Christianity.
______________________________________________________TThe Christian sons of the Pharaohs, Revisited,
Review by Didaskalex, Vine Voice, on January 19, 2002

"The Coptic Church of Egypt has to be taken seriously by Western Christians," Dr. G. Carey, Archbishop of Canterbury

Among whom, The Copts?
Why should you bother, or anyone, to read about an endangered ancient species? The Coptic Church of Egypt has to be taken seriously by Western Christians, thus writes G. Carey, Archbishop of Canterbury in his preview of this analytical and inspiring and book.Among the Copts facilitates the reader face to face encounter with the Copts, the Christians minority of Egypt. The author renders a the historical roots, that allowed him to present the facets of their twentieth century life. He also explored the thought of the Coptic Church, the core issues of the Copts since the preaching of St. Mark to the present day, when Coptic life is becoming harassed by fundamental Islamists. Controversial themes are tactfully analyzed by a writer who is considered by leading Copts as one of the greatest Coptologists who lived, loved, and acquired a great appreciation of Coptic Egypt, within its Islamic milieu. Among the Copts completes a great trilogy with 'The lonely minority' (E. Wakin, 1963), and 'Modern sons of the Pharaohs' (S. Leeder, 1918)

'Blessed be Egypt, my people'  
Dr. Watson takes you in a wonder tour of 'virtual' Coptic Egypt spanning 1950 years in just sixty pages to explain to the amazed reader the prophecy of Isaiah 19:24, which plays a central role in Coptic faith and feelings. While in chapter 3: 'In the state of angels', you could be carried far and away with the Holy family in their flight to Egypt to meet Abba Justus of St. Antony, an ascetic healer and clairvoyant. On the tour you meet with many colorful Christians mystics and scholars: Thomas Merton as well as Pieternella Van Doorn of U. S. Carolina.'In liturgical times' you will find out how the temporal expresses the eternal, the Coptic genius: the expression of the inexpressible.

In his biography of Abba Kyrillos: Dr. Watson visits the ecclesiastical history of the most ancient tradition of Alexandrian papas, since Athanasius and Cyril, the defenders of faith and doctors of the catholic Church could not be as breathtaking as the ministry of Saint Cyril VI, the praying patriarch (1959-71), wonder worker, clairvoyant and exorcist. Read about the venerated anchorite!

Thinking with the Coptic ChurchDr. Watson masterpiece is chapter 8, his critical examination, theological analysis, talented analogies and inspiring comments. He contrasts the great Alexandrian tradition with the present failure to answer the daily problems in the present language and culture.He echoes the disappointment of the Coptic scholars as well as the lay theologians which are "an envy of many churches"The Coptic liturgical year, starts with the feast of Niruz, a commemorations of the great many and ever living Martyrs,Coptic and Universal. Due to differences of their ancient calendar adopted by Julius Caesar,from the Gregorian, it is celebrated on September 11, the day of American martyrs. For the last three decades they have been repeatedly targeted by same mentality of 9/11 terrorists.

Introducing the Theologians
Alfred North Whitehead was a notable mathematician, logician, educator and philosopher. The staggering complexity of Whitehead’s thought, coupled with the extraordinary literary quality of his writing, have conspired to make Whitehead one of the most-quoted but least-read philosophers in the Western canon. 

Thomas F. Torrance, was a Systematic theologian, best known for his pioneering work in the study of science and theology. He wrote many books advancing Scientific theology, and edited the translation of numerous theological writings into English. He is a most significant  20th century English-speaking theologians.

Marc Pugliese is Associate Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Saint Leo University. His research interests include Philosophical/ Fundamental Theology, God and the Trinity, Process Philosophy and Theology, Religion and Science, Ethics and Economics, and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The One, the Many, and the Trinity
December 3rd, 2019

If Whitehead were in the process of selecting an amanuensis, Marc Pugliese should have to be on the top of his list, proven by three paragraphs;# "Process thought culls a litany of resources from the history of Western philosophy and religion. To treat all of these sources, even summarily, would beget tomes. Yet in order to catch a glimpse of what process metaphysics was really undertaking, it is necessary to trace some of the important issues raised in philosophy and science in the last several centuries.# These “particulars” are the building blocks of reality beyond which there is nothing else, and “the ultimate agents of stubborn fact.” Infinitesimal physical events of experience and perpetual activity are the fundamental from which everything else, including matter, emerges."#"God has two “poles.” The “individuality” pole is God’s uniqueness, which is absolute, unchanging, and provides unity. The “personality” pole is God’s relatedness to all other events and the other levels of emergence."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quantum Mechanics and an Ontology of Inter subjectivity
April 12th, 2019

Puglia in the heel of Italy, may at times be skipped in favor of Cinque isole, but Dr Pugliese's papers has to be read by H. Kung theologians, praised by T. Torrance, to answer; "Is God experiencing human reality in a quantum model, by his Logos? "Is it possible that God entangled himself with the whole Universe --at the Big Bang, so that the Universe is known by God such as how Quantum Entanglement works?
The quirkiness of quantum mechanics shows the underpinnings of a Creator looking for non-locality and malleability of the physical for the process of creation!"-- Eonstar.
To answer such question, a science theologian has either visit Khan Academy, or sit in Quantum Physics' sessions on Academia.edu. Dr Pugliese' closes by "commending one speculative scheme that is especially conducive to developing an interpretation of quantum mechanics consonant with the ontological principles and categories," wishing theologians follow Origen's claim, "No theology without Cosmology," as Anthony's nature 
----------------------------------------

Orthodoxy or Orthopraxis?
July 25th, 2020

Problem of Physical reality: "Whitehead’s definition of the contemporaneous entities as completely causally independent is seemingly predicated on metaphysical and epistemological points. If when he wrote Process& Reality he did accept with Einsteinian relativity theory that the speed of light is an upper limit for energy transfer in our current cosmic epoch, this could be a reason for his insistence on the complete causal independence of contemporary entities. The reasons he gives in Process& Reality and elsewhere, however, seem metaphysical and epistemological. Summarizing Whitehead’s view of presentational immediacy, Henry Stapp explains why it cannot account for the causal influence of the type required by the dis-confirmation of Bell’s Inequalities. According to Niels Bohr, early quantum even adumbrated: "the necessity of a final renunciation of the classical idea of causality and a radical revision of our attitude toward the problem of physical reality”--Marc Pugliese # Compelling! 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   

How Important is the Filioque for Reformed Orthodoxy?                                                        March 17th, 2019             

Very meekly I ask the insightful author, is theology, as divine science, qualitative or quantitative, if not beyond. The Reformed orthodox believe in the Spirit double procession, confirmed by NT passages; John 16:7, Rom. 8:9 & Gal. 4:6. Eastern Orthodox believe in a distinction between God’s essence and his 'energies'. His essence is so transcendent and unknowable to be beyond the concept of being itself. Neither Catholics nor Orientals accept the Palamite mirage. Applying thermodynamics, I don't call his uttering heresy, nor do I judge Apollinarius, the Homoousian champion. Basil confirmed no firm the Holy Spirit. While Trinitarian Alexandrians confess, with Gregory Nz to the Son, that He has made the Father known to them. There are limits for scientific logic, as the mystery of the Trinity is beyond any tools, Cataphatic or Apophatic. Hans Kung says, "This infinite God is not static," asking, "Is God a person?, answering, "First, God is more than a person! We need a new examination.
.----------------------------------------

Is Karl Rahner a Modalist?
August 22nd, 2019

Vincent Battaglia Concludes that Rahner wishes to link every dogmatic treatise to the Trinity itself, in this way, rather than the Trinity existing in ‘splendid isolation.’ The Trinity reminds us that we are called to share in the life of God (cf. 2 Pet 1:4).
The mysterium Trinitatis is thus the mysterium salutis because the Father sent His Son to save us and His Spirit to divinise us. This connection between the Trinity and salvation is explicit when Rahner’s works on the doctrine of God, grace and the incarnation, explicitly linked by him in The Trinity, are considered in toto, and this interconnection is a theological commonplace today. Rahner’s contribution reminds us that there is a single saving plan encompassing creation, redemption and eschatological plenitude, whose order and possibility is the work of the triune God. Despite some significant limitations, if The Trinity can help us know, love and praise the tri-personal God by considering what He does for us in Truth and Love.

Prologue
If Christian orthodoxy is unity of Biblical faith, as expressed by doctrinal interpretation, then the post script, "in diversity" is a necessary integral compliment. Yet, it is far from Orthodox Christianity, since all Christians confess their belief in, "One Church; Holy, Universal, and apostolic." That is probably why the Church of Alexandria nominates him as Athanasius "the Apostolic."  In this pristine attached piece translated by Prof. David Brakke, Athanasius (St), the Apostolic defender of orthodoxy warns the Bishop of Salamis that healing is not by Panarion medicine or with violent intervention but through insightful scriptural understanding in order to arrive at a universal expression of faith.   

Mirror of Heresy and Orthodoxy, Since the Apostles
Heresies are defined by Dr. Harold Brown as those beliefs that are so at odds with orthodox Christian theology that they are a direct threat to the basic beliefs necessary for adequately understanding God’s plan for personal salvation. They are more than differences of opinion, and the heretic must have some claim on calling himself Christian, some real original relationship to orthodoxy or the “faith once revealed” A non-believer cannot be a heretic. He can only be a non-believer. In this sense some “heresies” are not truly heretical but another religion.

Dr. Brown explains that all theological concepts subject to heretical interpretation are found in the Bible. These are primarily those on the Trinity and those on the nature of Jesus, as well as other subjects that became the basis for some heresies. The earliest Christians generally understood these concepts. However, until heretical beliefs started materializing and needed formal refuting these truths were not systematized and comprehensively presented in an understandable way. Yet these early orthodox beliefs are available to us through the analysis of the writings of the heretics themselves. 
__________________________________________________ 

Athanasius letter to Epiphanius of Salamis, regarding healing heresies with his Panarion remedies; "Physician, heal thyself." 

Heretics in late Judaism and early Christianity
Athanasius, the great light of the Alexandrian church teaches in his remembered epistle to Bishop Epiphanius, saying: surely then, just as you have struggled and rejoiced together (with me), so also 'stop casting blame' Instead, pray that the Church may henceforth have a secure peace, that the heresies may stop their murderous conduct, and that these contentious ones may cease who pursue among themselves disputations, ostensibly for the sake of the salvific Psach, but actually for the sake of their own discord, especially because, although they seem to be from us and confidently say that they are Christians, they initiate the practices of the traitorous laws. For what sort of plausible defense might they have, in as much as it is written, "On the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the passover is sacrificed," (Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7). But it happened rightly then, but now, according to what is written, "They always err in their heart." (Ps. 94(95):10)

The heretics in late Judaism and early Christianity 
During early New Testament times, the relationship between the Pharisees, Sadducees and Christians was often turbulent and deeply troubled. Matters grew even worse after the fall of the Temple in 70 A.D. Rabbinic Judaism, which rejected Yeshua as the Messiah, became increasingly hostile toward the Nazarene Christians. Rabbi Akiva even endorsed the renegade Bar Kochba as the "Messiah." Eventually, the rabbis even put a curse into the daily synagogue prayers, the amida, which directly cursed the Nozri or Nazarenes, and similar minim or heretics!  (HOIM) 

What were the earliest Christians called?  
Scripture tells us that early believers in the Messiah were first called Christians or Messianics, as the Greek would imply, at the city of Antioch of Syria, on the Orontes River, which was the third largest city in the Roman Empire. That appellation  then,  was a derogatory term given to them by the local unbelievers, not a name they chose for themselves ( Acts 11:26). The term was also used by king Agrippa when he listened to Paul's defense, and finally Agrippa blurted out, saying to Paul, “Are you so quickly persuading me to become a Christian? " (Acts 26:28).  

About 404 AD, Jerome wrote in a letter to Augustine that, "They believe in Christ, the Son of God, born of Mary the Virgin, and they say about him that he suffered under Pontius Pilate and rose again." In the Nazarene commentary on Isaiah 29:17-21, they wrote against the Scribes and Pharisees that they "made men sin against the Word of God in order that they should deny that Christ was the Son of God." In their commentary on Isaiah 31:6-9, they understand the passage as saying: "O sons of Israel, who deny the Son of God with such hurtful resolution."

Jerome also tells us that the Jewish Nazarenes, or followers of Yeshua of Nazareth  were cursed in the synagogues "by the Pharisees," and that they mixed faith in the Messiah with the keeping of the Law. For Yeshua himself said he did not come to do away with the Law (Matt. 5:17-19), and that one must keep the commandments if they hope to enter into eternal life (Matt. 19:17-19). Paul said that faith does not make  the Law void, but rather "establishes it" (Romans 3:31). He also tells us that the Nazarenes must have been on generally good terms with the Jews during early times, because in the same letter to Augustine he indicates that they were to be found "in all the synagogues of the East among the Jews"

Now, David Brakke insightfully examines Athanasius' casting of the Nazarene Christians, who held to beliefs and practices that classified them to be Jewish at the core. As symbols of difference within orthodox Christian community, as the embodiment of the particularity or locality of heresy's flesh in opposition to the catholicity or universality of orthodox spirit (of truth). Athanasius developed his notion of heretical flesh, particularity during his efforts to reform the Alexandrian megalopolis practices of Lent and Paschal Feast  in contrast with the universal church lines.

A rhetoric specifically served to stigmatize ritual Christians who resisted his reform efforts. Once in place, the model of materialism (Jewish fleshliness) could be applied to main opponents of heretical Christians, the Arians. Arius was allegedly characterized by an Antiochene biblical hermeneutic, a literal heretical locality at the expense of orthodox universality. The rhetorical contrast of fleshly particularity with spiritual universality was, in its Alexandrian Athanasian incarnation, an ideological aspect of the fourth-century project of conforming a universal Orthodox Christian Church.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Epilogue:
Rebecca Lyman projects (attachment) a contemporary view of a Jewish commentator, for the reader integrating this epilogue to the article to compliment above draft? (Thanks)

Violence in Epiphanius' Panarion
Andrew Jacobs characteristically brings a wonderful kaleidoscope of new filters to the text and also insists that Epiphanius has been discounted institutionally and intellectually.  Scholarly discomfort and underestimation of him stems from our mistaken views of Late Antiquity; unlike our beloved intellectuals such as Augustine or the Cappadocians he does not worry, but seemingly delights in fractious identity through his own sense of mastery and encyclopedic knowledge. Young has done a fascinating job cataloging the various vipers used by Epiphanius and the means of their dispatch, which is part of a genre that is inherently violent.

Andrew doesn’t seem to address this aspect of Epiphanius at all. There are of course biblical proof texts for trampling or defeating evil in serpent form (Genesis 3; Luke 10.19; Revelation 12), martyr exemplars like Perpetua, and the surrounding cultural images of military victories. Yet, why has this become the centerpiece of theological disputation in a fourth-century Christian text?  We need to place Epiphanius as an author more specifically into a world distinguished by a great deal of actual and valorized religious violence in the middle of the fourth century. 

If Epiphanius spent his youth in Egypt (330-350), returning to Palestine in 350 before going to Cyprus in 367, he was in the midst of violent confrontations involving Athanasius and others with regard to Nicene orthodoxy.  Historians of ancient theology often sum this period up as “bitter or contentious debating” or “consolidating orthodoxy” through a maze of theological definitions or alliances—which Young has mapped very helpfully-- but these descriptions not only omit, but occlude our knowledge of the routine accusations of physical destruction, ejection, and fist fights. Rebecca Lyman

"It becomes a heuristic mechanism to understand that there are different categories of thinking in response to such an event. But there are elements from that time that will help them in thinking about their present."--C. Gaposchkin, Epidemics in history 

Just like doctors and nurses Christians used to take care of the sick. It could have been be their friends, the elderly, siblings, or even people when on or off mission trips. Serving others we are doing the same thing in discipleship of Christ. It’s always great to help in any way one can and it is also great to pray for and with people who are in need. Giving your time and comfort to people who need care. The evolution of philanthropic care Although in late antiquity the hospital ultimately united the interrelated demands of poverty and sickness as never before, this conjunction was late in coming.

In the fourth century, to Alexandria at the time St Athanasius was her Archbishop. Christian initiative was dedicated more to supporting the poor and the homeless than to treating the ill. The indigent were naturally often sick, but their poverty, not their health, had inspired Christian charity. So, later for the Byzantine church the needy often included lepers, but this was less because they were ill that they needed to be taken off the streets. Care for the sick was clearly an ancillary service, and naturally in such places it was only available for the poor.

This character of Christian philanthropy in the early era is vividly illustrated, in all its complex motivation, in the documentation for a controversial corps of social workers. They are mentioned twice in the Theodosian Code and in reaffirmations of its rulings in the Justinianic Code. They are customarily called parabalani, but the spelling and sense of their name are both in question, as well as their responsibilities and extent of their diffusion in the Mediterranean world. 

These people were called at times “bath attendants”, “nurses”, and “gamblers” that opens up a conjunction of power, poverty, and sickness at the intersection of secular and ecclesiastical authority. In "The Canons of Hippolytus," R. Barrett-Lennard examines the theme of illness, health, and healing in the fourth-century Egyptian text to affirm what is distinctive in the Canons. The theme in the Canons on the general ministry to the sick, a later reworking of the Apostolic Tradition, as the ministry to the sick by those with a charismatic gift of healing; by the bishop and other church leaders
_______________________________________________________

A saintly Nurse
Most Europeans as well as many Coptic Egyptians do not know Saint Verena, the Egyptian nun who enhanced personal hygiene and initiated nursing in Europe. Copts, at home or in diaspora do not know that the Swiss venerated - Coptic Saint Verena - was buried in Switzerland in the fourth century. Historians consider her the mother of European nuns, and Patron for nurses, who passed away in 344 AD. A church was built over her relics in Switzerland. Seventy churches in Switzerland and about thirty churches and chapels in Germany celebrate her name.

Saint Verena, whose name means ‘the good fruit’, is originally from Garagous near Luxor. Her icons are always drawn uniquely. In one hand, she holds a jar of water and in the second a comb because it is she who taught the Germanic and the Gaul the traditions of personal hygiene and herbal medicine. She succeeded with her love and dedication in attracting the pagan cruel Germanic people to faith and civilization while the swords of the Romans failed.

The Theban Legion
Her story dates back to the time of the pagan Roman King Diocletian, who came to Egypt at the end of the third century, and was well received by the people who honored him with a monument in Alexandria that still exists now. The Diocletian’s army was fighting a fierce war in Gaul so he wanted to take Copts from Egypt for back up. He gathered 6,000 young men and formed an army called the Theban Legion (Re: city of Thebes, of the hundred gates, Iconic Pharaos' capital)

The Theban Martyrs
The Egyptians showed great courage in fighting the enemies of the king until he triumphed. Diocletian ordered that celebrations be held and that soldiers burn incense to his statues as the victorious king of God. But the Copts of the Theban Legion refused to worship the king and burn incense to him. They believed in one God. The king was so angry he ordered the battalion to stand in rows. The executioner swarmed between them. After counting nine soldiers, the tenth man was whipped and he was beheaded, but the rest held on to their faith even more. At the end, they were all slaughtered because they didn’t give up their faith.

Saint Verena
Verena was a consecrated Coptic maiden diaconess who accompanied the battalion to help the defenders and treat their wounded. Although she saw her family massacred, she just fled remaining in exile. She lived in a cave and taught the pagans the rules of personal hygiene and medicinal herbs. She was knowledgeable about the arts of ancient medicine inherited from the pharaohs, which enhanced her patients  treatment to recovery. Coptic church Synixarion proclaim of her: "she met the abuse with love and blood with sacrifice so God awarded her a healing touch. She was the reason for the initiation of proselytizing Christianity among the people of the region. Love has won over the sword, and the blood of Martyrs over the arrogance of kings. The jar and comb of Verina triumphed in the face of Tsars.” Coptic version of  Shari's Travel Tuesday __________________________________________ 

Coptic Church Celebration of St Verena
Saint Verena (Coptic: Ϯⲁⲅⲓⲁ Ⲃⲓⲣⲏⲛⲁ; Thebes, ca. 260 – Zurzach, ca. 320) is venerated by the Coptic Orthodox Church, by the Roman Catholic Church, and by the Eastern Orthodox Church. A  hermitess, Originally from upper Egypt, she was thought to have been a relative of St. Victor (Boktor) the Theban Legion. According to tradition, she was associated with the Theban Legion and died on the 4th day of Thout (September 14).

Tradition states that she was brought up in the 3rd century in the Theban region (modernday Luxor, in Upper Egypt) in a noble Christian family. The name Verena  means "the good fruit".[1] According to tradition, Verena was of a noble Christian family from the village of Garagous, near Luxor. Her parents sent her to Sherimon, Bishop of Beni Suef, to be instructed in the Christian faith, after which he baptized her. She was a relative of Saint Victor (or alternately, Saint Maurice)[2] of the Theban Legion. As soldiers' relatives were allowed to accompany them in order to look after them and take care of their wounds.

Travel to Switzerland
Verena accompanied the legion on its mission to Rhaetia (part of modern-day Switzerland). Other accounts say Verena traveled to Switzerland in search of her relative.[3] She went to Rhaetia (modern Switzerland) to find him. She settled there at a site called Solothurn, but spent her remaining days as a hermit in a cave near Zurich. Verena was still in Milan when word was received that Saint Maurice, Saint Victor and the other members of the Theban Legion, who had proceeded north, were martyred.

Verena went to Agaunum to venerate them. First, she led the life of a hermit in a place called Solothurn, from there she went to Koblenz, but later moved into a cave near present-day Zurich.[4] As a hermit, Verena fasted and prayed continuously. Several miracles were attributed to her intercession. Verena was a spiritual counselor for young girls and due to her expertise as a nurse used to look after their physical health.[2]

As a result of her fame, legend states that the local governor arrested her and sent her to jail, where Saint Maurice appeared to her to console and strengthen her. After she was released from jail, she continued her good works.Due to her, many converted to Christianity. Saint Verena fed the poor and nursed the sick, especially those suffering from leprosy. She used to wash their wounds and put ointments on them, not fearing infection. She died in Switzerland in 344.

Veneration
The Verena Minster church was built over the grave of Saint Verena in a Roman cemetery.[5] She is one of the most revered saints in Switzerland.[4]
Return of part of relics to EgyptIn 1986, a delegation from Saint Verena's Church in Switzerland, brought a part of Saint Verena's relics to Egypt.[2] The first Coptic church consecrated in the name of Saint Verena is Saint Maurice and Saint Verena’s Church in Cairo, which was consecrated on February 22, 1994.In October 2004, a delegation from the Diocese of Los Angeles in the United States of America, along with Bishop Serapion of Los Angeles, Fr. Joseph Boules and Fr. Gregory Bishay traveled to Switzerland to bring a part of Saint Verena's relics to her churches in Anaheim and Orange. The Anaheim church, now located in Yorba Linda, California, [6] now has a shrine dedicated to her relic, as well as the church in Orange.[7]

Iconography
She is often portrayed with either bread, or a jar of water in one hand, and a comb in the other, symbols of her care for the poor and lepers.[1][4]

References^  
"Coptic Saint Verena, the Egyptian who taught Europe personal hygiene, Al Arabiya, 10 April 2017^ 
"Our Patron: Saint Verena", Santa Verena Charity^ Monks of Ramsgate.
“Verena”. Book of Saints, 1921. CatholicSaints.Info. 1 September 2016^ Borrelli, Antonio.
"Santa Verena di Zurzach", Santi e Beati, November 20, 2002^ 

Hebrew bible Angelology
The story of Jacob wrestling with a man of supernatural strength has captured Genesis readers' attention for centuries. Who was the mysterious man who struggled persistently with Jacob before he finally blesses him? In the book of Isaiah, the Seraphim surround God's  heavenly throne, Isaiah describes the majesty, glory and   grace of God, prophesying  the virgin birth, earthly life, sufferings and resurrection of the promised Messiah. The Jewish teaching that God has created a realm of personal beings other than mankind was a fitting topic for Rabbis

Angels' Good news
In a town called Nazareth Gabriel, who stands in the presence of Gad, announces Emanuel to Mary, in Luke's gospel, like all Jewish writers of the good news inspired the  faithful about their  guardian angels. Such stories naturally broadens the perceived presence of God, of what He is doing, and how He maintains providing for our earth and the universe.  While the view was God resting since creation. Jesus taught that,  "My Father is still working, and I also am working (John 5:17). Further the creative development of a celestial system was an attempt to fill the monk's esoteric fantasies 

The Place of the Presence of God
"Who has perceived the place of knowledge? Who has attained to the roots of wisdom? And who has insight into the place of understanding? The latter is hidden from the thoughts of every fleshly being, nor can the obstinate purchase it with gold. Its treasure is open and permitted to those who ask [for it]. Its light is greater than the sun, and its radiance is more comely and beautiful than the moon. The innermost chambers of the intellect may touch it, and the perceptions of thought may attain to it, and fullness of mind may inherit it. "--Aphrahat, Patrologia Syriaca

From Theurgy to Liturgy
The influence which the philosophical tradition in antiquity, mainly in the Neoplatonic synthesis of later antiquity, exerted on Christian theology is well known and has been extensively researched. It has been noticed and pointed out by several scholars that besides on the level of theory, philosophy or theology, the influence could also extend to the practical application of that theory, that is, to spiritual practice. Specifically this concerns ritual practice or ritual sacramentalism, called theurgy in the philosophical tradition and (Divine) liturgy in Christianity. Nevertheless, very little has been written about this subject in the academic literature... Melko Rasica 

"Iamblichus of Syria (240–325), whose teachings set the final form of pagan spirituality prior to Christianizing the Roman Empire. Theurgy literally means "divine action" and its theory and practice, is the most controversial and significant aspect of Iamblichus' Platonism."--George Shaw

Denys (or Dionysius) the Areopagite is a unique case in the history of theology: one who exercised a vast influence over succeeding generations, despite (or because of) his pseudonymity. The works attributed to him were first brought on to the theological scene in the sixth century by Miaphysite theologians (Severus of Antioch) to support their case against the Diophysite Orthodox, The Areopagite spiritual power was quickly felt, and by the next century its authority was accepted both in the West and in the East. Andrew Louth argues that, "it cannot be ruled out that Denys and Proclus depend on some common source -- and would not be out of place to confirm its source is a Syrian of Miaphysite faith. 

Denys the Areopagite) Pseudo-Dionysius, as he has come to be known in the contemporary world, was a Miaphysite Christian, possibly a Neoplatonic monk who wrote in late fifth or early sixth century CE. He was one of Severus of Antioch followers, who masterfully transposed in an original thorough way the whole of Neoplatonic Pagan heritage since Plotinus to Proclus, but especially those of Proclus, and Iamblichus into a distinctively new Christian context.During the year 518, in the Enaton Monastery, a polymath grammarian met with Severus of Antioch (St.), who just arrived in refuge to Alexandria. As John Philoponus listened to ps-Dionysius treatises, he realized that 'Apophatism' was then shaped by Proclus' out of Neoplatonism.   

Ephrem’s Literary Landscape of Divine Names
Situating the extensive corpus of Ephrem the Syrian (d. 373) within a late ancient framework is notoriously difficult. Scholars debate the degree to which he represents an unadulterated strain of "Semitic" Christianity, or something much more "Hellenized." Ephrem’s understanding of divine names provides a microcosm in which to explore these larger questions. Ephrem reflects on divine names primarily in two works, the Hymns on Faith and Sermons on Faith, both of which contain hymns he composed in response to the christological controversies of the fourth-century.

This article offers an examination of Ephrem’s theology of divine names, placed in dialogue with two sources that arose within a Syriac milieu (the Gospel of Philip and Aphrahat's Demonstration 17) and two that arose within a Greek milieu (Aetius’ Syntagmation and Eunomius’ Apology). I argue for a direct correspondence between Ephrem and Aetius and Eunomius, but suggest that the Gospel of Phillip and Aphrahat provide a more nuanced picture of the backdrop against which Ephrem’s poetic thought emerged. (Jeffrey Wickes)

"Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us." -- Hebrews 12:1  For what has more power than virtue?  What more firmness or strength than patient endurance? Endurance, that is, for God's sake. This is the queen of virtues, the foundation of virtue, a haven of tranquility. It is peace in time of war, calm in rough waters, safety amidst treachery and danger. It makes those who practice it stronger than steel. No weapons or brandished bows, no turbulent troops or advancing siege engines, no flying spears or arrows can shake it. Not even the host of evil spirits, nor the dark array of hostile powers, nor the devil himself standing by with all his armies and devices will have power to injure the man or woman who has acquired this virtue through Christ."- Nilus of Sinai, St. 

Once again, people around the world are waiting eagerly for a vaccine. As with polio, rabies and other infections in the past, teams of scientists are racing to develop one. If they succeed, Americans will line up to be immunized, part of a global campaign to protect the world’s population from the novel coronavirus. But if history is any guide, some will hesitate, frightened by claims that the new, potentially lifesaving vaccines are part of a government effort to control our bodies, that they are harmful or that some untested, alternative treatment is preferable.Vaccines are one of humanity’s greatest achievements, a testament to our species’ intelligence, science and altruism. Smallpox, once a constant threat in most regions of the globe, killed about 30 percent of its victims each year in England and France before a vaccine was introduced there during the first half of the 19th century. By 1850, smallpox deaths in France, estimated at 50,000 to 80,000 annually before the advent of the vaccine, had declined to a tenth of their previous level. Susan Okie

Susan Okie is a doctor and a former medical reporter and science editor for The Washington Post. Her debut poetry collection is “Let You Fly.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friend
by Rabindranath Tagore

Art thou abroad on this stormy night
on thy journey of love, my friend?
The sky groans like one in despair.

I have no sleep tonight.
Ever and again I open my door and look out on
the darkness, my friend!

I can see nothing before me.
I wonder where lies thy path!

By what dim shore of the ink-black river,
by what far edge of the frowning forest,
through what mazy depth of gloom art thou threading
thy course to come to me, my friend?

When You are Old
by William Butler Yeats

When you are old and gray and full of sleep
And nodding by the fire, take down this book,
And slowly read, and dream of the soft look
Your eyes had once, and of their shadows deep;

How many loved your moments of glad grace,
And loved your beauty with love false or true;
But one man loved the pilgrim soul in you,
And loved the sorrows of your changing face.

And bending down beside the glowing bars,
Murmur, a little sadly, how love fled
And paced upon the mountains overhead,
And hid his face amid a crowd of stars.

Solitude
By  Susan Noyes Anderson

Solitude is so much sweeter
when it isn’t forced,
when it is freely sought
and freely ended.

Let all be mended.

A night of silence calms the soul
until the dawn goes missing,
turns quiet mind to field
of falling stars.

The power is ours.

Then gather stars on hopeful feet
and let them shine forever.
Above us or beneath us,
bright is bright.

Things will come right.

And solitude cannot
eclipse the Light.
A night of silence calms the soul
until the dawn goes missing,
turns quiet mind to field
of falling stars.

The power is ours.

Then gather stars on hopeful feet
and let them shine forever.
Above us or beneath us,
bright is bright.

Things will come right.

And solitude cannot
eclipse the Light.

Forward
Words to live by in a nutshell, "What I, in Los Angeles, today, experience in these writings are people reaching out from their desert to redeem mine. If I can listen to what they have to say, maybe I can live in the world in a different way and, to some tiny extent, see the world -like an icon covered with dust and neglect- restored to its original nature, as each person is restored by taking up the work of restoration."-- Gary Commins 

Editorial Book review
Give me a word, Father. From the time of Saint Antony 'at least 'younger monks would ask older, experienced monks ( 'fathers ' or 'mothers '), for a saving word, for advice, for wise counsel on how to live. In this book, Coptic scholar and priest Tim Vivian shares personal accounts of journeys to present-day monasteries in Egypt, and translations of ancient texts exemplifying the 'words, ' the insights that have guided desert monks for nearly two millennia. Those who study the monastic tradition professionally and those who search it spiritually will find matter for reflection here."  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

These Words are reaching out from their desert to redeem mine,
By Didaskalex, Vine Voice, on April 21, 2007

"To paraphrase Henry David Thoreau, I would not write about Egypt so much if I knew any place better. My hope is that Egyptian monasticism will be or become familiar enough that the reader will see in these chapters both his or her own journey and monasticism in general."-- Tim Vivian, Introduction

Tim Vivian adds one
I take the Rev. Dr. Tim Vivian very seriously, as a highly regarded Coptologist, who explores within his profuse work, combining to his amazing toil loving potential, the fine tools of scholarly distinction and a mystical insight. In his book dedication of 'Four Funerals and a Wedding,' he adds one, which one, I have no clue. For a contemporary Coptic monk, Almanahry, a rare fool for Christ, who kept uttering "I wish to be wedded,"  the common life of the wedded, is to bear witness to Christ in their lives and in the world. In the ancient Church of Alexandria, crowns symbolized martyrdom.

A 'martyr' means a witness, and martyrdom is usually associated with death. But dear Tim, Fr Vivian added one, a sanctifying work, reading into the cenobitic mind and heart of the Desert fathers, who would be smiling to him from eternity, where he takes the readers, on a mystical tour, this time. Abba Vivian, defines the rules of spiritual engagement, and offer thanks to a distinguished group of experts, of whom stands out two Coptologists, Tito Orlandi and Birger Pearson. He then acknowledges a decem of articles of which "Standing up to Leo," is part of the Life of Longinus. He finishes his book on Ash Wednesday, in a Coptic patristic tradition.

A Journey to the Interior
Following a brief but informing Coptic glossary of seven pages, his introduction which reflect on our daily encounter with violence acknowledging our illusions of peace, contrasting with spiritual warfare, a main theme of early Christian monastic life. Advocating and promoting the attentive reading of those abbas and few ammas, he notes, "our relief will be short-lived, because for them the spiritual world is more real than the temporal, more holy and more deadly. That fact alone makes these monks worth reading still today: they remind us that evil is very real. ...We have met the enemy and he is US." Grieving with Virginia Tech victims' families, I feel Sun-Kyung agony, "We are humbled by this darkness. We feel hopeless, and lost."

A monastic Personal Journey
Through Tim Vivian own personal experience few decades past, we are introduced to the Monastic vocation in the place of its birth in the holy monastic triangle, Nitria-Kellia- Scetis. As an American archaeologists team member, to excavate the monastery of Saint John the little, "living just outside a Coptic monastery and digging in the ruins of an ancient monastic settlement, ..with manual labor, study, and prayer." Later on, Fr. Vivian, connected the spirituality of the early desert fathers with his own students, and a gradual but rich and fruitful career of patristic scholarship in Coptic manuscripts translations and desert fathers biographical and theological studies has taken a steady course.

The Life of Longinus
"The soldiers stood and shot their arrows at the chorus of monks and not one of them was harmed! And all of them said this hymn in unison: 'My trust is in the Lord; how will you say to our soul, "Flee to the mountains like a sparrow, for look, the wicked bend their bows, they have fitted their arrows to the string, to shoot their arrows secretly at the upright in heart," ... that mighty soldier, Apa Longinus, who fought to the death for the truth, who showed that he dwelt under the shadow of the Almighty Lord, was not afraid to face the arrows flying through the air but made his profession of faith like a conscript, saying, 'His truth will surround you like these weapons, you shall not fear an arrow that flies by day." (the Miracle on the battlefield, pp 270)

Meditating 
To the choirmaster of David.
In the LORD I take refuge;how can you say to my soul, “Flee like a bird to your mountain ,
for behold, the wicked bend the bow;they have fitted their arrow to the string to shoot in the dark at the upright in heart;
if the foundations are destroyed,what can the righteous do?”
The LORD is in his holy temple;the LORD’s throne is in heaven;his eyes see, his eyelids test the children of man.
The LORD tests the righteous,but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.
Let him rain coals on the wicked;fire and sulfur and a scorching wind shall be the portion of their cup.
For the LORD is righteous; he loves righteous deeds;the upright shall behold his face.

"Creative service begins with the realization of fundamental woundedness in human nature. Emphasizing that which is in humanity common to both minister and the wounded, this woundedness can serve as a source of strength and healing when counseling others."--Henri Nouwen

Every crisis has its heroes, every disaster its displays of selflessness and sacrifice. Firefighters race into burning buildings. Police officers place themselves in the line of fire. Soldiers march into war.

And now, amid the Coronavirus Pandemic, our health-care workers, doctors, nurses, EMTs and support staff who risk becoming infected themselves — who risk infecting their own families — are making extraordinary sacrifices to care for the rest of us. They do so, most infuriatingly, even as they have been put at greater risk than necessary by the avoidable shortages of masks, face shields and other personal protective equipment.

A grim report by The Post’s Rachel Siegel featured the emergency medical doctor who wrote out her funeral playlist; the dual-physician family who found backup guardians for their backup guardians, in case of the worst. Their stories — the nurses who have resorted to wearing garbage bags as protective gear, the doctors banished to the basement for fear of infecting their spouses and children — are at once maddening, heartbreaking and inspiring.

As are, most of all, the deaths, beginning with Dr. Li Wenliang, a Wuhan, China, opthalmologist who warned his medical school classmates about this strange new virus and was reprimanded by Chinese authorities — only to later contract the virus himself and die. Now, Li’s counterparts in overcrowded and under-resourced hospitals around the world have given their own lives to save others.

In Italy, more than 40 health-care workers have died. In France, at least three doctors. In the United States, the toll is beginning to mount: In New York on Tuesday, 48-year-old Kious Kelly, an assistant nursing manager at Mount Sinai who suffered from severe asthma, died. “I’m okay,” he had texted his sister only the week before, letting her know he had tested positive and was on a ventilator. “Don’t tell Mom and Dad. They’ll worry.”
___________________________________________________

The Fundamental Woundedness in Human Nature
Reviewed by Didaskalex, on July 15, 2005

The wounded review
Writing this review seemed as hard as delivering baby Henri Nouwen, it coincided with global devastation due the atrocities taking place in the world, and in His holy mystical body. I am writing a recap on six reviews, each of which captured a side of the book and the psyche of its wounded author, beloved late Fr. Nouwen. Trained in Holland as a psychologist and a theologian, Nouwen spent his later years as a conference speaker. He taught at Yale, Harvard, and Notre Dame, writing more than one book a year, and travelling widely.

Wounded Healers
St. Paul, the arch-wounded healer, told us about "a thorn was given me in the Flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me."  Fr. Nouwen's wound was in his psyche and masterfully does Philip Yancey describe it in his article, in Christianity today, 1966, in: "The Holy Inefficiency Of Henri Nouwen" in this story, "Richard Foster and Eugene Peterson mentioned an intense young man who had been seeking spiritual direction from both of them. They responded as best they could, answering questions by mail and recommending books on spirituality. Foster had just learned that the same inquirer had also contacted Henri Nouwen. "You won't believe what Nouwen did," he said. "He invited this stranger to live with him for a month so he could mentor him in person."

Doctor, Heal thyself
It seems this echoed in Henri's mind when at Cambridge, MA, he started writing the book. As Cry-the-Name (rev 6) rightly mentioned, Henri. Nouwen was in the Ivy ivory tower of Harvard, but he possibly referred to a real experience in: Ministry to a hopeless Man, while he served as a minister in or around Utrecht in his late twenties. Again the title may have been born in his own conscience in Topeka or South Bend, a psychology teacher could not have missed similarity of Franz Jung life to his own.

"He (Henri Nouwen) had a resume to die for which was the problem, exactly. The pressing schedule and relentless competition were suffocating his own spiritual life."-- Philip Yancey

The Healer's Wounds
How all six reviewers observed the healer and his wounds from different perspectives, is evident in Michael Ford's Biography of Henri Nouwen, "Nouwen was a prophet to millions of people who heard him speak and read his books, but he also was wounded in so many ways. His life was one of paradox and pain. Nouwen, for example knew some 1,500 people he counted as personal friends, yet he constantly struggled with intense feelings of loneliness." He announced as a wounded healer:
"The master is coming-not tomorrow, but today, not next year, but this year, not after all our misery is passed, but in the middle of it, not in another place but right here where we are standing"( Ministry by a lonely minister)

Nuclear Man's ways to liberation
Both Nouwen and Merton have similar backgrounds; since both lived in post second World war Europe, got benchmark European education, amended with exposure to great American Academia; they are both Nuclear men, global believers, imitating Christ in different ways. According to J. Donders; they were invoked to their vocation in different ways, and encountered their spiritual adventure in kids like awe, both torn apart, but stayed whole. Their mind and milieu are alike although their wounds were categorically different.

Quotations For the Wounded
"Christianity is not just challenged to ask itself to a modern age, but is also challenged to ask itself whether its unarticulated suppositions can still form the basis for its redemptive pretensions"-- Nuclear Man 

"I am afraid that in a few decades, the Church will be accused of having failed in its most basic task: to offer men creative ways to communicate with the source of human life."-- Ministry for a rootless generation 

"For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings."--Hosea 6:6 ESV"

For theology to make a difference, it must be all-season. It must relate to concrete situations as well as abstract doctrines. Meaningful theology must address the headlines as well as encourage quiet moments of prayer, meditation, and worship, making it both heavenly minded and earthly good. Isaiah goes into the Temple during a time of national crisis, looking for a spiritual respite, and then encounters the Living God and receives a vocation to challenge the injustice and idolatry of his nation. 

Today, we wrestle with the theological challenges of the Coronavirus. We see the volatility of the Stock Market and the uncertainty of our pensions and congregational stock portfolios. We hear of panic in grocery stores as hand sanitizer flies off the shelves and families stockpile canned soup and other non-perishables. We ponder the novelty of this virus and wonder if we are at risk as we move from handshakes and hugs during the Passing of the Peace to fist bumps, peace signs, and elbow nudges."-- Bruce Epperly,  pastor, professor, and author    

https://www.christianitytoday.com/biblestudies/o/overcoming-fear-5-session-study.html?utm_source=biblestudies-html&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_term=28134188&utm_content=704108086&utm_campaign=email
---------------------------

"Theologians and philosophers should remain modest and self-critical in conversation with scientists. For while they too are concerned with the truth of faith by virtue of their profession, they do not possess these truth a priori and definitively.'--Hans Kung"

Here it became clear that physics by no means simply describes the world in itself, independently of the standpoint of the observer, as Newton presupposed. Its theories and models are not literal description of reality at the atomic level (naive realism), but are symbolic and selective attempts that depict the structures of the world and are responsible for special observable phenomena: a critical realism, which recognizes physical reality--not, however, simply through observation but in creative conjunction with interpretation and experimentation."--Hans Kung, The beginning of all things.

Definitions
- Physics: the scientific study of matter and energy, the relationships between them, including the study of forces, heat, light, sound, electricity and the structure of atom.
- Microbiology: ​the scientific study of very small living things, such as bacteria
- Virus: a living thing, too small to be seen without a microscope, that causes disease in people, animals and plants.
- Coronavirus: a type of virus that can cause pneumonia and other diseases in humans and animals. Orthodoxy is diversity of Christian views in unity of Orthodox Doctrine
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Lighten our darkness, we beseech thee, O Lord; and by thy great mercy defend us from all perils and dangers of this night; for the love of thy only Son, our Saviour, Jesus Christ. Amen." -- Day of prayer

The Coronavirus is a vehicle of human infection, only some humans (up to 5%) die as a consequence, but the majority recover. Coronavirus is a micro organism, which cannot be evil or beneficent as a virus is not aware. For the faithful Christians everyone, their conscience is to be the reference of their actions, which is expected to be positive, loving, considerate and charitable service hood.

The Church of England has urged everyone to follow the instructions given by the government to stay in their homes in a national effort to limit the transmission of the Coronavirus (COVID-19). But they called on the Church to “continue to pray, to love, to care for the vulnerable.” It follows the announcement of sweeping restrictions aimed at slowing the spread of the virus.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2020/03/26/nearly-3-dozen-who-attended-church-event-test-positive-for-coronavirus/23962285/

"As we hear of more people affected by #COVID19, we pray for all who are ill, and those already bereaved by this terrible illness. We pray for peace and comfort - and that God's love may enfold them at this time. May God deliver us from all that oppresses us at this time. May the God of all hope show us his face and his way within the darkness that enfolds us. In all things, God can work with us to transform and bring light, however desperate our present may be. "--Justin Welby,  Archbishop of Canterbury

Being meek to learn
“By 2020, we were supposed to be going around in flying cars. Yet here we are being taught how to wash our hands.”--  A Brief Theology of the Coronavirus

Coronavirus continues to do us a favor. Our (mine included) sin is standing naked in the street. Everyone is seeing, or tempted by, a selfishness aimed at preserving themselves above God and above their neighbor. This ought to humble us. Who knows how long this pandemic will last or when the next one will come? This virus is a reminder that our time on this earth burns out like a match but God’s love is eternal. We have choices in how we behave and think.

Jesus did not yell this teaching to the Pharisees and He doesn’t yell it today. He confidently reminds us with a calm voice. Love God, others and yourself. This calm truth is stuck between the floorboards while the wind outside rages on. Are we going to rediscover truth or fight the wind? Will we search for it today? We will check on someone we care for and even take them a meal if needed? We have choices to make and a God who loves us.

https://mindwellwritings.home.blog/2020/03/13/christians-coronavirus-and-two-commandments/
---------------------------

Given the Coronavirus pandemic, we are living an incredibly difficult moment worldwide.

We, at zenit, (Vatican) wish to transmit a message of hope and faith, in order to also make faith flourish and ‘spread’, if you will. This global virus is generating worry, anguish and fear. Therefore, it’s important to remember that in prayer, we—from God—can be graced with moments of peace, tranquility and trust. Churches worldwide are taking precautionary measures recommend by health authorities to eradicate or minimize harm caused this epidemic. 
-----------------------------------------------

Orthodox Church of Alexandria
Recent Tweet from Fr. Gabriel Wissa
As Christians, which queue would we be in? Let us ask ourselves: in these last days, did I spend more time reading abt #COVID19 or my Bible? What abt social media vs prayer? Was I more concerned with my children offering repentance or to wash their hands? Food for thought.
https://pic.twitter.com/bPYklOcEa7Fr.

John Uebersax ·
On the one hand we're lucky that Covid-19 has struck now instead of 25 years ago: the biotechnology industry is far better poised to rapidly develop and implement tests, treatments, and, eventually, vaccines.But we shouldn't be lulled into a false sense of complacency. If we're not careful, serious institutional problems of status quo medicine —far too long ignored — will manifest themselves: disorganized hospitals, excessive costs, prejudice in favor of expensive and invasive treatments, and an obsolete reliance on 'one size fits all' regimens instead of personalized medicine.Pharma company clinical trials are incredibly negligent when it comes to predicting which patients benefit from a treatment. Instead, economic forces prevail. Clinical trials are designed to show a new medicine is "statistically better" than placebo or a competitor. If a new treatment cures only 10% of patients (vs. say 5% for placebo), then it's approved and marketed. Physicians are encouraged to use it for *all* patients, even if it only works for a minority.This is rather shameful, in fact, because pharma companies have plenty of data that would enable them to identify the patient subset for which the drug ought to be used — they just don't analyze it! This bad policy is driven by the profit motive, not by science or altruism. Government regulators play along with this sham!Hence we're seeing scores of pharma company-sponsored clinical trials testing various Covid-19 treatments. Each is being designed to show 'my drug is best.' Instead all these should be coordinated, with the ultimate aim of matching treatments to individual patients, regardless of who sells the most drugs.In fairness, I think most of the larger pharma companies are approaching Covid-19 in a responsible and altruistic way. The problem is that the tools and institutional methods developed over the last 50 years are designed for profit, not altruism.

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear."--1 Peter 3:15  

When we set apart Christ as Lord, it will change us. Peter says those who observe us will notice the difference. That difference is hope. Even in the midst of our suffering, our hopefulness should be apparent. So, Peter instructs us to be ready to answer the question our life should inspire: "How can you be so hopeful in such difficult circumstances?"

Peter anticipates people will become curious. Hopefulness and joy are starkly different from the normal human response to suffering. So much so that people will be eager to understand it. What will we say when they ask? We must be prepared to give our defense, to make the case for faith in Christ. We need to reject the cultural pressure to keep our beliefs to ourselves. Instead, believers should openly share the good news of redemption through faith in Christ. (Bible Ref)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A Prayer
Heavenly Father, I thank You that I have been redeemed by the blood of Christ, and my desire is to be fully sanctified unto Him, and to offer my body as a living sacrifice - holy and acceptable unto God. Guard my heart and guide my speech I pray.. and give me wisdom to be able to give an answer for the hope that is in me..
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments/ Replies:
Chris - in Reply on 1 Peter 31
Peter 3:13-22: 1 Peter 3:13-22 (KJV) Chapter 313 
And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?14 But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.17 For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the long suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.21 The like figure where unto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.Read more...KJV Bible Link Widget is a passage essentially on a believer's suffering at the hands of wicked men (suffering for righteousness' sake, receiving false accusations, suffering for doing well: vv 14,16,17). Likewise, Christ too suffered at the hands of wicked men, died for our sins & brought to life by God's Spirit (v18).v19: by this self-same Spirit, Christ went & preached to the spirits in prison. The reason for Peter to bring up this matter is as a lead-in to the next verses on water baptism. So, as Jesus preached to the spirits bound from the days of Noah, & as Noah was saved on the Ark on water, so our baptism in water (as the saving water under the Ark) also now also saves us (not by washing away sins but of an answer of a good conscience towards God).I realize that we generally connect Jesus' preaching to the spirits in prison as an event after his death & resurrection. But I also see the emphasis on the preaching to them at maybe some other point in time & not necessarily at the resurrection. I can't be certain though. Others may offer their opinion.Where were these spirits? The Greek word indicates that it was a prison & those that are under guard - some see this as Hell, Hades, Sheol, but the Greek doesn't indicate that.Who were these spirits? They were the spirits of all those who rejected God's warning about the coming flood & they continued on in their wicked living & even mocking Noah during the Ark's construction.And what was the message? We're not told, but it could have been an announcement of the reason for their chained up plight & that eight souls were found righteous from among them, whom God had chosen to save. Or, if after the Resurrection, that those spirits & all other spirits bound there, received the announcement that Christ's death & resurrection has brought victory over sin & death. We're just not told any more, but as I said, I think this is just a side matter: the real issue in this portion of Scripture is about baptism.
View Thread   Reply   Report 2 months ago

Mildred on 1 Peter 3:4
What name is Psalms 16 sometimes called?View Thread     
Report 4 months ago

Markel Norman on 1 Peter 3:21
Jesus, command his follower's to be baptized "In The Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," Jesus knew that they understood who the Name of the Father was ;John 5:43 KJV43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. Also read;John 14:8-10 KJV8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.Then Jesus also commanded them to be baptized in The Name of the Son; This should be evident without controversy we all know who the name of the Son is. However, We find in John 14:6-7:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.Acts 4:12 KJV12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. The most powerful name under heaven is JESUS.Finally, we come to the Name of the Holy Ghost, that Name is The same name of both the Father's and The Son's is Jesus. As we read about the Comforter in John 14: 16-1816 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.View Thread     Report 5 months ago

Mike on 1 Peter 3:19
Read Mathew 27: 51-53 View Thread     Report 6 months ago

Dave on 1 Peter 3:19
There were children of God from Adam to Christ's death who were in Abraham's bosom. Had Christ not died and resurrected, they would remain there in limbo forever.Abraham's bosom was next door to hell in the heart of the earth, with a huge space, (chasm) separating them.I believe Jesus stood or floated between them and preached the gospel while both sides listened.The people in hell I don't believe repented. The bible says in revelation that they still cursed God...Those in Abraham's bosom were set free and now are with the Lord in heaven.Anyone killed for the word of God and for Jesus Christ, are the souls under the altar in heaven. Rev.The dead in Christ resurrect just before the rapture. And people say the rapture happens before the tribulation.If that were true, the resurrection of dead in Christ would happen first, followed by a rapture.But that's impossible. because a resurrection happens before the rapture.When does the bible tell us that the first resurrection happens???Revelation 20:1-6 says the first resurrection is after the tribulation after the beheading.
So if nobody is resurrected until after the tribulation, how can a resurrection and rapture happen before the tribulation?? It cant!! Therefore After the tribulation, Jesus appears in the clouds and the dead in Christ rise. Everyone from Adam all the way to the believers from the tribulation.Then those who are alive and remained from the tribulation, will be caught up and changed together with those who resurrected.They all meet Jesus in air and float to mount of olives. The tribes mourn because they see Jesus descending from the air with ten thousands of his saints. Then the thrones are set up and we rule and reign with Christ for a thousand years.Hebrews 1:8 says that only Jesus is called a son of God.

“Somebody who’s suggested that perhaps no airplane hit the Pentagon on 9/11, that horrifying school shootings were pre-staged, and that the Clintons crashed JFK Jr.’s airplane is not living in reality. This has nothing to do with the challenges facing American families or the robust debates on substance that can strengthen our party.” -Sen. McConnell, R-Ky. "


Preface to an odd analogy
As with the American democratic tradition of watching an annual national review of "The State of the Nation," I thought it would be due-able to present the State of faith of the US, a Global Nation per excellence, in every respect. Although the American people majority claim to be Christian, yet whatever your belief you could mix comfortably in the multiplicity of beliefs or disbelief. Meanwhile, "State of the Interfaith Nation" is a project of Interfaith America, a media platform hosted by IFYC that features stories and perspectives from faith and interfaith leaders across the country.

On January 20th, America begins the next chapter of our national story. In recognition of the particular challenges that face President Joseph Biden and Vice-President Kamala Harris, IFYC invited fifteen top civic and religious leaders of different faith traditions and political perspectives to offer their assessment of where our nation is and where we must go. Each writer offers a particular vantage point that, when taken collectively, builds a comprehensive picture of the interfaith state of our nation that is both sobering and hopeful. 

From Amazon book reviewers, a community of lay reviewers of whom I have been a "Vine Voice" in three of my pen names of a total of 800+ book reviews. Where, here I presume my Editorial role in Academia.edu just to present and comment on two reviews as representative of the state of faith of our time. Selected as a parallel “COVID-19 does not exist. The coronavirus has never been scientifically isolated”  Such is our contribution which shows to what extent Americans are divided about a basic fact of their majority faith.

In one of his last presidential proclamations before leaving office, President Donald Trump called on Americans to cherish the "fundamental human right of religious freedom" and urged the nations of the world to "stop persecuting people of faith." Trump signed a proclamation Friday recognizing Jan 16 2021's Religious Freedom Day. He contends that faith and religious freedom are "deeply embedded in the heart and soul of our nation" before illustrating the role of religious freedom in U.S. history.
-------------------------------------------------------------

On the Historicity of Jesus,
Richard Carrier debating "Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt."  wrote
The assumption that Jesus existed as a historical person has occasionally been questioned in the course of the last hundred years or so, but any doubts that have been raised have usually been put to rest in favor of imagining a blend of the historical, the mythical and the theological in the surviving records of Jesus. Carrier re-examines the whole question and finds compelling reasons to suspect the more daring assumption is correct.

He lays out extensive research on the evidence for Jesus and the origins of Christianity and poses the key questions that must now be answered if the historicity of Jesus is to survive as a dominant paradigm. Carrier contrasts the most credible reconstruction of a historical Jesus with the most credible theory of Christian origins if a historical Jesus did not exist. Such a theory would posit that the Jesus figure was originally conceived of as a celestial being known only through private revelations and hidden messages in scripture; then stories placing this being in earth history were crafted to communicate the claims of the gospel allegorically; such stories eventually came to be believed or promoted in the struggle for control of the Christian churches that survived the tribulations of the first century.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Pretend Person  Top Contributor: Philosophy
The Global Cooperate Fraud Machine
Reviewed in the United States on November 27, 2019

This book should be thought of as a preface, introduction, or ‘Cliff Notes’ summary of the author’s more complete and robust work by the same title containing 10 chapters, 533 pages, over 450 illustrations, 27 maps, ISBN 0-906879-14-0. The thin volume under review here only contains two chapters, the first is a summary of the thesis and the second is an interview of Ken Humphreys by Chip Smith of Nine-Banded Books aka, 9BB. This book is suitable for reading in one sitting.

Mythology and Fiction
The New Testament is literary fiction based on the mythology of the Old Testament. Jesus is a patchwork character of mythological Old Testament characters based on Adam, Moses, Enoch, Melchizedek, Elijah, Elisha, etc. as well as pagan savior deities - dead, past, gone and buried. We can think of Jesus himself as just the Jewish version of a mythical dying and rising personal savior god like so many others in the ancient near east. This is what the author refers to as syncretism - the merging together or melding of various customs, traditions and beliefs. Old Testament authors were writing in and for their own time, not making forecasts centuries into the future. The New Testament authors simply constructed their narrative stories to appear as fulfillment of Old Testament mythology. This gave the New Testament stories an aura of authority and authenticity.

Jesus was a fictional character in keeping with the fictional Gospel literature. With so much fiction afoot, it is more than plausible that the person at the center of the fictional narratives was also fictional. To find at the bottom of an extensive fictional literature a larger-than-life fictional person is to be expected. . . . . .

-- Please continue reading File (3)
.________________________________________________________________

Steven H Propp    TOP 500 REVIEWER
A USEFUL BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THE “MYTHICIST” POSITION AND ARGUMENTS
Reviewed in the United States on February 17, 2019

Author Kenneth Humphreys wrote in the first chapter of this 2014 book, “you will often hear the argument: ‘Well, mainstream historians say there was a Jesus, so … There MUST have been a Jesus.’ It’s also the case that many atheists, though convinced that there’s no God, will also say, ‘Well, I think there was a Jesus.’ I hope to convince you that mainstream historians … are actually wrong… Yes, I am allowing for the fact that embellishment and exaggeration could have been applied to an original, simple, and genuine tale.. Let me introduce you to one such figure… favored by mainstream historians, such as Bart Ehrman. For such historians, the real Jesus was a prophet… who had a following for his particular brand of end-time doom and gloom… So here we have a rationalized, acceptable Jesus… But he’s only one of hundreds of rationalized Jesuses… They are… all equally speculative, floating free of any factual foundation… not one of them is based on hard, verifiable evidence from non-biblical sources… is any one of them even probably true?” (Pg. 11-13)

He notes, “All the miracles of Jesus have precedents in Hebrew scripture… the script for the Messiah requires signs and wonders… to the gospel writers certainly provided them. Unfortunately for the Evangelists, they couldn’t change what had already been written about the Christ by an earlier generation of Christians. Not Paul, not James, not Clement---not any of the early letter writers say a word about the miracles of Jesus. When Paul argues about the resurrection of the dead, he says not a word about Lazarus or the daughter of Jairus…. And signs there were not! They are inventions. They are not history. They are just more astounding rubbish from the New Testament.” (Pg. 49-50)

He says of Nazareth, “two centuries of searching by biblical archaeologists gives no support to the town existing in the first century… At best the few artifacts point toward a small farming settlement… but nothing that would correspond to the so-called ‘city of Nazareth’ recorded in the gospels. Such a tiny, rustic community would not have had a synagogue where Jesus might have spoken… the city of Nazareth as the hometown of Jesus is the product, not the precursor, of religious faith… And if there was no Nazareth, there was no ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’ He is a lie invented by the Church.” (Pg. 53-55)

He argues, “On the one hand we have evidence, both from written sources and archaeology, of a great many villages, towns, and cities, which, oddly, have no place in the gospel story supposedly acted out all around them. On the other hand, we have a strong of gospel events in which the miraculous routinely happens only in utterly obscure places,  . . . . .

-- Please continue reading file (4)

Prologue
(Ancient Commentators on Aristotle), in which more than 200 volumes have appeared, many of those editions were little more than editiones principes, so much remains to be done for the proper interpretation of the texts. In the case of Philoponus, his commentary on the chapters of Arist. de anima dealing with the 'active intellect' survives in a thirteenth century Latin translation by  William of Moerbeke, published first in 1934, then  in 1966, in the series Corpus Latinum Commentariorum in Aristotelem Graecorum. While the Neo-platonic commentators on Aristotle’s De anima modified his theory in several ways and underlined the activity of the soul, I contend that they also maintained some of Aristotle’s core assumptions.

By contrast to Aristotle, they identified perception with rational perceptual judgments.
But editions proceed slowly, and in this case without distinction. It is a sign of the amount of work that remains to be done that the 105 pages of translation presented here are accompanied by a list five pages long of emendations to text and punctuation made by F. Bossier and accepted for this translation. As a specimen of the ingenuity required, Sorabji in a preface calls attention to this nice divination: Moerbeke's translation often uses the phrase 'si non' in places where sense is difficult to extract. Now this would evidently reflect Greek ei mê; but Bossier has intuited that what really lies behind those expressions is Platonic forms.
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/1991/02.06.23.html
 _____________________________________________

"Philoponus’ views were partially accepted by al-Kindi, through whom they were influential upon the so-called Plotiniana Arabica, and by al-Ghazali, and they were refuted by Farabi. Echoes of the latter’s arguments, transmitted by Ibn Bajja, reached Maimonides, and Averroes, whence they provided food for the reflection of Thomas Aquinas."-- Michael Chase, Philoponus' Cosmology in the Arabic tradition

While we know that Maimonides held a great respect for the writings of Averroes, scholars maintain that these writings were most likely unknown to Maimonides until after the completion of his Guide. "Among the wide-spectrum contribution of the Rambam – the Maimonides – in philosophy to the word and to Judaism are his ideas on the body and on the soul and on the relations between them. The Rambam is of the opinion that one needs to persist in learning the Torah. One should worship God with awe and love and observe good values and virtues. All of these build the frameworks that maintain mental health and strengthen man’s abilities to develop skills for maintaining bodily health. This is so because body and soul are one – which is the basis of the Rambam’s philosophy of health and medicine."-- Avshalom Mizrahi

Averroes translation of Aristotle’s De Anima
Ibn Rushd, known as Averroes, enjoyed a long career in jurisprudence at Seville and Cordoba while at the same time advancing his philosophical studies of the works of Aristotle.This translation of Averroes’ Long Commentary on Aristotle’s De Anima brings the complete text of this influential work of medieval philosophy. R. C. Taylor provides rich notes on the Long Commentary and a generous introduction that discusses Averroes’ most mature reflections on Aristotle’s teachings as well as Averroes' comprehensive philosophical views on soul and intellect. It is only in the Long Commentary that Averroes finally resolves to his satisfaction the much vexed issue of the nature of intellect.

Recent research on John Philoponus (490 –570's), has been surveyed up to 2010 in Sorabji's  second edition of Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. The second edition also interpreted the structure of the newly excavated lecture rooms of the Alexandrian School, and the implications for methods of teaching. Philoponus wrote most of his seven commentaries on Aristotle, largely following his Greek teacher Ammonius, before he delivered his dedicated attacks concerning the eternity of the world first against Proclus in 529 and next against Aristotle. By contrast, in the commentary on Physics 4, 6-9, he explicitly ridicules Aristotle’s dynamics introducing his rival theory of impetus, applying it to the motion of projectiles and comets.

He also denies Aristotle’s view that motion would be impossible in a vacuum. In the commentary on Physics Book 3, he argues that the pagans’ conception of infinity rules out their belief in an infinite past. His report of experiments refuting Aristotle by dropping weights of different magnitudes to compare their speeds of fall is confined to an excursus, but it may be referred to in the commentary on Book 3. In this bit of commentary he also introduces the most wonderful thought experiments, imagining the earth being moved or expanded, and denying the possibility of numbers lower than one as conflicting with Aristotle’s ban on a completed infinity. 
_____________________________________________________________

John Philoponus utilizes psychology in his commentary on Aristotle on the Soul,
by Didaskalex, Vine Voice, October 2017

"Charlton sees 'Philoponus' as the excellent teacher and expositor that Stephanus was said to be.  "In On the Soul 3.1- 5, Aristotle first discusses the functions common to all five senses. This commentary on Aristotle's text has traditionally been ascribed to Philoponus, but W. Charlton who argues here that it should be ascribed to a later commentator, Stephanus, last Alexandrian Neoplatonist, who according to MacCoull was Philoponus pupil. 'Philoponus' reports the postulation of a special faculty for self-awareness, intended to preserve the unity of the person. He disagrees with 'Simplicius', another commentary on Aristotle On the Soul, by insisting that Imagination can apprehend things as true or false, and he disagrees with Aristotle by saying that we are not always free to imagine them otherwise than as they are.

Philoponus on the Soul
John Philoponus rejects accounts of the soul, or what we would have chronicled of mind, which define it as cognitive, moving, or in other physical terms, mentioned in this text. Chapter 3 examines Aristotle's criticism of the suggestion that the soul is in motion. This was partly an assault on his own teacher, Plato, when he defines the soul as auto dynamic or self-moving. Meanwhile, Philoponus agrees with Aristotle's rejection of the idea that an object must be kinetic (in motion) in order to impart or cause motion. But Philoponus presents what may have been his teacher Ammonius' interpretation of Plato's apparent physical account of the soul in the Timaeus as symbolic.Mind-body relationWhat we may describe as the mind-body relation is the subject of Chapter 4.

Plato and Aristotle attacked a materialistic (physical) theory of soul, which suggested it was the harmonious blend, ratio, or proportion of ingredients in the body. Philoponus attacked the theory too, as we learn from him that Epicurus had defended the concept. In Chapter 5, Philoponus supports Aristotle's rejection of the idea that the soul has particles and Empedocles' suggestion that the soul must be made of all four elements in order to know what is made of the same elements. He also rejects, with Aristotle, definitions of the soul as moving or cognitive as ignoring lower forms of life. He finally discusses Aristotle's rejection of Plato's localization of parts of the soul in parts of the body, but asks if new knowledge of the brain and the nerves do not require some kind of localization.Functions common to all senses.

In On the Soul 3.1-8, Aristotle first discusses the functions common to all five senses, such as self awareness, and then moves on to Imagination and Intellect. This commentary on Aristotle's text has traditionally been ascribed to Philoponus, but William Charlton argues that it should be ascribed to a later commentator, Stephanus. Philoponus reports the postulation of a special faculty for self awareness, intended to preserve the unity of the person. He disagrees with 'Simplicius' commentary on On the Soul, by insisting that Imagination can apprehend things as true or false, and he disagrees with Aristotle by saying that we are not always free to imagine them otherwise than as they are.

On Aristotle's Active Intellect
Philoponus' surveys different interpretations, but ascribes to Plutarch of Athens, and rejects, the view adopted by the real Philoponus in his commentary on Aristotle's On Intellect that we have innate intellectual knowledge from a previous existence. Instead he takes the view that the Active Intellect enables us to form concepts by abstraction through serving as a model of something already separate from matter. Our comment-ator further disagrees with the real Philoponus by denying the Idealistic view that Platonic forms are intellects.

This article is written in honor of Professor Mourad Wahba, Averroes great advocate

Recommend a paper
Post a link to any paper (on or off Academia)              Recommend
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/philoponus/

Setting the canon in John Philoponus field of study, an almost perfect biography fit for Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, with analysis of the concerns and themes of the polymath pioneering thought that initiated empirical science.  C. Wildberg compellingly expounded the phenomenon of John Philoponus, through analyzing the progress of his philosophical methodology in a rare exploration of his creative thought; "In an Aristotelian spirit of modifying the theory so as to save the phenomena, he proceeds to re-interpret the term enérgeia not as a state of actuality, but rather as an ‘incorporeal activity’ which, besides constituting the transparency of the medium, is also capable of warming bodies. Due to this novel interpretation of Aristotle’s terminology, light is now understood not statically but as something dynamic... Philoponus offers a constructive kind of criticism that seems to have had momentous consequences for his eventual conceptualization of the theory of the impetus." 


"The greatest challenge for a student of this period of the history of philosophy is to understand how a phenomenon such as Philoponus could have occurred at all. To be sure, elusive individual qualities of his mind and personality must have played an essential rôle, but it is equally true that philosophical, social, and religious parameters are likely to have supplied conditions which allowed him to carry forward his unprecedented and unparalleled challenge to a widely accepted intellectual tradition." -- Christian Wildberg


In over 50 articles, four monographs and five edited volumes, Christian has made seminal contributions in several areas of ancient philosophy. His doctoral dissertation John Philoponus’ Criticism of Aristotle’s Theory of Ether, supervised by G.E.L. Owen and G.E.R. Lloyd, set the scene for a long and deep engagement not only with Philoponus, a sixth-century Christian commentator and critic of Aristotle’s philosophy. It also inaugurated Christian’s sustained and probing exploration of Aristotle’s natural philosophy and metaphysics, culminating in (among other things) important contributions to volumes of the Symposium Aristotelicum on Aristotle’s On Generation and Corruption (1999, published in 2004) and on the philosophical difficulties through which Aristotle puzzles his way in Book Beta of his  Metaphysics (2002, published in 2009). Furthermore, it began a career-spanning fascination with philosophy in late antiquity, a strong fit with Princeton’s distinction in that field. 

To anyone familiar with Christian’s work in ancient philosophy, it is clear that his interest in Philoponus is in large part a sympathetic one for a strikingly independent thinker. Operating against the background of thinkers who were deferential to the great philosophers of the past (above all, to Plato and Aristotle), Philoponus reads Aristotle as a fallible and flawed thinker and adopts an openly critical attitude towards a figure widely regarded as The Philosopher. Philoponus’ independence made visible intellectual possibilities that no one had explored before, and Christian’s engagement with the tradition of later ancient commentators on Aristotle continued and is continuing. Among the fruits of this engagement are the erudite and enormously helpful entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia on Philoponus, Elias, David, Olympiodorus, and Syrianus, all written between 2003 and 2009. 
(Princeton University Emeriti Booklet Excerpt)

"The greatest challenge for a student of this period of the history of philosophy is to understand how a phenomenon such as Philoponus could have happened."-Christian Wildberg, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

"No Christians actually contributed to natural philosophy, however, until the sixth century, when John Philoponus of Alexandria wrote insightful commentaries on several works of Aristotle. Even at that time, though, Philoponus was an exception." --Ted Davis, Biologos

"Philoponus produced an early and quite sophisticated version of impetus theory, the ancestor of Newtonian inertia. He also produced a significant critique of Aristotle on falling bodies and made a significant attempt to unify celestial and terrestrial dynamics"--George Couvalis


Alexandria's Scientific Milieu
In his book; "Alexandria in Late Antiquity," Christopher Haas, recreates the vivid culture of the great metropolis, with its many brilliant, late antiquity philosophers, Mathematicians, writers, and theologians. Among them stands out Philo, Clement, Origen, Arius, Athanasius,  Cyril, Hypatia, and John Philoponus.  John McKenna recounts how by 220 BC Alexandria has replaced Athens as the center of the old world learning advancing the cause of culture and civilization. He traces its philosophic institutes, and the establishment of its famous Catechetical school of theology early in the third century. He renders how that tradition formed the thought of many of the Church fathers from Athanasius to Severus of Antioch, John's senior confraterner and theological mentor. He touches on John's cosmic view, first proposed by it's grand teacher Origen.

The Philo-Scientist Grammarian
Ioannis (John) Philoponoi (490-570), known as the Alexandrian grammarian, was the first Christian dean of the great philosophical Academy, in Alexandria. Ioannis was a committed Christian, in the Philo-ponoi (toil loving) fellowship, with St. Severus of Antioch, and Zacharias the Rhetor. He was called: the most learned man of his time. This sixth century Alexandrian is now regarded as the greatest natural philosopher before Newton, by many contemporary philosophers. His original and creative commentaries on Aristotle mounted a critical blow to the deductive methods and content of Greek physics and cosmology.
Philoponus Influence Circles:

Masters of medieval Islamic philosophy has known him as 'Yahya Al-Nahawi,' using his authority in their debates. Not only an outstanding scientist and philosopher, but also the arbiter in the critical Christological controversy. In scientific thought, he is compared only to Einstein and Maxwell by many scientists of renown. John was appreciated by the great physicist Huygens, father of modern light theories, well known to the great Galileo, who mentioned him in admiration. Recently, he became the focal point in the interface of science with theology, pioneered by professor Torrance of Edinburgh University.

The Byzantine empire of Justinian
Justinian (527-65) tried to keep his post Chaledonian empire in tact, by playing together with Empress Theodora a double role of courtship with both factions. Theopolitical currents and post Caledonian thought, were complex, and linking them with the arbiter's call to establish a logical common ground between the two schismatic factions, was not a novel trial, since the failure Zeno's henotikon to restore peace. Lang was concerned with these controversies and his handlingreflects an elaborate search for the roots of the Chaledonian problem since the time of compiling Codex Encyclicus (457-9) of Leo I.

Although his work was meant to be conciliatory, the seventh chapter of 'The Arbiter' by our prominent Alexandrian, criticized Leo's Tome exposing its philosophical inconsistency, and theological weaknesses. The complex back ground of post Caledonian life, politics, and theology of Byzantium is portrayed in detail by john Meyendroff in his work; "Imperial unity and Christian division", while the Christological intricacies and its developments are best rendered in: "Christ in eastern Christian thought."

The life setting of the Arbiter
In a dramatic closure in a letter to Justinian, the dilemma to face the Alexandrian Maphysite  more than a century later, is clear, since the logic he applies for the christological expression of Alexandria, which he defends are many centuries ahead of his time. His theological genius had to wait for thirteen centuries to be deciphered and appreciated. Uwe Lang deducted that although Philoponus applied a rigorous logical clarification to christology, bringing order into the post Chaledonian mess, his judgment of the different positions was strictly philosophical. He suggests that Philoponus success to provide a coherent logical alternative to the definition of faith was limited.

The statement of faith in Chalcedon, failed to perceive the mystery of Christ's Hypostatic union, which can never be elucidated entirely by rational inquiry. Imperial politics, Pulcheria's hate, Leo's egomania, and the shameful faltering yield of some bishops, and the dogmatic inflexibility of Dioscorus, could not be cured by the genius of Philoponus, even a century later. The scandal of using church councils to dictate Imperial theology to achieve political unity is concluded in Mckenna's own words; "Philoponus believes his explanation is not only in line with Cyril and Severus, but is also rightly informed by the science that prevails in the Academy at Alexandria."

Philoponus' Scientific Philosophy
It is now proven, that John Philoponus (490-570), the first Christian Dean of the Academy of Alexandria, was not only a millennia ahead in his scientific genius, but was equally in Orthodox doctrines, of 'Creation ex Nihilo,' and the 'Resurrection'. His 'Diaetetes', was adopted later, by John of Damascus in his 'Doctrina Patrum.' In the 'Tmemata,' his polemic against Chalcedon, written at the time of the second Council of Constantinople(553). He implied a condemnation to the Chalcedonian pseudo-Nestorian expression, by citing Cyril's twelve anathema, attacking canons III, IV & V aiming at Leo's Tome. Not only did he condemn the canons but criticized Leo's Tome exposing its philosophical inconsistency, and theological weaknesses.

Theological Science and scientific Theology
"The theology of John Philoponus was biblical and Christocentric, in line with that of Athanasius, Cyril, and Severus, in which he developed the Christian conception of the creation of the universe and its rational order out of nothing. His dynamics, optics, meteorology and cosmology, and then back into theology in such a way that his theological thinking and his scientific thinking affected, fertilized and deepened one another.  His science cannot be adequately understood in abstraction from his theology, while his theology may not be appreciated except in the epistomological depth and precision it gained from his critical and creative engagement with traditional Hellenistic philosophy and science." Th. Torrance, Thelogical and Natural Science

Lifting of the Anathemas
In 1990, after 13 centuries, the Greek Orthodox Church lifted the unqualified anathema of the sixth council in 681, on John Philoponus, initiated, defended, by the outstanding theologian Dr. Thomas Torrance, of Edinburgh University, with the help of Dr. G. Dragas, Hellenic college, MA, who provided the Greek texts of Philoponos, including 'De Opificio Mundi'. This endorses recent findings of Lebon, von Harnack, Grillmeier, and Hainthaler, who argued that Severus defends nothing but Cyril's Orthodox Christology.

Johannes Philoponus
John Philoponus (490 – 570), also known as John the Grammarian, or John of Alexandria, was a Christian, an Aristotelian commentator and author of a considerable number of philosophical treatises and theological works.  John Philoponus broke from the Aristotelian-Neoplatonic tradition, questioning its methodology, leading eventually to empiricism in the natural sciences. A rigorous and original thinker, sometimes a polemical writer who was controversial in his own time. He claimed that from every point in space it is possible to draw identical figures, which made him perceived as an innovative thinker who influenced later Renaissance scholars, including Pico della Mirandola and Galileo Galilei. Thus, Philoponus' idea of perspective signifies the concept of space as immaterial three-dimensional medium in which objects are located.[1]

The phenomenon of conscience
Jed Atkins challenges the common view that "the philosophical analysis of the phenomenon of conscience begins with medieval philosophers. Just as Jerome’s Commentary on Ezekiel furnished the medieval school men with a common text, vocabulary, and philosophical concerns, so Euripides’s Orestes served a similar function for four late antiquity Greek philosophers: Plutarch, Philostratus, Philoponus,  and Olympiodorus. Stimulated by a common text, writes Atkins, "these philosophers offered a series of intricate and interrelated philosophical accounts of conscience and its place in human psychology. I track the development of the philosophers’ different conceptions of conscience, and indicate relevant points of comparison with later notions of the concept."
------------------------------------

"The intellectual life of man consists almost wholly in his substituting a conceptual order for the perceptual order in which his experience originally comes." -- William James, Some Problems of Philosophy, 1910

" . . . challenges arise when we seek to understand the wholes and the parts of our experience, the universal with its particulars, in dynamical fields of knowledge that together make up the potential and actual relations between the physical universe and human consciousness. These challenges that Philoponus sought to tackle, still face us today. It appears evident that both ancient and modern wisdom are required for real openness to the transcendent in the nature of the Truth with which we have to do in our time."--John McKenna, The Concept of Nature in the Thought of John Philoponus

In modern philosophy, awareness and self awareness are usually considered to be central to psychology and epistemology. However, awareness in no way holds a key position in philosophical description of the soul. It is, in fact, hardly discussed at all. H. Schwyzer collected a number of passages bearing on the subject from Plotinus and other ancient philosophers. But the most instructive passage in John Philoponus' commentary on the De anima, that was dropped, adds a new term to the list of Greek expressions roughly equivalent to self-awareness, in meaning.

The common view that philosophical analysis of the phenomenon of conscience begins with medieval philosophers, is being challenged recently by Wolfgang Bernard. As Euripides’s Orestes served a critical role for four pre-medieval Greek philosophers: Plutarch, Philostratus, Olympiodorus, and Philoponus. Stimulated by a common text, these philosophers offered a series of intricate and interrelated philosophical accounts of conscience and its place in human psychology. Tracking the different concepts of conscience, developed by them may well indicate relevant points of comparison with later notions of the concept.

In 'Unified Reality Theory,' Steven Kaufman explains the development or 'The Evolution Of Existence Into Experience.' He presents an original study, argued persuasively, philosophically profound, and presented a hypothesis that "reality is a state of existential self-relation." Consciousness and awareness is truly the source of physical reality, rather than a byproduct, and physical reality is merely one facet of a universal consciousness. Self perception is an awareness of the characteristics that constitute one's self; self-knowledge.

Self-awareness, is defined as the capacity for introspection and the ability to recognize oneself as an individual apart from other individuals and the environment. It is not to be confused with consciousness in the sense of qualia. While conscious-ness is a term given to being aware of one’s environment and body and lifestyle, self-awareness is the recognition of that awareness. In the third book of De Anima, entitled De Intellectu, Philoponus analyzes the doctrine of the intellect.

The author Philoponus sets the theory on the role and functioning of the active intellect.[2] On one hand, there is the active intellect, and on the other, the idea of perception awareness or how we are aware that we are perceiving. In other words, in this reflective philosophy, there is a rationalist conclusion which emphasizes a relation between self and truth which leads to the discussion of the nature of knowledge. Accordingly, the knowledge is identical to its object, since the self-awareness of perception is separated from the irrational soul. Such understanding arises through the identification of the intellect and its object. [3]

[1] Branko Mitrovic, "Leon Battista Alberti and the Homogeneity of Space", The J. of the Society of Architectural Historians, vol. 63, No. 4 (2004), pp. 424–439.
[2] Lautner, Peter (1992). "Philoponus, in De Anima III: Quest for an Author". The Classical Quarterly. New Series 42 (2): 510–522
[3] Hubler, N. The Perils of Self-Perception: Explanations of Appreciation in the Greek Commentaries on Aristotle. The Review of Metaphysics, vol. 59, No. 2, pp. 287–311

Methods in examining Sense-perception : John Philoponus and Ps.-Simplicius
Peter Lautner, Institute of Philosophy, Faculty of Arts

Abstract

The paper discusses the methods applied by Philoponus and Pseudo-Simplicius in commenting on Aristotle’s theory of sense-perception, and indicates their differences. Philoponus frequently employs medical theories and empirical material, mostly taken from Aristotle, to highlight not only the activities of the particular senses, but also a certain kind of awareness and the way we experience our inner states. By contrast, his Athenian contemporary Pseudo-Simplicius disregards such aspects altogether. His method is deductive : He relies on some general thesis, partly taken from Iamblichus, from which to derive theses on sense-perception. The emphasis falls on Philoponus’ doctrine since his reliance on medical views leads to an interesting blend of Platonic and medical/empirical theories

Epilogue
The commentaries of the late antiquity aimed to teach audience. In that regard, Philoponus’ commentaries repetitive nature demonstrates his pedagogical style. Philoponus is mainly focused on the concept in question, in the abstract. It was occasionally disputed that Philoponus is the author of the Greek commentary on De Anima 3, due to difference in wording style, as maintained by its editor M. Hayduck. Another commentary on De Anima 3 attributed to John Philoponus, part of which survives in a Latin translation. As Philoponus held lectures in different places at different times, different collections of his commentaries have existed side by side, even his day.

* On Human perception of time
http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_3_No_20_December_2013/31.pdf
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-psychology/suppl3.html
http://www.umsl.edu/~philo/People/Faculty/facultybios/Mcginnis%20Works/For%20every%20time%20there%20is%20a%20season.pdf
http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_3_No_20_December_2013/31.pdf

* On self-consciousness
http://www.iep.utm.edu/self-con/
http://www.focusing.org/aristotle/Ae_Bk_3.pdf
https://www.academia.edu/11535406/Consciousness_and_Agency_in_Plotinus

John Philoponus
"The greatest challenge for a student of this period of the history of philosophy is to understand how a phenomenon such as Philoponus could have happened."--Christian  Wildberg, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Encountering a Genius in Science and Theology
By Didaskalex, Vine Voice, Jan. 2004

John Philo-who?
John Philoponus, toil lover, the sixth century Aristotle commentator, and first Christian dean of the famed Alexandrian academy, is appraised "the greatest natural philosopher before Newton." He was called 'the most learned man of his time' and was appointed Imperial Arbitrator. He is now compared only to Einstein and Maxwell by many scientists of renown, as inspired revolutionary thinker. John the Grammarian was appreciated by the great physicist Huygens, father of light wave theories, and acknowledged by Galeleo.

Masters of Alkalam, Islamic medieval dialectic philosophy has known him as 'Yahya Al-Nahawi, employng his authority in their debates. Recent book on late antiquity history of Christianity, dare neglect him, describing him as tritheist and monophysite. He became recently a focal point in the T. Torrance scientific theology, an interface of science with theology. In 1990, after 13 centuries, the Greek Orthodox Church lifted the sixth council's unjust anathema of 681, on initiative of the Dean of Scottish theologian Torrance.

The arbiters' Setting in life
Many books were written about John's outstanding and original achievements in philosophy of natural sciences and articulated cosmology. Mckenna's thesis is unique, and in spite of many quotations in Greek, German, and French is a concize, self booting, inspiring treatment of the Alexandrian scientist, exposing his Christology. Its alternative is to read the books listed at this review's end. A first time encounter with our grammarian (professor), and defender of the Alexandrine Orthodox  theology  reading the 'Tmemata' his defense of Miaphysite Christology is recommended.

The Scientific Culture of Alexandria (Ch. 3)
Dr. McKenna takes you in a tour of john's place of life and work, its history, civilization and wonders. How in the new era, Alexandria replaced Athens as the center of science and philosophy. He traces its scientific institutes, and the creation of the Didaskalia, its great school of theology. He explains how many Church fathers were formed in the tradition of the megalopolis from Athanasius to Cyril and Severus of Antioch, John's con-fraterner and early mentor. Hence he mentions John's Creation ex Nihilo first proposed by Origen.

Byzantine empire of Justinian (Ch. 2)
The devoted author retrieves the scene of the religious environment, starting by 'the age of Theodosius', merging into Justinian's (527-65). He tactfully wraps up the social, and theopolitical currents of post Caledon's Constantinople, linking it with the Arbiter call to establish a common ground for its schismatic factions. Elaborating on diophysite Nestorian  thought, he initiates readers joining in the events of seventh chapter by Justinians 'Arbiter', expounding ultimate evaluations of his Christology by Lebon, von Harnack and Grillmeier.



The anathema (Ch. 1)
The scandal of using a dictated Dogma to achieve Imperial unity, in J.Meyendroff words, is expressed in John Mckenna's strong words; "there never was a time when the human nature of Christ existed independently of the divine nature of Christ, the word of God. Philoponus believes his explanation is not only in line with Cyril and Severus, but is also rightly informed by the science that prevails in the Academy at Alexandria."
__________________________________________________________________________

John McKenna explores the Arbiters Genius and defends his Orthodoxy
By John Philoponus, Oct. 2004


Alexandria's Scientific Milieu
By 220 BC, Alexandria has replaced Athens as the center of learning in the old world, advancing the cause of culture and civilization. Alexandria, was naturally destined, and equipped with the great light Pharos, to attract all the trade of the Mediterranean ancient world, serving as a trading center of the entire ancient world, making its significant and distinctive contribution to western civilization in mathematics and its applied sciences. Starting with Euclid, other glorious names included; Erastothenes, Hypparchus, Pappus, Hypatia & John Philoponus was the earliest to reject the long enduring Aristotelian natural science, whose impetus theory has revolutionized thinking in mathematics and physics.

Philosophy in Alexandria
Alexandria excelled as the mind of philosophical thought and the educational Ivy of the Roman Empire. Its great Academy started to admit Christian students, of John's generation, that the Grammarian, born around 490 could became its first Christian dean. Meanwhile the Athenian Academy declined after Proclus, and was closed years later in 529. During the fifth century many outstanding Copts from all over Egypt, educated in Alexandria, included Zacharias the Rhetor who joined John and Severus of Antioch in the confraternity of 'toil lovers', or the 'Saintly fellowship' --J. Beth

Theological Science
The relationship of the religious Christian traditions to science from the early Christian era to the late twentieth century, has set John Philoponus as a model of their harmony. Tracing the rise of modern science from Philoponus through the scientific revolution, major discoveries of Copernicus, has started a chain reaction in scientific perception, initiated by his views in physics, and cosmology.

"John Philoponos of Alexandria, the sixth century theologian and scientist in his adherence to the teaching of Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria, and in his trenchant critique of Aristotelian physics, which yielded his astonishing anticipation of Clerk Maxwellian science. Alas, however, when john Philoponus gave a more dynamic theological interpretation of the teaching of Cyril of Alexandria, he was anathematized by the Aristotelian churchmen in Byzantium. that had a disastrous effect retarding the advance of science for more than a thousand year." Thomas Torrance, Preface to;" Theological & Natural Science"

Philoponus' Tmemata
It is now proven that John Philoponus was not only a millennia ahead in his scientific genius, but equally in Orthodox doctrines of 'Creation ex Nihilo,' and the 'Resurrection.' His 'Diaetetes', was adopted later, by John of Damascus in his 'Doctrina Patrum.'
In the 'Tmemata,' his polemic against Chalcedon, written at the time of the second Council of Constantinople (553), he implied a condemnation to the Chalcedonian pseudo-Nestorian expression, by citing Cyril's twelve anathema. He attacks canons III, IV& V aiming at Leo's Tome. Not only that he condemns the canons but makes clear the illegal participation of imperial judges, and was sarcastic about the unfounded dogma of the preeminence of the 'Roman Pontiff Maximus', a thousand years before Protestants criticized it after the reformation.

John's Arbiter Christology
John defended Cyril's Alexandrian position, as appropriated by his colleague, and great Christologist Severus of Antioch, who very clearly defended that, "God was in the indivisible Christ" quoting St. Paul's mystery confession; "He was revealed in the flesh, vindicated in spirit," as the core of Alexandrian -Orthodoxy. John Phototonus was critical of the basic contradictions in Leo's Tome, of two natures, thus undermining the validity of the Caledonian confession. He underlined its drawbacks, and debated its limitations, showing that Caledonians are Estonians in disguise, who confess no hypo static union, a view supported by many eminent contemporary Histologists; Catholic and Protestants.

Today's Chronological thought
- "Chalcedony was a stumbling block-and still is. It has been said that present day theology has put Chalcedony in the dock. Almost everywhere we hear about the Peoria, the impossible deadlock, presented by the so-called doctrine of the two natures -- in Iliac, in Ranger, in Baneberry, in Congener, Kung, and many others." Cardinal W. Kasper, 1989, p. 95"

A Leonine thorn in the flesh?
Cardinal Kasper, for many years professor of systematic theology at the university of Tubingen, Theology and The Church, states pp. 98,99, "The brilliant investigations of Andre Alex has put judgments about the council of Chalcedony on a new footing.... On the basis of detailed analysis of the texts and sources (accepted by Grille, Critter and Abram) , Alex has shown that the council's definition really contains no more than two word-for-word quotations from Leo's tome, a Leonine 'thorn in the flesh."

"Philoponus’ main significance for the history of science lies in his being, the first thinker to undertake a comprehensive and massive attack on the principal tenets of Aristotle’s physics and cosmology, unequaled in thoroughness until Galileo." --Encyclopedia.com


John Philoponus (JP) suggested that the stars are made of the same essential matter as the earth and emit light as they burn. Their different colors  are owing to differences of their composition,  anticipating 'Spectroscopy' of the absorption and emission of light and radiation by matter. John attributed the movement of celestial bodies to impetus, and argued for  a void (vacuum) between the stars, while Aristotle claimed that angels moved the planets. He was the first to suggest dropping balls of unequal weight from a tower.  Galileo read and praised Philoponus.  Scholars are beginning to recognize his importance in the history of ideas, as one of the top three creative scientists, with JC. Maxwell and A. Einstein, who revolutionized scientific deduction.

The essential part of his criticism is in the commentary on Aristotle’s Meteorologica, in his "De aeternitate mundi" contra Proclum, and against Aristotle’s doctrine of the eternity of the world. Philoponus’ adversary Simplicius quoted him extensively in his commentaries on Aristotle’s Physica and De caelo. The unity of heaven and earth had been accepted as a fact, Philoponus was the first to present it in a systematic framework of a scientific concept, in a novel world view. JP point of departure was his sustained criticism against Aristotle’s established theory of eternity of the universe.  Aristotle’s dichotomy of heaven and earth in assuming that the celestial bodies are made of ether. Since the first century BC, an attack was launched on the indestructible fifth element, ether, by Xenarchus.

Although Philoponus book "Against the Fifth Element," is lost, fragments are extant in Simplicius quotations, in a commentary on Aristotle’s 'De caelo.' Simplicius shows that Philoponus’ arguments against ether went much further than Xenarchus', particularly on his physical proofs, in favor of the hot flaming nature of the sun and stars. Aristotle had claimed the stars are "neither made of fire nor move in fire," and that the celestial spheres are "eternal, they neither grow nor diminish." Heat and light emitted from the celestial bodies are produced thus, by friction resulting from their movement, a case similar to that of fast projectiles. This is what makes us think that the sun itself possesses the quality of fire, but even the color of the sun does not suggest a fiery constitution, “The sun, which appears to be the hottest body, is white rather than fiery in appearance”--Meteorologica

The monotheist dogma of the creation of the universe ex nihilo, by the single act of God who transcends nature, implied for Philoponus, the creation of matter imbued with all the physical faculties for its free development according to the laws of nature, a development that he conceived of as extending from the primary chaotic state to the present organized structure of the universe. This deistic conception of a world that, once created, continues to exist wrt natural law, has been completely foreign to the classical Greek view, which never considered the gods to be 'above nature' but associated them with nature, reigning not above it but within it. The shock created by this concept of Philoponus’ is reflected in the words of Simplicius.

Simplicius was bewildered by the idea of a god who acts only at the single moment of creation and then hands over his creation to nature. Philoponus remarked that such processes require the fitness of the active object to accomplish the assimilation. "The black ink of a cuttlefish," he said, "will overpower the whiteness of milk; but the black of a piece of ebony, when put into the milk, will not affect its color because of its lack of fitness. In the same way, brass or silver or metals will resound for some time after having been struck—i.e., they are capable of turning potential sound into actual sound—because they have a fitness for producing sound, in contrast with wood or other nonmetallic substances."

JP's  background, states SS, "is also evident in his method of discussing a problem, defined as resonance in modern terms; shows his keen observation  powers. An ingenious physical illustration was given by JP to explain the deviation of a system by external forces. Discussing the Aristotelian concepts “according/ contrary to nature” in the effort to explain an illness or a congenital deformity, according to his
view, have to be regarded in a wider framework, as parts of a whole, in order to be considered natural. This  Stoic idea that if a reaction goes unexpectedly, the event in question must be seen as incomplete. Philoponus introduced a more physical notion into this trend of thought, if something “contrary to nature” happens to a physical object, one has to regard it as a deviation caused by outside factors.

Celestial Bodies, and Impetus 
The implanted impetus is caused by a mover who imparts an initial velocity to a projectile; the impetus is proportional to the velocity:  Buridan gave it a mathematical formulation:  impetus = weight x velocity
Once projectile dynamics was studied and understood in terms of an impetus (kinetic energy) rationale, Philoponus underlined the role of the medium, for impediment to a projectile's motion. Based on this, Philoponus concludes, against Aristotle, that there is nothing to prevent motion taking place through a void.  Appealing to the same experiment that Galileo was to carry out centuries later, JP contradicted Aristotle's conclusion that the speed of a falling body is proportional to its weight and reciprocally proportional to the density of the medium. (In Phys.)

Philoponus suggested that forces confer impetus upon bodies they set in motion,  “a quality compelling motion of its subject;  which is the proximate cause of the motion of that mobile in which it is, i.e. in that way in which it can be a cause of motion”. which gradually dies away so that such bodies ultimately come to rest. JP's impetus theory was developed in with other far-reaching criticism of Aristotelian physics. He admits that although in nature empty spaces may never become actual, he insists that a concept of the void is coherent and necessary to explain movement in spatial entirety of a plenum. Philoponus impetus theory was known to Galileo . Okham revived the impetus theory, which came down to medieval Europe with the Arabs.

In a recent study, G. Couvalis concluded that, "Philoponus made a major intellectual contribution, criticizing in detail, the Aristotelian view, that the world must be eternal. He showed up real flaws in that view and made rational thinkers realize that there were other options. In this sense, he made the formulation of later, much more scientific alternatives, possible.  Many scientific theories do not result from mere observation of facts; rather they are interpretations of facts within a wider conceptual framework. Had the pagan framework remained the only one available, it might have been impossible for western scientists to even conceive of a thesis like the big bang theory, which postulates a beginning of the universe and time."

The theory of impetus, is commonly regarded as a decisive step away from Aristotelian dynamics towards a modern theory based on the notion of inertia. Concepts akin to those deployed in Philoponus' impetus theory appear in earlier writers such as Hipparchus and Synesius, but Philoponus nowhere suggests that he was influenced by any of them. As far as one can tell from the text In Phys. 639-42, he takes his point of departure from an implausible Aristotelian answer to a problem that puzzled scientists for centuries: Why does an arrow continue to fly after it has left the bow-string?

QFT Epilogue
"If Thomas Kuhn was correct in claiming that the shift from Aristotelian dynamics to the medieval theory of impetus constituted a paradigm shift, a scientific revolution, then Philoponus, because of his rejection of Aristotelian dynamics and advocacy of something very like the medieval European theory of impetus, becomes a crucial figure in the history of science."-- Lee T. Pearcy

"It is suggested that inertia is a fundamental property that has not been properly addressed by quantum field theory or superstring theory. The acquisition of mass-energy via a Higgs field may still require a mechanism to generate an inertial reaction force upon acceleration. Even when a Higgs particle is finally detected one may still need a mechanism for giving the Higgs-induced mass the property of inertia. " -- Calphysics Institute


https://muse.jhu.edu/books/9781400858989
http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_3_No_20_December_2013/31.pdf
https://www.academia.edu/7590585/John_Philoponus_Closeted_Christian_or_Radical_Intellectual

"If Thomas Kuhn was correct in claiming that the shift from Aristotelian dynamics to the medieval theory of impetus constituted a paradigm shift, a scientific revolution, then Philoponus, because of his rejection of Aristotelian dynamics and . . . theory of impetus, becomes a crucial figure in the history of science." --Lee Pearcy

"This . . .allowed the Alexandrian to develop notions about infinity, space, and time with a force that influenced the science of the Middle Ages and beyond. Today, these developments have been compared to the kind of paradigm shift for which Thomas Kuhn has become so well known in the history of science."-- J. McKenna


Thomas Kuhn argued that the progress of science does not follow a solitary course of linear accumulation of new knowledge. Science undergoes periodic revolutions, he called "paradigm shifts," in which the course of scientific inquiry takes a sudden turn within a particular field of knowledge, transforming its progress. He classifies these phases  into three distinct stages. Proto science, which lacks a central pattern, followed by "normal science", where scientists attempt to expand its core form, by further clarification."

Kuhn challenged the prevailing view of progress in "a normal scientific progress," viewed as "development-by-accumulation" of accepted theories. He argued for an episodic model in which periods of such conceptual continuity in normal science were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science. The discovery of "anomalies" during revolutions in science leads to new paradigms hat ask new questions of old data, move beyond the mere "puzzle-solving" of the previous paradigm, change the rules of the game and redirects new research.

Failure to conform to the paradigm is not regarded as refuting it, but a mistake, against Popper, that "verifiability be replaced with falsifiability" as the criterion of demarcation. As anomalous results build up, science reaches a crisis, at which point a new paradigm, which subsumes the old  into one framework. This is termed revolutionary science. Kuhn’s model of normal science and revolution, was seen as, "insulting to Scientific Reason, deprived of a cumulative passage to ultimate Truth."

It turns out that the problems of infinity do not require the universe to have had a beginning. Science does not know whether the universe had a beginning. The question was left to philosophers, many of whom have thought they could give a definite answer. The arguments we have looked at, first against and then for a beginning have been very ingenious. But in the end Philosophy turns out to be as inconclusive as Science." -- Richard Sorabji, Did the universe have a beginning?

Refutation of Aristotelian physics
Aristotle supposed that there must be something which imparts the motion, and that the air displaced in front of the projectile goes around it pushing from behind, propelling the projectile along.  JP proposed that a projectile moves by kinetic force imposed on it by the initial mover and exhausts its energy slowing in the course of the movement."If you let fall from the same height two weights of which one is many times as heavy as the other, you will see that the ratio of times required for the motion does not depend on the ratio of the weights, but that the difference in time is a very small one"-- J P, commentary on Aristotle.

One of Philoponus most important achievements in developing late antiquity science is his theory of impetus, commonly regarded as a first decisive step in the Copernican revolution, on the rubble of Aristotelian statics, being a modern theory based on the notion of inertia.  Philoponus takes his point of departure resenting the Aristotelian explanation of the projectile event, which puzzled scientists for centuries: Why an arrow continues its trajectory after leaving the bow-string?

Once projectile dynamics was studied and understood in terms of an impetus rationale, Philoponus underlined the role of the medium, responsible for impediment to a projectile's motion (In Phys. 681). He concludes, against Aristotle, that there is nothing to prevent motion taking place through void. Philoponus, appealing to the same experiment that Galileo carried out centuries later, contradicted Aristotle's conclusion that the speed of a falling body is proportional to its weight. (In Phys. pp. 682-84).

Philoponus attributed to impetus the movement of celestial bodies and argued for void (vacuum) between the stars. Galileo read and praised him. Philoponus had suggested that forces confer impetus upon bodies they set in motion, the impetus being a quality, which gradually dies away so that such bodies ultimately come to rest. Okham agreed with Philoponus that God might have conferred an impetus upon the heavenly bodies, that did not decay with time, thus removing the necessity of postulating a variety of angelic movers to the heavenly bodies."-- S. Mason, History of the Sciences. 

Kuhn could have supported his theory with the refutation of Aristotlian science.  JP was followed by J. Maxwell and A. Einstein. According to many leading scientists, Philoponus was the first thinker to reject Aristotle's dynamics and propose his theory of  impetus. An object moves and continues to move when a force is applied on it by a mover and stops when that energy is spent. In this rather rough but insightful thesis the first step towards the concept of inertia in modern physics, was born. Philoponus’ theory was not conceived at the time, being too critical in rejection of Aristotlean physics.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/aug/19/thomas-kuhn-structure-scientific-revolutions
___________________________________________________________________________

The Scientific Revolution Begins with the Downfall of Aristotle's Physics
By Didaskalex - Vine Voice

The Scientific Revolution
As spelled out in the introduction, to the book based on his lectures in 1948 the Scientific Revolution, popularly associated with the 16th and 17th century, has started much earlier than the Renaissance. Butterfield advanced the notion of its eruption was caused by the 'destruction of Aristotaslian physics,' that was crucial to the development of science that was the basis of western civilization. This is the best praise for an Alexandrian scientist he never mentioned, the sixth century dean of the academy in Alexandria, John Philoponus.

Butterfield's Historiography:
Thomas Kuhn was a milestone in the historiography of science by studying in depth how science evolved with new established concepts and ideas and how these catalyzed displacing the old ways of thinking with brisk new methods. What one of Kuhn's obituaries noted, "We all live in a post-Kuhnian age," so more applies with Butterfield treatment, especially when it concerns origins of modern science, which was not one of his favorite subjects. In the words of a history of science reviewer, Butterfield's observations that better described the underlying reality of the fields of science he considered lacked a scientific analysis that weakened his historiographic conclusions.

The Impetus Theory
Although he started logically with the historical importance of 'Impetus Theory,'as the point of breakthrough, on obsolesence of the body of Aristotalian physics, he failed to identify, while Kuhn did, to dig out who effectively attacked it into rubble in the sixth century. On the same year, he revised the 'Origins' in 1957 Kuhn in,'The Copernican Revolution', wrote on page 119 that, "John Philoponus, the sixth-century Christian commentator who records the earliest extant rejection of aristotle's theory, attribute his ... to Hippacrius."

Early on, in 'The Origins of Modern Science', he discusses Buridan (14th century), who elaborated on projectile dynamics, and quoted Philoponus, before Copernicus who read him, when he studied in the university of Padua, under or with Galileo who paid respect to John's pioneering thought in dynamics and astronomy. (Essays on Galileo & the History and Philosophy of Science, S. Drake)  He missed the point again when he discussed the 'Downfall of Aristotle and Ptolemy,' which in both cases the Alexandrian Genius was the major catalyst many centuries before.

http://www.friesian.com/hist-2.htm

"For the briefest instant at the origin of time when all laws of physics on an equal footing, all nature's elementary constituents, heavy and light alike, interacted freely and democratically."--John Barrow, The left hand of creation.

Creation and the big bang (Stanford Encycl. of Philosophy)
Einstein's general theory of relativity shows that the structure of space-time is itself a dynamical variable, subject to causal influence by the material constituents of the universe. Indeed, Einstein immediately saw the potential to apply general relativity to large-scale cosmological questions. The first cosmological model of Einstein (1917) described a static universe, i.e. one whose spatial geometry is constant over time. Such a model was not consistent with the original field equations; thus Einstein modified the equations by the addition of a cosmological constant ?.

Although Einstein later regretted the introduction of the cosmological constant, in recent years there have emerged independent reasons for introducing it into the equations.
Be that as it may, Einstein's static universe was empirically inadequate: it cannot account for the redshift data gathered by Edwin Hubble and others in the 1920s. The redshift data indicates that distant stars are moving away from us, and moving faster in direct proportion to their distance. Thus, the data indicate an expanding universe.
____________________________________________________________________

"The Alexandrian commentator and theologian John Philoponus was the last great champion of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo in the pre-Islamic era, and it is his refutation of Aristotle's doctrine of an eternal universe that constitutes the roots of the Arabic and Jewish formulations of the first cause cosmological argument. Thinkers such as al-Kindi, Saadia, and al-Ghazali reworked Philoponus's arguments into a variety of cosmological proofs."-- Wm Lane Craig

The curious origin of Bondi's Steady-state concept of 'Creation ex Nihilo' was initiated by John Philoponus, 6th century Dean of the great Alexandrine Academy. Hubble's discovery that the universe was expanding put an end to thirteen centuries of static vision of the universe and suggested that the cosmos had a definite starting moment. To percieve the predictions and link them with the proofs from Friedman to Eddington on the expanding universe, is a great educational endeavor.

First Cause Cosmological Argument
One of the giants on whose shoulders Newton stood was the philosopher of science  John Philoponus (JP), who suggested- on creationist grounds- that the stars are made of the same essential matter as the earth and emit light because they burn. The different colors of stars are owing to differences of composition, he said, drawing his analogy from the differences in colors we see when we burn various substances on earth. He attributed to impetus the movement of celestial bodies (Aristotle said angels moved the planets) and argued for void (vacuum) between the stars. He was the first to suggest dropping balls of unequal weight from a tower. Galileo read and praised Philoponus. (Daniel Graves)

It turns out, then, that the problems of infinity do not, as Philoponus thought, require the universe to have had a beginning. The situation, then, is this. Science is well aware that it does not know whether the universe had a beginning. The question was left to philosophers, many of whom have thought they could give a definite answer. The arguments we have looked at, first against and then for a beginning have been very ingenious. But in the end Philosophy turns out to be as inconclusive as Science." -- Richard Sorabji, Did the universe have a beginning?

JP's Impetus Theory
One of Philoponus most important achievements in developing late antiquity Alexandria's science is his theory of impetus, which is commonly regarded as a first decisive step in the Copernican revolution, on the rubble of Aristotelian statics, being a modern theory based on the notion of inertia.  Philoponus nowhere reveals he was influenced by any one before him, taking his point of departure resenting the Aristotelian explanation of the projectile phenomenon. This problem, which puzzled scientists for centuries: Why an arrow continues its trajectory after leaving the bow-string?

Philoponus has been the earliest thinker to reject Aristotle's dynamics and propose his theory of the impetus; [an object moves and continues to move because of a force is applied on it by a mover and ceases its movement when that energy is spent. In this rather rough but insightful thesis the very first step towards the concept of inertia in modern physics, was established. Philoponus’ discovered theory was not concieved at the time because he was too critical in his rejection of Aristotlean physics.

Refutation of the Aristotelian physics
"But this (Aristotle's view) is completely erroneous, and our view may be completely corroborated by actual observation more effectively than by any sort of verbal argument. For if you let fall from the same height two weights, one many times heavier than the other you will see that the ratio of the times required for the motion does not depend on the weights, but that the difference in time is very small."-- John Philoponus

Aristotle supposed that there must be something which imparts the motion, concluding that the air displaced in front of the projectile goes around it pushing from behind, propelling the projectile along.  JP proposed, more logically instead, that a projectile moves by kinetic force imposed on it by the initial mover and exhausts its energy slowing in the course of the movement."If you let fall from the same height two weights of which one is many times as heavy as the other, you will see that the ratio of times required for the motion does not depend on the ratio of the weights, but that the difference in time is a very small one"-- John Philoponus, a commentary on Aristotle.

Impetus and Celestial Bodies
Once projectile dynamics was studied and understood in terms of an impetus rationale, Philoponus underlined the role of the medium, as responsible for impediment to a projectile's motion (In Phys. 681). Based on this Philoponus concludes, against Aristotle, that there is nothing in fact to prevent motion taking place through a void. Philoponus, appealing to the same experiment that Galileo was to carry out centuries later, contradicted Aristotle's conclusion that the speed of a falling body is proportional to its weight and reciprocally proportional to the density of the medium. (In Phys. pp. 682-84).

Philoponus had suggested that forces confer impetus upon bodies they set in motion, the impetus being a quality, which gradually dies away so that such bodies ultimately come to rest. ... Okham agreed with Philoponus that in the beginning God might have conferred an impetus upon the heavenly bodies, which did not decay with time, thus removing the necessity of postulating a variety of angelic movers to the heavenly bodies."--S. Mason, History of the Sciences, pp.118

Philoponus' impetus theory was developed in with other far-reaching criticisms of Aristotelian physics. He admits that although in nature empty spaces may never become actual, he insists that a concept of the void is coherent and necessary to explain movement in spatial entirety of a plenum. John Philoponus impetus theory was known to Galileo Galilei. "Okham revived the impetus theory of JP, which came down to medieval Europe with the Arabs.

Big Bang Theory
The Big Bang theory depends on two major assumptions: the universality of physical laws, and the Cosmological Principle,  that on large scales the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. Under these two reasonable assumptions , same in all places and in all directions, as suggested by observation in combination with the Copernican principle, general relativity has led to the creation of a cosmological theory known as the big bang theory. This theory has had some spectacular successes; for instance, the prediction of the cosmic microwave background radiation, the calculation of the abundances of light elements, and a basis for understanding the origin of structure in the universe.

The gradual acceptance of Big Bang cosmology begins with the initial arguments for it by Georges Lemaître, George Gamow, and others in the late 1920s and 30s. Lemaître was able to combine Einstein's theory of relativity with Edwin Hubble astronomical observations to propose a theory that the entire universe is evolving in time from a 'primeval atom', a 'ultradense' state of matter that somehow 'exploded'. Since the history of science is frequently written from the point of view of the winners, it is easy to forget how controversial the claim was that the universe is expanding

Couvalis concluded in a recent study that, " Philoponus made an important intellectual contribution in criticizing in detail the prevailing (Aristotelian) view that the world must be eternal. Through his arguments, he showed up real flaws in that view and made rational thinkers realize that there were other options. In this sense, he made the formulation of later, much more scientific alternatives, possible. As has been shown by a number of philosophers, many scientific theories do not result from mere observation of facts; rather they are interpretations of facts within a wider conceptual framework (Popper, 1980; Couvalis, 1989:1-38; etc.). Had the pagan framework remained the only one available, it might have been impossible for western scientists to even conceive of atheory like the big bang theory, which postulates a beginning of the universe and time."

http://everything.explained.today/Theory_of_impetus/
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/study_msc/dissertations/stable/2008_ranford.pdf
https://www.quora.com/What-caused-the-Big-Bang-6
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/10/15/what-happened-before-the-big-bang/

"John Philoponus has only recently begun to receive the credit and attention that he deserves. Both Professors Sorabji and Torrance have helped to end the way he has escaped the attention in philosophy and theology."-- John E. McKenna

"The greatest challenge for a student of this period of the history of philosophy is to understand how a phenomenon such as Philoponus could have happened."C. Wildberg

Falling into Neglect
Few academics knew John Philoponus, sixth century Neo-Platonic philosopher, and dean of its Alexandrian academy. Less so, were those who wrote about him, even briefly, like Thomas Kuhn, 1957, and S. Toulmin, 1961. John Philoponus has suffered from the unjust neglect of his scientefic break through, after being anathemized a century after his death, condemned as a Tritheist Monophysite by the Byzantines.

Alexandrian Academy
Alexandria excelled as the mind of philosophical thought and its great Academy started to admit Christian students, of John's generation, that the Grammarian, born around 490 could had become its first Christian dean. Meanwhile the Athenian Lyceum declined after Proclus, and was closed in 529. Many from all over the East, were educated in Alexandria, like Zacharia the Rhetor who with Severus of Antioch in the confraternity of 'toil lovers'. Opponents of his philosophical works, and the breadth of his scientific knowledge and theological undertakings, from Simplicius to Cosmas Indicopleustes, calling him Matioponus: Vain striver!

Theological Science
The relationship of the religious Christian traditions to science from the early Christian era to the late twentieth century, has set John Philoponus as a model of their harmony. Tracing the rise of modern science from Philoponus through the scientific revolution, major discoveries of Copernicus, has started a chain reaction in scientific perception, initiated by his views in physics, and cosmology.
"John Philoponos of Alexandria, the sixth century theologian and scientist in his adherence to the teaching of Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria, and in his trenchant critique of Aristotelian physics, which yielded his astonishing anticipation of Clerk Maxwellian science. alas, however, when john Philoponos gave a more dynamic theological interpretation of the teaching of Cyril of Alexandria, he was anathematized by the Aristotelian churchmen in Byzantium. that had a disastrous effect retarding the advance of science for more than a thousand year." Thomas Torrance, Preface, Theological & Natural Science"

Philoponus' Tmemata
It is now proven that John Philoponus was not only a millennia ahead in his scientific genius, but equally in Orthodox doctrines of 'Creation ex Nihilo,' and the 'Resurrection.' His 'Diaetetes', was adopted later, by John of Damascus in his 'Doctrina Patrum.'
In the 'Tmemata,' his polemic against Chalcedon, written at the time of the second Council of Constantinople (553), he implied a condemnation to the Chalcedonian Christological expression, by citing Cyril's twelve anathema. He attacks canons III, IV& V aiming at Leo's Tome. Not only that he condemns the canons but makes clear the illegal participation of imperial judges, and was sarcastic about the unfounded dogma of the preeminence of the 'Roman Pontiff Maximus', a thousand year before the Protestant criticized it after the reformation.

Rise of Modern Science:
"Modern science devoted to the investigation of empirical phenomena could not have risen in the classical form given to it by Galileo and Newton if it had been restricted to a purely a priori approach," argues Torrance in the 'Theological and Natural Science.' As "It arose out of the way of understanding of the universe as created by God and endowed by him with a created rationality of its own,based upon his transcendent rationality. This means that while the contingence of the universe cannot be demonstrated from the world itself, even if scientific understanding of it is reached only through giving attention to the universe itself, apart from God." He makes a very interesting observation, or in his words; the problem as he sees it ; "that coupling and decoupling of the contingent universe with God lies deep in the foundation of our western science, but the decoupling loses its significance when its relation to the coupling of God and science is neglected or severed, as happened in the enlightenment."

Philoponus' revolutionary science
The ecclesiastic world view in the seventh century was that the universe appeared to be constituted of a continuous chain of creatures extending down from God. Such was the Neoplatonic theory incorporating Ptolemy's system with elements of Aristotle's cosmology. This established view of the universe was opposed by John Philoponus, who denied that angelic beings moved the heavenly bodies. He has proven Aristotle's physics obsolete; read by Galileo he is well regarded the greatest scientist before Newton, and together with J. C. Maxwell and Einstein the most influential three.

His theory on Impetus and gravitation changed the directions of physics a thousand years ahead, when discovered by the renaissance. His impetus theory was revived during the thirteenth century, in a radical departure from Aristotle and Dionysius' influential views established until then. It was translated from Greek by John Scot. William Ockham revived impetus theory, and agreed with Philoponus that in the beginning God may have conferred an impetus upon the heavenly bodies which did not decay with time. Discussions of the impetus continued at Oxford, and was further developed at Paris, by Jean Buridan, university rector in 1327.

Sorabji's Rescue Mission
"Now Richard Sorabji of King's College, London, has made it his mission to rescue Philoponus, the most productive and interesting of the neglected late antique philosophers, from modern oblivion. Starting with his 1982 inaugural lecture, he has himself led the investigations and has assembled an international team of co-workers to press the boundaries in all directions. The results have been numerous. Sorabji has published two books in his own write on issues that come to a head in Philoponus (Time, Creation and the Continuum, London, 1983, and Matter, Space and Motion, London, 1988)

In a paper appropriating John Philoponus revolutionary role in the progress of science, George Couvalis recalls Sorabji’s view of Philoponus as, "that his intellectual influence was beneficial because he showed up real problems with Aristotelian thought and presented a serious and well thought out alternative. This alternative was to play an important role in scientific and mathematical developments."

Richard Sorabji stressed Philoponus’s intellectual contribution  in, "his startling claim that time must have had a beginning. Couvalis adds, "Philoponus changed the intellectual landscape by making the claim that time had a beginning intellectually respectable. Sorabji further argues that critical discussion of Philoponus’ subtle arguments led to important developments in medieval and later thought about infinity."
Richard Sorabji  organized the publication of a volume of essays entitled Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science, 1987, the best book on Philoponus, his thought-world, and his contribution; on a grander scale, he edited what is to my taste the best collective volume I have ever seen, Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and their Influence (London, 1990); and he has taken on the general editorship of the series of translations in which the volume noted above appears. (J. O'Donnell, U. Pennsylvania)

Censoring the Arbiter 
"On the eve of the fifth Council (Constantinople, 553) Philoponus stepped forward as a partisan of miaphysite Christology. In Arbiter (Arbitrator or Umpire) of about the same time Philoponus takes the view that the locution ‘discernible in two natures’ ought to be abandoned. His main strategy is to argue that in this context the meaning of the terms ‘nature’ and ‘hypóstasis’ is virtually identical, so that if Christ is one hypóstasis he cannot also be discernible in two natures." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Lifting of the Anathemas
"In 1990, after 13 centuries, the Ecumenical Orthodox Church lifted the unqualified anathema of the sixth council, on Philoponus, defended, by eminent theologian Thomas Torrance, with the help of Dr G. Dragas, Hellenic college, MA, who provided the Greek texts by Philoponus, and 'De Opificio Mundi', translated from Syriac."
John McKenna wrote, "Now that the Anathema is removed and the condemnation that has veiled this great man's work has begun to be lifted, the time has come for a fresh reading of 'The Arbiter' with a grasp of the wholeness of Man with the wholeness of Lord God in the wholeness of the Universe, when every particular reality will be understood."

Prologue
This text by Philoponus rejects accounts of soul, or as we would say of mind, which define it as moving, as cognitive, or in physical terms. Chapter 3 considers Aristotle's attack on the idea that the soul is in motion. This was an attack partly on his teacher, Plato, since Plato defines the soul as self-moving. Philoponus agrees with Aristotle's attack on the idea that a thing must be in motion in order to cause motion. But he offers what may be Ammonius' interpretation of Plato's apparently physicalistic account of the soul in the Timaeus as symbolic. What we would call the mind-body relation is the subject of Chapter 4.

Plato and Aristotle attacked a physicalistic theory of soul, which suggested it was the blend, ratio, or harmonious proportion of ingredients in the body.  Philoponus attacked the theory too, but we learn from him that Epicurus had defended it. In Chapter 5, Philoponus endorses Aristotle's rejection of the idea that the soul is particles and of Empedocles' idea that the soul must be made of all four elements in order to know what is made of the same elements. He also rejects, with Aristotle, definitions of the soul as moving or cognitive as ignoring lower forms of life. He finally discusses Aristotle's rejection of Plato's localisation of parts of the soul in parts of the body, but asks if new descriptions of the brain and the nerves do not require some kind of localisation.
_______________________

An appetizing prologue
"The commentary on Aristotle's On the Soul is perhaps the earliest to contain passages in which Philoponus abandons at times proper exegesis in order to criticize Aristotelian doctrine, a tendency which is even more conspicuous in the Physics commentary, dated to 517. Scholars now believe that at least some of these deviations from commentary proper derive from a later revision of the original exegesis. One can distinguish between two kinds of criticism: substantial modification of Aristotelian ideas on the one hand, and outright rejection on the other. Philoponus' commentary On the Soul presents a good example of the former kind of criticism. In On the Soul II,  Aristotle takes light to be incorporeal, and describes its appearance as an instantaneous transition from the potentiality (dúnamis) of a medium to be everywhere transparent to the actuality (enérgeia) of transparency." -- Christian Wildberg, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
____________________________________________________________

A brief preview
John Philoponus teacher, Ammonius Hermenaie studied with Proclus in Athens. Later, Ammonius favored the commentary on Aristotle, which thus become an Alexandrian school tradition. John Philoponus is remarkable for introductory information on psychology indicative of Ammonius views of the later Neoplatonist generation on the psychological capacities and mind-body relations. There is an unusual account of how reason can infer universally valid conclusion from a single instance.

There were inherited views on the role of intellect and perception in concept formation, and the human ability to make reasoned decisions, celebrated by Aristotle, but were downgraded. Philoponus attacks Galen's view that psychological capacities follow, or result from bodily chemistry; they merely supervene on that and can be counteracted. John benefited from Galen's knowledge of the brain and nerves, but also propounds the Neoplatonist belief in tenuous bodies which support after death our irrational souls temporarily; or our reason eternally.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Philoponus utilizes psychology in his commentary on Aristotle on the Soul
By Didaskalex, VINE VOICE,  October  2017

"Charlton sees 'Philoponus' as the excellent teacher and expositor that Stephanus "last Alexandrian Neoplatonist" was said to be."

In On the Soul 3.1- 5, Aristotle first discusses the functions common to all five senses. This commentary on Aristotle's text has traditionally been ascribed to Philoponus, but William Charlton argues here that it should be ascribed to a later commentator, Stephanus. 'Philoponus' reports the postulation of a special faculty for self-awareness, intended to preserve the unity of the person. He disagrees with 'Simplicius', another commentary on Aristotle On the Soul, by insisting that Imagination can apprehend things as true or false, and he disagrees with Aristotle by saying that we are not always free to imagine them otherwise than as they are.

Philoponus on the Soul
John Philoponus rejects accounts of the soul, or what we would have chronicled of mind, which define it as cognitive, moving, or in other physical terms, mentioned in this text. Chapter 3 examines Aristotle's criticism of the suggestion that the soul is in motion. This was partly an assault on his own teacher, Plato, when he defines the soul as auto dynamic or self-moving. Meanwhile, John Philoponus agrees with Aristotle's rejection of the idea that an object must be kinetic (in motion) in order to impart or cause motion. But Philoponus presents what may have been his teacher Ammonius' interpretation of Plato's apparent physical account of the soul in the Timaeus as symbolic.

Mind-body relation
What we may describe as the mind-body relation is the subject of Chapter 4. Plato and Aristotle attacked a materialistic (physical) theory of soul, which suggested it was the harmonious blend, ratio, or proportion of ingredients in the body. Philoponus attacked the theory too, as we learn from him that Epicurus had defended the concept. In Chapter 5, Philoponus supports Aristotle's rejection of the idea that the soul has particles and Empedocles' suggestion that the soul must be made of all four elements in order to know what is made of the same elements. He also rejects, with Aristotle, definitions of the soul as moving or cognitive as ignoring lower forms of life. He finally discusses Aristotle's rejection of Plato's localization of parts of the soul in parts of the body, but asks if new knowledge of the brain and the nerves do not require some kind of localization.

Functions common to all senses
In On the Soul 3.1-8, Aristotle first discusses the functions common to all five senses, such as self-awareness, and then moves on to Imagination and Intellect. This commentary on Aristotle's text has traditionally been ascribed to Philoponus, but William Charlton argues here that it should be ascribed to a later commentator, Stephanus. (The quotation marks used around his name indicate this disputed authorship.) 'Philoponus' reports the postulation of a special faculty for self-awareness, intended to preserve the unity of the person. He disagrees with 'Simplicius', the author of another commentary on On the Soul (also available in this series), by insisting that Imagination can apprehend things as true or false, and he disagrees with Aristotle by saying that we are not always free to imagine them otherwise than as they are.

On Aristotle's Active Intellect.
'Philoponus' surveys different interpretations, but ascribes to Plutarch of Athens, and rejects, the view adopted by the real Philoponus in his commentary on Aristotle's On Intellect that we have innate intellectual knowledge from a previous existence. Instead he takes the view that the Active Intellect enables us to form concepts by abstraction through serving as a model of something already separate from matter. Our commentator further disagrees with the real Philoponus by denying the Idealistic view that Platonic forms are intellects. Charlton sees 'Philoponus' as the excellent teacher and expositor that Stephanus was said to be.

https://www.academia.edu/29810261/John_Philoponus_Commentary_on_the_Third_Book_of_Aristotle_s_De_Anima_Wrongly_Attributed_to_Stephanus
 

"John Philoponus produced an influential argument that time must have had a beginning. . . ., little attention has been paid to his view of the nature of time, which is contained in his exposition of Aristotle. Yet the argument seems to rest on his view of the nature of time."--George Couvalis


Definitions and Prologue
Time - is the continuum of experience in which events pass from future through the present to the past
Cosmic time - is the time covered by the physical formation and development of the universe
Sidereal time - is measured by the diurnal motion of stars

While the argument on whether or not the universe had a beginning, persisting into the 19th and 20th centuries, Stephen Hawking stated, "All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning." John Philoponus, doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, in the 6th century, stated that the universe began to exist "at a finite point in time." He defended his  thesis against Aristotle,  demonstrating the absurdity of an infinite temporal regress of events*.  His Study of time in 'De aeternitate mundi' against Proclus, in 529 on creation, time generation came in coexistence with the universe, has been supported centuries later with the empirical confirmation from the evidence for the 'big-bang' model of the universe.

If we agree that the universe began to exist, does this necessitate as well a beginning to time itself ? William L. Craig responds, "The answer is: it all depends. If a person believes that time exists apart from events such that if there were no events there would still be time, then our argument does not entail prima facie a beginning to time. On the other hand, if one accepts that time cannot exist apart from events, then a beginning of events would entail a beginning of time as well." Few modern authors hold to the independent state of time apart from events, they are the heirs of the Newtonian conception of absolute time. Although space would not exist without physical objects, time would.

But without physical objects, time could not be measured: one could not tell an hour from a day in a time without objects. Therefore, to say that the universe began to exist on such a time scale would simply mean that a finite time ago there were no physical objects. A relational view of time suggests that time began to exist, as the universe began to exist, as it seems superior to a Newtonian view because it is difficult to see how time could exist apart from events. The Newtonian objection that every instant of time implies a prior instant is adequately answered by the relational view. Thus, concludes Craig, the proper understanding of God, time, and eternity would be that God exists changelessly and timelessly prior to creation and in time after creation.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=3533
___________________________________________________________________________________

"The very expression ‘the perception of time’ invites objection. Insofar as time is something different from events, we do not perceive time as such, but changes or events in time. But, arguably, we do not perceive events only, but also their temporal relations."-- Robin Le Poidevin, Stanford Encycl. of philosophy


Time is in the eye of the beholder
"Scientists have shown that animals' ability to perceive time is linked to their pace of life. The rate at which time is perceived varies across animals. For example, flies owe their skill at avoiding rolled up newspapers to their ability to observe motion on finer time scales than our own eyes can achieve, allowing them to avoid the newspaper in a similar fashion to the "bullet time" sequence in the popular film The Matrix. In contrast, one species of tiger beetle runs faster than its eyes can keep up, essentially becoming blind and requiring it to stop periodically to re-evaluate its prey's position. Even in humans, athletes in various sports have also been shown to quicken their eyes' ability to track moving balls during games."--Science News

In his new book, Objective Becoming, Dr Bradford Skow, professor of philosophy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology presented a new approach to the ontological nature of time.  After examining some of the theories that have been postulated to elucidate time, he embraces the view that all points in time are equally real. This theory known as the ‘block universe’ states that the past, present and future already exist. He also asserts that our passage through space-time is not like a spotlight, and that the experiences you had yesterday, last month, or even a decade ago are all real. But he stresses time that travel between the different eras is not possible, as we are now in a different part of space-time.

John Philoponus time co-existence with the universe, has shown up fourteen centuries later, in Albert Einstein' general theory of relativity, with time as an integral component of space-time, curved due to nearby planetary mass attraction. The significance of the observer in the perception of time has been mentioned, possibly for the first time, in 529 by John Philoponus, in his refutation, "Against Proclus on the Eternity of the World." The Alexandrian philosopher and polymath, considers time perception by humans to be a function of the motion of celestial bodies, anticipating Einstein's special theory of relativity, where human perception of time is related to the frames of reference.   

John Philoponus defines time as the measure of movement of heavenly bodies. Hence, motion is not synonymous with observed time, but rather 'a characteristic', subject to its measurement. This viewpoint of Philoponus describes precisely the way by which humans may perceive the flow of time.  Similarly humans perceives days, nights and the seasons' cycles. The recognition of these phenomena, which gives rise to our perception of time, is based on the rotational motion of the Earth around its axis and its revolution around the Sun. Philoponus conclusion about time, pertains with keeping in mind the co-existence of time and the Universe, with the possibility of time definition by the motions of celestial bodies.

Time Perception by humans
"when the soul is removed, time is removed together with it."-- Philoponus, On Aristotle Physica.
John Philoponus attempted to answer the question of whether the absence of an observer to record the motion, while commenting on Aristotle’s 'Physica'. The Aristotelian system for time consists of three factors: The 'counted' (motion), the soul (the observer who measures the motion), and the result of the measurement of motion (time). Thus, if the observer is absent, there will be no measurement and consequently no time, since it is the result of the measurement, which means also absence of time (Aristotle, Physica). Philoponus, following the Aristotelian definition of time, suggests the same result.

The use of the term psyche (soul) in this case means the intellect, since it is closely related to the  conception of time, which is a result of the observation and measurement of motion. Hence, Philoponus separates the physical event of motion from the mental activity of its measurement, similar to Aristotle in Physica. So, Could one speak about time without the existence of an observers? Before the appearance of human on Earth (or other creatures in the Universe), no observer was available in order to record the motions of celestial bodies, therefore time should not have existed, as a mental result. Meanwhile, there is continuous celectial motion, which is evidenced in both the structural elements of the Universe’s matter and the binary star systems ( two stars orbiting a common center of mass).

Meanwhile, there is continuous celestial motion, which is evidenced in both the structural elements of the Universe’s matter and the binary star systems. As a logical imperative, therefore, before the appearance of human Earth was also moving around the Sun and around its own axis, with only difference that these motions had not been recorded by observers. Thus, it is obvious that without some mental action there is only motion without time being mentioned. Philoponus realizes that the perception of time by the soul presupposes the additional determination of a point of reference, which he calls the nyn (now), an entity he assumes has no duration, but is merely a mental section of a time span corresponding to the present. This is the reason for which the ‘now’ is a part of the motion that is “instantaneous”-- Philoponus, In Categoriae

This stub essay is posted to the memory of Wolfgang Achtner, his paper is the core and mind of this essay.

https://www.academia.edu/28471099/Philoponus_on_the_Nature_of_Time
https://www.academia.edu/5502657/The_Perception_of_Time_by_Humans_according_to_John_Philoponus_and_its_relation_with_the_Theory_of_Special_and_General_Re

"In the mid 6th century, Coptic scientist, John Philoponus, first Christian Dean of the Academy of Alexandria, details the astrolabe in his work; “Concerning the using and arrangement of the astrolabe and the things engraved upon it”


Prologue to Two reviews
An astrolabe (Greek: astrolabos, star-taker) is an elaborate inclinometer, historically used by astronomers, navigators, and astrologers. Its many uses include locating and predicting the positions of the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars, determining local time given local latitude and vice versa, surveying, and triangulation. It was used in classical antiquity, the Islamic Golden Age, the European Middle Ages and Renaissance for all these purposes. In the Islamic world, it was also used to calculate the Qibla and to find the times for prayers.

Arabian claim that they 'invented' it and as with almost all such claims, it is an entirely false one. Alexandrines had long used the astrolabe which was used in late antiquity, before the Islamic Golden Age, and it was a standard feature of the Byzantine navy by 500 AD. While Egyptian scientists, generally, could not repeat such false claims, some uninformed laymen make a grand display of the astrolabe as their own invention. This device was used by astronomers and in navigation by mariners, 750 years prior to the later alleged creation.

Most Helpful Customer Reviews------------------------------------------------------

John Philoponus of Alexandria, On the Astrolabe
By Didaskalex Vine Voice on December 28, 2015

The Astrolabe; Treatise Concerning the use and arrangement of the Astrolabe and the Engravings upon it; "The subject has already been treated sufficiently by my teacher the philosopher Ammonius, but still requires to be further elucidated so that it may be easily apprehended by those also who are not instructed in such matters."--John Philoponus, Quoted from: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy


Late antiquity science
Alexandria had become the established center of Ancient world's science and philosophy, by the first century B.C., the towering Pharos of enlightenment with its libraries, and institutions.The Alexandrine heritage was systematized and put into dialectical form by the peculiar discursive power of the Greeks, described by the uninformed as Greek science.Passing from Alexandria to Antioch, and then to Edessa, by the Monophysite Christian and Syriac Nestorians,  both instrumental in the evolution of learning in Syriac, as far east as Persia.

In the third century A.D., King Shapur I of Persia, founded a school, set up on the model of those at Alexandria and Antioch, in a metropolis that became a center of ancient sciences, instructing in Greek and Syriac; astronomy, medicine, mathematics, and logic were taught, mostly from Greek texts translated into Syriac. This school, lasted long after the rise of the Abbasid caliphate, and became an important source of ancient learning in the Islamic world.

John Philoponus, a philosopher, scientist, and first Christian dean of the Alexandrian Academy, who lived approximately from 490 to 570, in Alexandria is also known, in Arabic, as Yehya Al Nahawi (The Grammarian) His oeuvre comprises at least 40 items on diverse subjects such as ..., logic, mathematics, physics, psychology, cosmology, astronomy,... even medical treatises have been attributed to him.

A substantial part of his work has come down to us, but some treatises are known only indirectly through quotations or translations into Syriac and Arabic, as quoted from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, wrote on The Astrolabe; Treatise Concerning the use and arrangement of the Astrolabe and the Engravings upon it.

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/john_philoponus_astrolabe_01_intro.htm
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/john_philoponus_astrolabe_02_text.htm
_____________________________________________________

Science in Medieval Islam: An Illustrated Introduction,by Howard R. Turner
Reviewed by Cosmas Topographicos, Vine Voice,  on March 10, 2007


Pre Islamic Science
Alexandria had become the established center of Ancient world's science and philosophy, by the first century B.C., the towering Pharos of enlightenment with its libraries, and institutions. This meeting place of Hellenist and Oriental thought with advanced Alexandrian Astronomy, Medicine, Chemical technology, mathematics, and Hermeticism, became a crucible of sciences and philosophy.

The Alexandrine heritage systematized and put into dialectical form by the peculiar discursive power of the Greeks, described by the uninformed as Greek science, passed from Alexandria to Antioch, and from there to Edessa, by the Monophysite Christian and Syriac Nestorians, particularly instrumental in the evolution of learning in Syriac, as far east as Persia.

In the third century A.D., King Shapur I of Persia, founded a school, set up on the model of Alexandria, in a metropolis that became a center of ancient sciences, studied in Greek and Syriac; astronomy, medicine, mathematics, and logic were taught, mostly from Greek texts translated into Syriac. This school, lasted long after the rise of the Abbasid caliphate, and became an important source of ancient learning in the Islamic world.

Exhibition Catalogue
I have to start with stating that I was fascinated with this superb collection that still exhibit the splendor of the civilization that produced those objects, and the undisclosed diversity of its inventors Copts, Syriacs, Persians and later Andalusians, majorly of Christian tradition. Since I reads in Arabic, I could decipher the writings enjoying more than Arabic savvy readers.

Scientific Instruments in Islam
The category of scientific instruments, dealing mainly with astronomy like quadrants, globes, astrolabes, and other directional instruments, which have dominated by their very precision and beauty in exhibitions of Islamic science, have become the icons of Islamic scientific culture, are overwhelmingly used to represent the spirit of 'Islamic Science'. Astrolabes, specifically, played a very important role in Islamic civilization, a role that has yet to be well assessed.

John Philoponus, a Christian philosopher, scientist, and theologian (490 to 570), in Alexandria is also known as Yehya Al Nahawi( The Grammarian) His oeuvre comprises at least 40 items on diverse subjects such as ..., logic, mathematics, physics, cosmology, astronomy,... even medical treatises have been attributed to him. A substantial part of his work has come down to us, but some treatises are known only indirectly through quotations or translations into Syriac and Arabic.

Themes & Methods
An introductory few pages on history of Medieval science, followed by mesmerizing photographs of the amazing objects, exhibiting the splendor of the civilization that produced those objects. Those cursory introductions are outdated and wanting. Their related captions form unlinked fragmented narratives neither complementing nor coherent with the introductory note expected from a Catalogue, let alone a specialized book. 5 stars for the photos, 3 stars for the text!

A Compelling Review
This book would have been inconceivable without the traveling exhibition; "The science curator for that exhibit who diligently collected or photographed the scientific objects exhibited, talked to people all over the world in academic circles, museums, ... Unfortunately, he decided to insinuate that his book was an illustrated introduction to science in medieval Islam."--Dr. G. Saliba, Columbia University,

http://astrolabe.green-witch.com/
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1631741020?keywords=philoponus&qid=1448909028&ref_=sr_1_52&s=books&sr=1-52

"John Philoponus produced an influential argument that time must have had a beginning. . . ., little attention has been paid to his view of the nature of time, which is contained in his exposition of Aristotle. Yet the argument seems to rest on his view of the nature of time."--George Covalis

Definitions
Time - is the continuum of experience in which events pass from future through the present to the past
Cosmic time - is the time covered by the physical formation and development of the universe
Sidereal time - is measured by the diurnal motion of stars

Prologue
While the argument on whether or not the universe had a beginning, persisting into the 19th and 20th centuries, Stephen Hawking stated, "All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning." John Philoponus, doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, in the 6th century, stated that the universe began to exist "at a finite point in time." He defended his  thesis against Aristotle,  demonstrating the absurdity of an infinite temporal regress of events*. 

His Study of time in 'De aeternitate mundi' against Proclus, in 529 on creation, time generation came in coexistence with the universe, has been supported centuries later with the empirical confirmation from the evidence for the 'big-bang' model of the universe. If we agree that the universe began to exist, does this necessitate as well a beginning to time itself ? William L. Craig responds, "The answer is: it all depends. If a person believes that time exists apart from events such that if there were no events there would still be time, then our argument does not entail prima facie a beginning to time.

On the other hand, if one accepts that time cannot exist apart from events, then a beginning of events would entail a beginning of time as well." Few modern authors hold to the independent state of time apart from events, they are the heirs of the Newtonian conception of absolute time. Although space would not exist without physical objects, time would. But without physical objects, time could not be measured: one could not tell an hour from a day in a time without objects. Therefore, to say that the universe began to exist on such a time scale would simply mean that a finite time ago there were no physical objects.

A relational view of time suggests that time began to exist, as the universe began to exist, as it seems superior to a Newtonian view because it is difficult to see how time could exist apart from events. The Newtonian objection that every instant of time implies a prior instant is adequately answered by the relational view. Thus, concludes Craig, the proper understanding of God, time, and eternity would be that God exists changelessly and timelessly prior to creation and in time after creation.

* http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=3533

_________________________________________________________________________

Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe;

A revolutionary and visionary thesis, a general reader can be able to follow
Didaskalex Vine Voice Review of of a Book, March 2, 2013

This review is from: Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe

"Explaining cutting-edge physics to non-physicists is a nearly impossible task. Compounding the problem is the fact that physics is grounded in mathematics, and because key concepts have to be put into layperson's terms and illustrated with everyday analogies, much is lost in translation."--Lee Smolin


The perception of the passage of time is a fundamental experience of being human, yet to many philosophers and mystical traditions, time is considered an illusion, throughout history. Any witty exploration of the riddle of time, examines the consequences of Einstein's theory of relativity and offers startling suggestions about what recent research may reveal. Ever since the great success of Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time," examining the physical and theoretical foundations of time intensified.

In his new book, Lee Smolin proposes a revolutionary and visionary thesis, limiting the outlines of which to a general reader to be able to follow. Time, a concept many modern physicists set aside in their models, is a key precept that must be revived as a real and vital force. Mathematics, in Smolin dispensation, "will continue to be a handmaiden to Science, but she can no longer be the Queen," in his own words. Those absolute and eternal laws of mathematics have to be viewed as nature's laws, evolving over time.

Time Reborn provides a radical approach to reality of time, while Smolin contrasts thinking in time with thinking outside of time, in domains of human thought and action. His magnum opus, shines in his Epilogue. He states, we assume that possible approaches are already determined by a set of absolute pre-existing categories. We are thinking in time when we understand that progress in technology, society and science happens by the invention of genuinely novel ideas, strategies, and novel forms of social organization.

In Time Reborn, Lee Smolin debates that such denial of time is holding back our understanding of physics, and the universe, that opens up diverse possibilities for our notion of time. A major Kuhn-like revolution in scientific thought is needed, one that embraces the reality of time and reaches into the core of our thinking. Time, Lee Smolin argues, is not an illusion: it is our securest clue to the fundamental reality. Those implications are vast, reaching far beyond physics. So, if you cannot perceive 'Time Reborn' new concept, do not blame the author!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/books/review/time-reborn-by-lee-smolin.html
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/jun/06/time-reborn-lee-smolin-review
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hi4VbERDyI

"All sciences are, in a true sense, anthropology, except for Theology. . .Theology alone exists because there is a word of God to humanity."-- Karl Rahner, Hearer of the Word

"It is a discussion of the issues that arise when one tries to reflect on what is involved in doing theology. Such reflection is incumbent upon theologians, but will be of interest . . . to those . . .who want to know how a theologian understands his discipline."-- M. Wiles

Christian tradition on Science
The relationship of the Christian traditions to science from the 'common' era to the late twentieth century, have got their bumps, their intersection suggests a complex interaction rather than inalterable conflict. Tracing the rise of modern science from the renascence through the scientific revolution major shifts, were marked by discoveries of Copernicus, Galileo, etc., and the Catholic church reactions to 'Human sciences' was so negative that the dissecting table in the first anatomy theater in the University of Padova was designed to instantly conceal the corpus, lifting of a handle.

Philosophy Versus Theology
Philosophers in the twentieth century regarded theological language as either meaningless, or subject to scrutiny only insofar as that language had a bearing on religious faith. The former belief that theological language was meaningless, was inspired by a tenet of logical positivism, according to which any statement that lacks empirical content is meaningless. Since much theological language, say, describing the doctrine of the Trinity, lacks empirical content, it must be meaningless. The latter belief, inspired by Wittgenstein, holds that language itself only has meaning in specific practical contexts, and religious language was not thus trying to express truths about the world which could be subjected to objective philosophical scrutiny.

In the last decades, philosophers started to return to many basic claims of orthodox Christianity, applying the advanced tools of contemporary philosophy in ways that are more eclectic than those described in Augustinian, Thomistic and scholastic models, in general. In keeping with those recent academic trend, contemporary philosophy of religion was unwilling to maintain clear distinctions between the two disciplines. In reading recent works, it is not easy to distinguish what the philosophers are considering from what the pre twentieth century theologians traditionally regarded as strictly within their own direct domain.

Most of Christianity central doctrines and concepts, have important philosophical implications and/or presuppositions, and keep their philosophical relevance, many philosophically laden doctrines and concepts are especially relevant to Christianity. Of those concepts and doctrines, considered distinctively Christian, three solely central Christian concepts have received significant attention in the recent literature: the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, and views on the nature of atonement, have been the focus of a good deal of recent discussion in the philosophical literature.

Philosophy and Christian doctrines
It is proper to consider in brief the general relationship between philosophy and Christian doctrines. Christian theology, was expressed in various philosophical terms. Some early Christian thinkers such as Tertullian were of the view that any intrusion of secular philosophical reason into theological reflection was out of order, while in Alexandria Clement spear headed philosophical methods, Origen applied Saccha's middle Platonism. Neoplatonism and Aristotlian philosophy has sometimes been seen as a natural complement to theological reflection, by Alexandrine and Antiochine theologians, and advocates for the two disciplines have regarded each other as potential heretics.

Thus, even if certain theological claims seemed to fly in the face of the standards of reasoning defended by philosophers, the religious believer should not flinch. Other early Christian thinkers, such as St. Augustine of Hippo, was converted to Neo-Platonism, by reading Victorinus, and argued that philosophical reflection complemented theology, but only when these philosophical reflections were firmly grounded in a prior intellectual commitment to the underlying truth of the Christian faith. Thus, the legitimacy of philosophy was derived from that of the underlying faith commitments.

Two Distinct Disciplines?
Into the High Middle Ages, Augustine's views were widely defended. It was during this time however that Thomas Aquinas described another model for the relationship between philosophy and theology. According to his model, philosophy and theology are distinct enterprises. The primary difference between the two is their intellectual starting points. Philosophy takes as its data the deliverance of our natural mental faculties of the five senses. These data can be accepted on the basis of the reliability of our natural faculties with respect to the natural world. Theology, on the other hand takes as its starting point the divine revelations contained in the Bible. These data can be accepted on the basis of divine authority, in a way analogous to the way in which we accept, for example, the claims made by a biology professor about the basic facts of Darwin's Evolution.

On this way of seeing the two disciplines, if at least one of the premises of an argument is derived from revelation, the argument falls in the domain of theology; otherwise it falls into philosophy's domain. Since this way of thinking about philosophy and theology sharply demarcates the disciplines, it is possible in principle that the conclusions reached by one might be contradicted by the other. According to advocates of this model, however, any such conflict must be merely apparent. Since God both created the world which is accessible to philosophy and revealed the texts accessible to theologians, the claims yielded by one cannot conflict with the claims yielded by another unless the philosopher or theologian has made some prior error.

How is Theology Possible?
"In asking the question of God, man must already have some idea of God, for every question has its direction, and it is impossible to seek anything without having some understanding of what is sought, however vague and minimal that understanding be." John Mcquarrie sets the guideline questions, posted in the aftermath of the 'Honest to God' debate, which Maurice Wiles has reiterated as themes of his book, What is Theology?
In defining the 'Elusive Subject,' Wiles has to define the relation between 'Faith and the Theologian,' where he states, "Theology is parasitic upon religion. If there is no religious faith, there would be no theology." Early on he proposes that, "the Christian theologian has to ask about the relation of his study to the study of other religions."  Wiles develops his penetrating insightful approach in two linked essays, Christian theology from the inside, in which he replies to his predecessor John Robinson quest in "Honest to God."

The Omega Point
Jaroslav Pelikan has selected a Jesuit Paleontologist classic: 'The phenomenon of man,' to give a prophetic vision of the distant future, where human spiritual evolution would attain its divinely destined goal. "After allowing itself to be captivated in excess by the charms of the analysis to the extent of falling into illusion, modern thought is at last getting used once more to the idea of the creative value of synthesis in evolution. It is beginning to see that there is definitely more in the molecule than in the atom, more in the cell than in the molecule, more in society than in the individual, and more in mathematical construction than in calculations and theorems." T. De Chardin.

Teilhard's attempts to combine Christian thought with modern science and traditional philosophy aroused widespread interest and controversy when his writings were published in the 1950s. Teilhard aimed at a metaphysic of evolution, holding that it was a process converging toward a final unity that he called the Omega point. He attempted to show that what is of permanent value in traditional philosophical thought can be maintained and even integrated with a modern scientific outlook if one accepts that the tendencies of material things are directed, either wholly or in part, beyond the things themselves toward the production of higher, more complex, more perfectly unified beings.

Philosophy in the service of Theology
Since the deliverance of the two disciplines must then coincide, philosophy can be put to the service of theology. Philosophical reasoning might persuade some who do not accept divine revelation claims contained in religious texts. Thus, God existence proven on the basis of purely philosophical arguments. Second, philosophical techniques can be brought to help the theologians clear up ambiguous or imprecise theological claims. Thus, Chaledonian theology might have provided us with thesis sufficient to conclude that Jesus Christ was a single person with two natures, one human and one divine, but failed to clarify how exactly this relation between divine and human natures is understood.

The philosopher can provide some assistance here, since, among other things, he or she can help the theologian discern which models are, for example, logically inconsistent and thus not even candidates for understanding the relationship of divine and human natures in Christ. This is the brilliance of Cyril in explaining the Hypostatic union, based on Alexandria's  Neoplatonism. The third reason is that a great deal of academic theology moved away from defending the claims of orthodox Christian theism in traditional ways, often seeking devices for re-interpreting these claims in ways congenial to contemporary modes of thought which ran contrary to the methods employed in analytic philosophy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3wDu7NcP0I

"Philoponus made an important intellectual contribution in criticizing in detail the prevailing view that the world must be eternal. Through his arguments, he showed up real flaws in that view and made rational thinkers realize that there were other options. . . , he made the formulation of later, much more scientific alternatives, possible."--S. G. Couvalis


"In the first half of the sixth century of our era, two Neoplatonists - the pagan Simplicius and the Christian John Philoponus - confronted one another on a number of issues in their exegesis of the works of Aristotle. One of the main questions at stake between the two adversaries was that of the eternity of the world. Had it always existed, as Aristotle believed, following Aristotle in book 8 of the Physics and the De Caelo, or had it come into existence or been generated as Philoponus maintained, following the doctrine of the Bible and a literalist interpretation of Plato’s Timaeus"-- Michael Chase

Proclus (412 – 85 AD), the Neoplatonist philosopher, advanced eighteen proofs for the eternity of the world, in his De Aeternitate Mundi (On the Eternity of the World) all resting on the divinity of its creator. In 529 John Philoponus wrote his critique Against Proclus in which he consistently argued against all propositions put forward by Proclus for the world eternity. The intellectual battle against Eternalism of time became one of John Philoponus’ major concentrations, appearing in several of his publications over the following decade.

Philoponus refutes Aristotle’s and Proclus’ arguments for the eternity of the universe, and develops new ideas in physics. He originated the argument now known as the Traversal of the infinite. If the existence of something requires that something else exist before it, then the first thing cannot come into existence without the thing before it existing. An infinite number cannot actually exist, nor be counted through or 'traversed', or be increased. Something cannot come into existence if this requires an infinite number of other things existing before it. Therefore the world cannot be infinite.

According to William Craig, the most intriguing and mentally stimulating, of all the forms assumed by the cosmological argument,  is the proof for a first cause of the universe based on the impossibility of an infinite temporal regress of events, dubbed by Wallace Matson as the 'crude cosmological argument'.  The argument appears to have originated in the efforts of early Christian apologists to refute the Greek doctrine of the eternity of matter. The Alexandrian commentator and theologian John Philoponus (d. 580) was the last great champion of the doctrine of 'Creatio ex Nihilo' in the pre-Islamic era.

Craig underlines that Philoponus refutation of Aristotle's doctrine of an eternal universe  was the root of the Arabic/ Jewish formulations of the first cause cosmological argument. Al-Kindi, Saadia, and al-Ghazali reworked Philoponus's arguments into a variety of cosmological proofs. The basic form of these arguments was, "Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. The universe began to exist. The universe has a cause of its existence. The critical second premise was supported quite frequently by two different arguments. First, the argument from the impossibility of the existence of an actual infinite."

In "Philoponus's traversal argument and the beginning of time," George Couvalis, wrote,  "Richard Sorabji has argued that John Philoponus’ arguments for the claim that time must have had a beginning are good ad hominem arguments against Aristotle. However, he claims that they do not show that time must have had a beginning. He argues that one of those arguments, the traversal argument, is unaffected by Sorabji’s major criticisms. "Sorabji fails to take account of the fact that the argument is not merely based on logical considerations, but on a theory of time," concluded  Couvalis.

"The first question which should rightly be asked," wrote G. Leibniz, is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" This question does seem to possess a profound existential force, which has been felt by some of mankind's greatest thinkers. According to Aristotle, philosophy begins with a sense of wonder about the world, and the most profound question a man can ask concerns the origin of the universe. Norman Malcolm reports that Wittgenstein said that he sometimes had a certain experience which could best be described by saying that "when I have it, I wonder at the existence of the world."-- William L. Craig

The Greek concept of God caused a deep confusion between cosmology and theology and was a dead-end to science, as we know it in our time. The Judeo-Christian God provides the ground upon which a scientific culture can be pursued. This is a fact not well enough appreciated in our time. The Christian doctrine of God affirms that God and the universe must be distinguished from one another and that there is no necessary relationship between them, without positing any possibility that they can be divorced from one another or by some mythology related to each other.

This concept of God in His relationship to the world may be contrasted with the god who is the immutable First Cause and the impassable Unmoved Mover in a divine and necessary relationship with the Cosmos of Greek philosophy. As such, the God of the Judeo-Christian traditions may be mutable but He is utterly constant.  . . . He is absolutely faithful in His relationship to the world and its mankind. Without being arbitrary, God is free with Himself in relationship to His Creation to be faithful and constant to what He has created . . . "--John McKenna

With Philoponus rescuer, let me conclude, "This essay is an attempt to clarify the way that the great 6th Century Alexandrian Grammarian, John Philoponus, thought to employ his 'concept of nature' both in his philosophical or scientific works and in his theological works.  It is argued that, for Philoponus, there exists a real cognitive interface between the science of his theology and the science or philosophy of his physics and cosmology.  . . . , standing on the holy ground of this interface, we may seek to understand the contingent order of the Universe as it comes to us from the Word or Logos of the Almighty."--Thomas Torrance,  Theological and Natural Science

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html
http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/rep/B039
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeKavDdRVIg
https://www.gci.org/science/philoponus

"Philoponus’ main significance for the history of science lies in his being, the first thinker to undertake a comprehensive and massive attack on the principal tenets of Aristotle’s physics and cosmology, unequaled in thoroughness until Galileo." --Encyclopedia.com

"Nowadays, Philoponus is often celebrated for having been one of the first thinkers to reconcile Aristotelian philosophy with Christianity. To some extent, this is true, but crucially, his contemporaries must have taken a different view. "-- Christian Wildberg

In his paper, George Couvalis inquired If John Philoponus was; "Closeted Christian or Radical Intellectual?"  John was a radical intellectual, until he met Severus of Antioch, who activated his Christian faith when they met in the Enaton monastery through provoking his assessment of Proclus logic and Theurgy in the writings of his country Philosopher monk, reading him some of Dionysius the ps-Areopagite. 

G. Couvalis, argued recently, that the limitation in Philoponus thought "comes not from Neoplatonism but from the power of the repressive mono-theistic world in which he lived. He wonders, "Had the pagan framework remained the only one available, that might have been impossible for Western scientists to even conceive of a theory like the big bang theory, which postulates a beginning of the universe and time. He did not grasp that the issue of whether time began might be empirical. However, he could hardly have grasped this without experiencing the scientific revolution."-- G. Couvalis 

Wildberg replies to Couvalis on 'Philoponus limitation question', debating that, "The intense incompatibilities between pagan learning and Christian dogma are readily visible on the philosophical surface of Philoponus' work as he struggles to hold his faith accountable to reason. Although his mode of thinking betrays a strong Aristotelian influence, displaying at times an almost pedantic rigor of argument and exposition. Yet he complements this with a remarkable freedom of spirit, which in turn allows him to cast off the fetters of authority as a criterion of truth, be it philosophical or theological."

The power of the creationist view can be better seen at the very outset of Western science in the person of John Philoponus. Philoponus' application of Christian theology to physics prefigured a new era in science. The Alexandrian scholar was the first (after Origen)  to combine scientific cosmology with monotheism and the Christian doctrine of creation. In doing so, Johannes anticipated not only the findings but also the methods of modern scientific deduction. He controlled his observations in the manner of genuine research, although it is not certain he ever progressed beyond thought experiments.

"Simple ideas these were, but they had profound implications to the origin and the universe duration, its constitution, and its physical forces. If the universe was created, it is not infinite in duration... the heavenly bodies can reasonably be assumed to be of the same material as the rest of creation. Aristotle taught that the stars are made of a special celestial stuff. If the heavenly bodies are material, they must be moving in a void; otherwise resistance to their passage would create impossible friction. Aristotle taught that a void is impossible. If stars are created, they are subject to physical laws of motion. Aristotle taught that divine spirits move the stars.

John' replies anticipated the Renaissance Galileo (1564-1642) who studied the theory of impetus, introduced by Philoponus, a precursor to modern dynamics, attempting Initially to explain motion as inertia.against gravity. Philoponus’s theory was that an object can gain kinetic energy by applying force, but as this imparted motion is only temporary and “natural gravitation” would take hold again. John also correctly argued that the velocity of a body's fall is not proportional to its weight. "A millennium before Galileo, he proposed dropping two bodies of unlike weight from a tower, postulating that the time of the fall would differ little between the two objects. And, contrary to Aristotle, he asserted that a vacuum is possible and saw no absurdity in supposing that motion can occur in such a void."-- Dan Graves

Meanwhile, Christian Wildberg writes in support of the uniqueness of the Alexandrine grammarian, "... , it seems certain that what essentially enabled Philoponus to operate both as a critic of Aristotelianism and as a constructive thinker in his own right was somehow tied up with new understanding of what one ought to do when one is reading and interpreting the philosophical texts of Plato or Aristotle.
Whereas Neoplatonists, especially since Proclus (412-485), tended to approach these ancient texts as a fabric of venerable signs pointing per se  and in an infallible way to a higher reality and to the truth, Philoponus read them (as we do today) as indicators of the thoughts and intentions of fallible authors."

C. Wildberg comment that John Philoponus contemporaries must have taken a different view, was supported by Theresia Hainthaler in her "J. Philoponus, philosopher and theologian in Alexandria, "John the Grammarian, with the sobriquet Philoponus, . . The nickname 'Philoponus' - gladly corrupted by his opponents to 'Mataioponus' (one who strives in vain) - could be an illusion to his zeal for work or a reference to the fact that John belonged to a fellowship of especially committed Christians in Egypt, the Philoponoi. they are reported on by Zacharias the Rhetor, who even joined them himself, together with Severus of Antioch, . . ."

Philoponus cosmological limitations
Philoponus refutes Aristotle’s and Proclus’ arguments for the eternity of the world, and develops new ideas in physics. He originated the argument now known as the Traversal of the infinite. If the existence of something requires that something else exist before it, then the first thing cannot come into existence without the thing before it existing. Something cannot come into existence if this requires an infinite number of other things existing before it. Therefore the world cannot be infinite. Sorabji further argues that critical discussion of Philoponus’ subtle arguments led to important developments in medieval and later thought about infinity."

"Philoponus made an important contribution in criticizing in detail the prevailing view that the world must be eternal. Through his arguments, he showed up real flaws in that view and made rational thinkers realize there were other options..."-- G. Couvalis

In "Philoponus' traversal argument and the beginning of time," Couvalis, writes, "Sir Richard Sorabji, who rediscovered the Alexandrian Polymath, has noted that John Philoponus’ arguments for the claim that time must have had a beginning are good ad hominem arguments against Aristotle. However, he claims that they do not show that time must have had a beginning. Couvalis argues that one of those arguments, the traversal argument, is unaffected by Sorabji’s major criticisms. "Sorabji did not take account of the fact that the argument is not merely based on logical considerations, but on a theory of time," said  Couvalis.

According to William Craig, the most intriguing and mentally stimulating, of all the forms assumed by the cosmological argument, is the proof for a first cause of the universe based on the impossibility of an infinite temporal regress of events, dubbed by W. Matson as the 'crude cosmological argument'.  It appears to have originated in the efforts of early Christian apologists to refute the Greek doctrine of the eternity of matter. Craig underlines that Philoponus refutation of Aristotle's doctrine of an eternal universe was the root of the Arabic Jewish formulations of the first cause cosmological argument.

Philoponus Ass Bridge to Schrodinger's Cat
Anticipating Schrodinger's cat, a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics.
John Philoponus too has a Logic determinant, a diagram which schematized logical conclusions, a diagram, later called by scholastics ‘Pons Asinorum': ( ass's bridge),
to help students of logic in constructing valid syllogisms; (i.e. universal/ particular; both affirmative, or negative)
"It is the ass's pitfall, not his bridge.
If this be rightly called the “Bridge of Asses,”
He's not the fool who sticks, but he that passes." Dictionary of Phrase & Fable, 1894

Dean Carpenter, Hobbyist physicist, commenting on Schrodinger's cat analogy with Buridan's ass (Buridan taught Philoponus' Impetus theory), answered "No, they are completely different concepts. Buridan is trying to assert that there is no way to choose between two perfectly equal options, resulting in no choice. Hence, a donkey starving with food. Schrodinger's cat is trying to demonstrate the absurdity of superposition by taking a quantum, even in superposition and extending its consequences to the entire life-state of a cat.

Nota Bene
This  celebration was started in my attached article "to rescue the Alexandrian Polymath from Oblivion, while here the thought and toil of the rescuers of John philoponus scientific philosophy, in a break through of the attached work by Sir Richard Sorabji. Meanwhile J philoponus daring theology was expounded by Thomas Torrance and Co-defendeded by John McKenna and the Rev. George Dragas. John Philoponus' Trinitarian personhood recalls the initial Origen's doctrine of the reciprocal inherence of the human and divine natures of Christ, that is evident in "Perichoresis",  the theological concept of the mutual inference relationship of the three persons of the Triune God ( Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) to one another.   

"Would then we not be the more free to explore with confidence and dignity the actual space-time, matter-energy, fields where we have been given our lives by the Holy One or the Old One, as Einstein liked to name Him?  With Philoponus, we want to argue that we cannot divorce the one from other, however imperative that it is to separate and distinguish them?" -- John McKenna

Prologue by John McKenna
Professor Torrance and I first met at Fuller Theological Seminary in 1982. He had come that year to deliver the Peyton Lectures and, because of it, I changed my Ph.D. dissertation topic from the Book of Isaiah to a study of John Philoponus. My dissertation is published as ‘The Setting in Life of “The Arbiter” by John Philoponus.’ Philoponus had produced an Christological treatise on the Incarnation of the Word of God for the Emperor Justinian aimed at the concerns of the 5th Ecumenical Council of the Church at Constantinople (553 AD). Eventually, the Church, East and West, Byzantine and Roman, condemned his efforts. I argued in my dissertation that the Anathema was a tragic mistake of epoch making proportions. Philoponus has only recently begun to receive the credit and attention that he deserves. Both Professors Sorabji and Torrance have helped to end the way he has escaped the attention in philosophy and theology.      

What is the nature of the connection between those divine heavens and this temporal earth?
How do we understand the intelligibility we understand of them and the sensible experience of our lives?
How may we grasp of the relationship between the wholeness of that eternal world with the particular phenomena of this changing one?
What is growth and becoming mean to the imperishable and unchanging One?
What is the relationship between the infinite and the finite and the eternal?
What happens between the potential and the actual of the infinite in relations with finite processes?  

To read the works of these translators is to wrestle with some very fundamental questions indeed. But nowhere in Williams do I find any substantial appreciation of Philoponus’ concept of the contingency of created things and his doctrine of Creation out of nothing at work. Here the world of Aristotle’s physics is assumed and employed to translate the Grammarian’s thought. It is as if the dynamical nature and kinetic energies of Philoponus’ arguments could not be understood except based upon the supposition that the heavens were eternal and everything else below the moon was temporal. But William Charlton’s translation of Philoponus on Aristotle does wrestle with the role of contingency in the logical dialectics between possibility, potentiality, and actuality in the Greek Cosmos.

Introduction, by Leslie MacCoull  
John Philoponus (ca. 490–575) was the first and probably only universal mind of the culture of Christian Egypt. Since the publication eighteen years ago of a collection of studies entitled Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science, this sixth-century Alexandrian philosopher, theologian and polymath has become the focus of increased scholarly interest. As a documentary papyrologist working on the sixth-century Egyptian lawyer-poet Dioscorus of Aphrodito, I had even earlier come to speculate about a possible connection between that writer and Philoponus. However, despite the growth of scholarship on the society of late antique Egypt, studies on Philoponus have until recently continued to be carried on largely within the closed universe of late antique classical philosophy, with little attention paid to the actual social world within which Philoponus lived and worked.

Concentrating only one aspect of his output, the philosophical commentaries, to the comparative neglect of his theological works and his identity as a non-Chalcedonian thinker at the time of the early growth of Egypt's separate church. What I should like to do is try and understand Philoponus better within his social background of sixth-century Egypt, the world of the Greek and Coptic documentary papyri. In his great work, the De Opificio Mundi or “Explanations of Moses' Cosmogony” (CPG 7265), Philoponus produced a Miaphysite commentary on Genesis, the goal of which was to demonstrate to the people of his own place and time that only this correct understanding of Christ, the Miaphysite one, would provide a key to understanding the created universe through correctly reconciling the data of classical science with those of Christian revelation. (See Basil's Cosmology*)

About John Philoponus' "De opificio mundi"
An abstract of Tiziano Ottobrini's  Essay

The present essay is meant to illustrate the philosophical and exegetic work entitled "De opificio mundi" (in seven books) written by John Philoponus at Alexandria in the middle of the sixth century A.D. about the kosmopoiesis of the first chapter of Genesis. It is argued this treatise is the first evidence of Biblical exegesis led not according to Plato's "Timaeus" but according to Aristotelian corpus, specially "Physics" and "Organon". Philoponus rejects the allegorical method based upon demiurgic "Timaeus" since he thinks it is arbitrary and untrue compared with the Revelation literalism; therefore Philoponus passes the limit of Aristoboulos, of Philo's "De opificio mundi" and also the limit of Christian tradition of Hexaemerons (like Cappadocians).

Philoponus replaces allegorism with a new kind of Biblical literalism: not the trivializing one led by the school of Antioch (Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and Cosmas Indicopleustes), but a scientific and methodic literalism relied on Aristotelian logic and on the (meta)physical concepts derived from Aristotle (kinesis, dynamis, hexis, hypokeimenon, etc.); so "De opificio mundi" has a syllogistic and deductive structure, not a mythic-allegorical one. Last polymath philosopher in Late Antiquity, Philoponus is inventor of a striking Christian-Aristotelian scholasticism.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preview by Didaskalex Adamuntius
"On Genesis: The Creation of the World
"Perhaps some fifteen years after his attack of Aristotle on the eternity of the world (of disputed date), Philoponus published a commentary on the biblical creation story, On the Creation of the World (De opificio mundi), which is his only theological work extant in Greek. While discussing the biblical text, Philoponus regularly refers to philosophers like Aristotle, Plato and Ptolemy as well as to Basil the Great, whose own treatise on the creation served him as inspiration. The De opificio mundi has received some attention from historians of science, because Philoponus suggests at one point (I 12) that the movement of the heavens could be explained by a ‘motive force’ impressed on the celestial bodies by God at the time of creation.

Significantly, Philoponus assimilates the supposed rotational impetus implanted by God into the celestial bodies to the rectilinear movements of the elements as well as to the self-movements of animals. The interesting upshot is that all these different types of natural and non-natural motions are understood in essentially the same way as impetus- induced movements. In virtue of this bold suggestion Philoponus is often credited with having envisaged, for the first time, a unified theory of dynamics, since he strove to give the same kind of explanation for phenomena that Aristotle and others had to explain by appeals to different kinetic principles such as nature, coercion, or soul, depending upon context." --Christian Wildberg, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

De Op. mundi editorial review
This 700+ pages study of Genesis which took John Philoponus years to complete proves his interpretation of Genesis is far above any other,  written by theologians including both Philo Judaeus and Basil the great (St.) Since the work by John Philoponus is extant in Greek, its only available translation is in German.


About the Book, by Leslie MacCoull
Despite the growth of scholarship on the society of late antique Egypt, studies on Philoponus have until recently continued to be carried on largely within the closed universe of late antique classical philosophy, with little attention paid to the actual social world within which Philoponus lived and worked, and concentrating on only one aspect of his output, the philosophical commentaries, to the comparative neglect of his theological works and his identity as a non-Chalcedonian thinker at the time of the early growth of Egypt's separate church.

What I should like to do is try and understand Philoponus better within his social background of sixth-century Egypt, the world of the Greek and Coptic documentary papyri. In his great work, the De Opificio Mundi or “Explanations of Moses' Cosmogony (CPG 7265), Philoponus produced a Miaphysite commentary on Genesis, the goal of which was to demonstrate to the people of his own place and time that only this correct understanding of Christ, the Miaphysite one, would provide a key to understanding the created universe through correctly reconciling the data of classical science with those of Christian revelation.
__________________________________________

Basil's Cosmology*
The Hexaemeron is the title of nine homilies delivered by St. Basil on the cosmogony of the opening chapters of Genesis. When and where they were delivered is quite uncertain. They are Lenten sermons, delivered at both the morning and evening services, and appear to have been listened to by working men. (Hom. iii. 1.) Some words in Hom. viii. have confirmed the opinion that they were preached extempore, in accordance with what is believed to have been Basil's ordinary practice. [1361] Internal evidence points in the same direction, for though a marked contrast might be expected between the style of a work intended to be read, like the De Spiritu Sancto, and that of the orations to be spoken in public, the Hexaemeron shews signs of being an unwritten composition.

In earlier ages, it was the most celebrated and admired of Basil's works. Photius (Migne, Pat. Gr. cxli) puts it first of all, and speaks warmly of its eloquence and force. As an example of oratory he would rank it with the works of Plato and Demosthenes.  Suidas singles it out for special praise. Jerome (De Viris Illust.) among Basil's works names only the Hexaemeron, the De Sp. Scto, and the treatise Contra Eunomium.That Basil's friends should think highly of it is only what might be expected. "Whenever I take his Hexaemeron in hand," says Gregory of Nazianzus, (Orat. xliii. 67) "and quote its words, I am brought face to face with my Creator: I begin to understand the method of creation: I feel more awe than ever I did before, when I only looked at God's work with my eyes."

“We must now ask how this dynamic and relational way of thinking in his science, strictly in accordance with the nature or reality of things, affected Philoponos’ theology in giving it a dynamic form in the doctrine of God and of salvation.”—Thomas Torrance in Theological and Natural Science

"It is argued that, for Philoponus, there exists a real cognitive interface between the science of his theology and the science or philosophy of his physics and cosmology."--John McKenna


One of the giants on whose shoulders Newton stood was the theologian John Philoponus (6th cent AD).  Philoponus suggested (on creationist grounds) that the stars are made of the same essential matter as the earth and emit light because they burn.  The different colors of stars are owing to differences of composition, he said, drawing his analogy from the differences in colors we see when we burn various substances on earth.  He attributed to impetus the movement of celestial bodies (Aristotle said angels moved the planets) and argued for void (vacuum) between the stars.  He was the first to suggest dropping balls of unequal weight from a tower.  Galileo read and praised Philoponus.If this sounds intriguing, help us find out if these claims have support in the literature.  Apparently, scholars have only recently revived the writings this early learned Christian professor who lived in the liveliest intellectual center of his day, Alexandria.  They are beginning to recognize his importance in the history of ideas. ( Revolution against Evolution) 

The concept of Nature had meant different things to different people in various times and different contexts in our efforts to read the nature of the Universe. The great Quantum physicist, Paul Dirac, could employ the term in his science with the assumption of the real solidity of its significance for his physics. Yet only a few years later, the Cambridge physicist, Roger Penrose, in his magisterial work entitled The Road to Reality, can write about the possibility of under-standing the wholeness of this Universe: “True—so they might argue—we have been fortunate enough to stumble upon mathematical schemes that accord with Nature in remarkable ways, but the unity of Nature as a whole with some mathematical scheme can be no more than a ‘pipe-dream’. Others might take the view that the very notion of‘physical reality’ with a truly objective nature, independent of how we might choose to look at it, is itself a ‘pipe-dream’.”--J. McKenna

Particular vs. En-Hypostasized Essence
In debates over the Christological doctrine proclaimed at the Council of Chalcedon, two different Christological stances took shape that in fact carried not only significant theological consequences, but also profound philosophical ones... reflect(ing) upon the philosophical premises and arguments employed by both the defenders of Chalcedon and their adversaries. As ... both sides differed, among other things, in regard to their understanding of the individual entity as such. The Miaphysite adversaries of the Chalcedonian Horos adopted what was, from a philosophical point of view, a quite traditional elucidation of individual entities in terms of particular essence. On the other hand, the Neo-Chalcedonian defenders of the Horos developed an original interpretation of the individual entity as explicable in terms of its existence."--Anna Zhyrkova

"Final Evaluation of John Philoponus Theological works"
"At the close of our overview of the theological works of the Alexandrian philosopher we went to ascertain several characteristics -- with all due caution in view of the meager sources and the fragmentary tradition." -- Theresia Hainthaler 

The works of John Philoponus exhibits a wide range of theological themes including his refutation of Cosmas' topographia Christiana as reflected in his De Opificio mundi. In the Tmemata, his polemic against Chalcedon was written before 553 (Second Council of Constantinople). He claims there remains either an incarnate nature of God the Logos or a compound (united) nature and one hypostasis of the incarnate Logos.

"Hence, those who assert two natures in Christ after the union cannot mean hypostatic union but only a moral one." John Philoponus makes it quite clear that in a hypostatic (natural) union, the two natures remain preserved within their unity, in their unmingled and the unchanged reality. 

Hainthaler proven Thesis
-- In the formula "mia physis tou theo logou sesarkomene," physis can only mean the particular nature of the second divine person, and thus the "Logos hypostasis."
Therefore Philoponus understands this formula as simply: the one incarnate hypostasis of the God-Logos, a formulation that is fully correct for chalcedonians. 

-- Philoponus emphasized that even after the union the human and divine characteristics remain preserved: (For the natures themselves did not remain without mixing; indeed even the hypostases of the natures are mixed; the characteristics of the hypostasis of the God-Logos, however, through which it is distinguished from the Father and the Holy Spirit, are preserved even after the union, and also in characteristics are not mixed with the characteristics of the human nature united with it, through which it is distinguished from the remainder of humanity.) 

The author didn't refer to Cyril formula as Apollinarian, but agrees with McGuckin that it "was propounding the necessity of confessing the single concrete reality of the Divine Word’s enfleshment," by Cyril, Severus, and John Philoponus. "In the formula:  'mia physis tou theou logou sesarkomene, "physis" can only mean the particular nature of the second divine person, and thus the Logos hypostasis. Therefore Philoponus understands this formula as simply : the one incarnate hypostasis of God-Logos, a formulation that is also fully correct for Chalcedonians." She is thus confirming the convenience of the Ecumenical discussions. 

"Tritheism was little more than a hostile label given to certain intellectuals who tried to make the mystery of the Trinity intelligible in philosophical language. Philoponus was one such intellectual who, again, resorted to Aristotelian terminology to clarify and settle the Trinitarian dispute."--Christian Wildberg

John Philoponus enhanced a breakthrough by his way of thinking. As John McKenna stated,  “We must now ask how this dynamic and relational way of thinking in his science, strictly in accordance with the nature or reality of things, affected John Philoponus’ theology in giving it a dynamic form in the doctrine of God and of salvation.”  On the incarnation, and the Trinitarian mystery, which he conceives as unity of a dynamic divine existence :“My Father is still working, and I also am working.” He put  Didymus  fused Trinitarian conception in the docks. He simply states that if the divine persons are in a static unity, the Father and the Holy spirit would have participated in the incarnation with the Logos. He just appreciated the primacy of divine Trinity Hypostases while the portrayed a vivid unity in of the essence (ousia) through perichoresis that Origen utilized in the sense of communicato idiomatum.

"This one particular nature or hypostasis, however, is composite: mia phsis synthetos is, of course, the favorite formula of the Alexandrine, which he untiringly repeats and exhibits. Yet through (Emperor) Justinian "mia hypostasis synthetos" was adopted into church doctrine, while Leontius of Jerusalem provided the speculative reasoning." -- T. Hainthaler.

When this is confirmed in agreement (by prof. J. Zachhuber and others),  the Rev. Abyss Theresia Hainthaler's statement of unification of Christological faith, that she concluded in her compelling analytical Christology of John Philoponus understanding of physis in; "mia physis tou theo logou sesarkomene." This can only mean the particular nature of the second divine person, the "Logos hypostasis" materializes as depicted on the "Gate of Prophecies." The unification prophesy in tact at the Monastery of our Lady of the Syrians, in Scetis; a vivid interpretation of Isaiah's verses, "Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, . . ." about the future Church, the body of the undivided Christ. 

The Door of Prophecies or Gate of Prophecies is a large door inside the Syrian Monastery, of the valley of Shehit, the balance of the hearts, Scetis in the northern Egypt, that features symbolic icons depicting the past and prophetic future of the Christian faith through the revealing eyes of Christian monks, probably Syrian, in  the tenth century. Several centuries ago, that location was occupied mainly by Syrian monks, however today the monastery is consecrated  as a monastic  and preserved by Coptic monks and the Coptic Church, as both Churches have been in fellowship and alliance since early Christianity, in accordance to the prophecy; of Isaiah 19:25.

The Gate of Prophecies dates to the beginning of the tenth century, around 913/14 AD, according to the Syriac language iconic inscriptions on it, during the papacy of Pope Gabriel I of Alexandria (910–921). The panels on the large door divide and represent Christian epochs through time, preceding the date of its construction in the tenth century, figuratively prophesying and foretelling the future time periods.The door of prophecies is a screen of a main sanctuary inside the monastery. It consists of six vertical leaves (panels) and seven horizontal rows, three of which are forming a valve on each side.

Each one of the six leaves has seven panels of ebony magnificently inlaid with ivory, however, today some of the panels are not in their original condition. From top to bottom they represent seven epochs which are believed to cover the Christian span of history, including both past and future epochs, highlighting its golden age and periods of major changes, hardships, and persecution. The contents of the interpretations of the panels are mystical and deeply personal. The seven epochs were projected in the following website of the "Gutenberg project," World Heritage Encyclopedia; http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/Door_of_Prophecies 

Hainthaler proven Thesis
-- In the formula "mia physis tou theo logou sesarkomene," physis can only mean the particular nature of the second divine person, and thus the "Logos hypostasis." Therefore Philoponus understands this formula as simply: the one incarnate hypostasis of the God-Logos, a formulation that is fully correct for chalcedonians.  

-- Philoponus emphasized that even after the union the human and divine characteristics remain preserved: (For the natures themselves did not remain without mixing; indeed even the hypostases of the natures are mixed; the characteristics of the hypostasis of the God-Logos, however, through which it is distinguished from the Father and the Holy Spirit, are preserved even after the union, and also in characteristics are not mixed with the characteristics of the human nature united with it, through which it is distinguished from the remainder of humanity.) 

He only turns against the confession of the two natures in order not to endanger the subject unity, which in this close contact of the concepts of nature and hypostasis in his terminology must indeed immediately be called into question.(Even if the differences of divinity and humanity show up in him, it is still not permissible to speak of two natures . . . For Christ is not one of them . . . but that which is effected out of the two, a single being.) 

-- The starting-point for Philoponus is that a union of natures ('out of two one[composite one]") takes place; that is seen already in the proem of the Diatetes. The union in Christ is in reality; it is not in a cohesion (cohasio). Two particular natures --, even the humanity of Christ, although with its existence that immediately united to the Logos, is to be confessed a nature and hypostsis -- are united in one composite nature, which corresponds to one hypostasis (not as in John of Damascus!)   

-- The very great significance that the body--soul model has in Philoponus is to be considered especially in regard to his picture of Christ. The uniting of body and soul is not so close that a mixture, krasis, comes about, but rather an interweaving, diaploke; the uniting of matter and form is for Philoponus in his  De anima commentary an important model for this kind of union. In this way he also explains how one can speak of a single soul in human beings, although he distinguishes rational, irrational and vegetative souls: the lower of each pair is related to the higher as matter is to form. The result is not a single substance but a single whole that appears as a unit..

-- The Logos hegemony: just as a soul moves the inner forces of the body, so in Christ  the "anima rationalis" is moved by the divinity, which is the higher entity here, and the body is moved by animation (mediante anima).

-- Doctrine of characteristics: Philoponus understands by characteristics (proprietatis ) of the natures the essential differences (differentiae seu distinctiones) of one nature from the other natures in itself and according to kind. Now, however, he is above all concerned that individual characteristics are not already a nature (and thus he can absolutely concede hat in Christ various -- human as well as divine -- characteristics are to be observed but without, therefore, requiring one to speak of two natures). Nature is thus that subject which is both completed and perfected out of all, (John Philoponus, in "Christ in Christian Tradition," Vol 2, Book IV, pp. 142-146)

Hainthaler's insightful assertion
"The legacy of such an explosive speculation of great consequence was initiated by the  condemnation  of Philoponus by both sides."

In the last decades, with renewed study, has led many scholars of all denominations to suggest that the Oriental 'Miaphysite' Churches, apply philosophical terms rather than literally a single diffused nature in Christ, deleting any actual contradiction in belief. Three main defenders of Jesus Christ nature integrity stood 'Contra Mondum', Athanasius, Cyril, and Severus of Antioch, clarifying that the Divine was in the human in a mysterious real union. 

Because John Philoponus held that every nature necessarily is individualized, he concluded that in Christ only one united nature was possible. Such theological position was dubbed heretical Mono-physitism, and in 681, a century after Philoponus' death, he was censured by the third Council of Constantinople, until declared Orthodox by the Ecumenical Orthodox Church in 1990, defended by Thomas Torrance, with proofs translated by Dr John McKenna and the Rvd Dr. George Dragas

"The theological teachings of John Philoponus are important for several reasons: a) to see the real achievements and influence of Aristotelian logic in regard to theology, b) to see the real consequences of not accepting hypostasis as relational and ontologically based and, c) to assess the real consequences of such teachings for Triadology and Christology."--Aleksandar Djakovac


John Philoponus,  by P. M. Lang
"The Alexandrian polymath John Philoponus (c. 490-575 AD) is best known to scholars as the outstanding philosopher from the Neoplatonic school of Ammonius Hermeiou ..., and prolific commentator on Aristotle who launched an overall attack on the dominant Aristotelian scientific world view of his day. Among historians of ancient thought his reputation as one of the most original thinkers of late antiquity has been established for some time. Philoponus the Christian theologian, however, has not attracted such scholarly enthusiasm. Patristic research often concentrated on the intricacies of the Trinitarian and Christological debates of the fourth and fifth centuries.

It was inclined to underestimate the gravity of the controversies in the aftermath of the Council of Chalcedon in 451. This has changed in recent years, and considerable attention is now given to post-Chalcedonian Christology. It is one of the major achieve-ments of the monumental work by the late A. Grillmeier (with T. Hainthaler) to have gathered together the highly specialized research undertaken in various departments of academia. Still, only a few, far from comprehensive studies have been devoted to the specifically Christian doctrines of the Alexandrian philosopher and lay theologian Philoponus."

T. Hainthaler, presented an integrated chapter (40 pages) on John Philoponus covering the basic traits of his Christology, by expounding his Tmemata. She exposes his work on different levels of his attack on the Chaledonian formula, as Nestorian in disguise. "Within the framework of a nature union Philoponus can make the two natures remain preserved." She postulates that Philoponus delivers an exposition of his patristic argument on two passages, De fide of Ambrose of Milan and De Unione, attributed to Pope Julius I, both called classical components of the Diphysite florilegia, concluding that in Ambrose's text Philoponus demanded an unnecessarily forced interpretation referring to the two natures.

She gave an exhaustive discussion of the Diaetetes and its conceptuality, as in the manner of the union, referring to the number two, on the intellectual division, analyzing John's picture of Christ. She then discusses Philoponus alleged tritheism stating, "The espousal of the tritheistic concept did not occur until late, in the so- called second phase of tritheism. She proposes that The compostion of De trinitate may arose as an answer to John Scholasticus catechetical talk!  John's teaching on the resurrection, was described by Hainthaler as, "A third split in the Miaphysites."  Van Roey reproduces a patristic florilegium from 'the treatise that the tritheists wrote against John', possibly a quasi official refutation of Philoponus teaching. 
____________________________________________________________________________________


"Final Evaluation of John Philoponus Theological works"

"At the close of our overview of the theological works of the Alexandrian philosopher we went to ascertain several characteristics -- with all due caution in view of the meager sources and the fragmentary tradition." -- Theresia Hainthaler 

The works of John Philoponus exhibits a wide range of theological themes including his refutation of Cosmas' topographia Christiana as reflected in his De Opificio mundi. In the Tmemata, his polemic against Chalcedon was written before 553 (Second Council of Constantinople). He claims there remains either an incarnate nature of God the Logos or a compound (united) nature and one hypostasis of the incarnate Logos. "Hence, those who assert two natures in Christ after the union cannot mean hypostatic union but only a moral one." John Philoponus makes it quite clear that in a hypostatic (natural) union, the two natures remain preserved within their unity, in their unmingled and the unchanged reality. 

The author didn't refer to Cyril formula as Apollinarian, but agrees with McGuckin that it "was propounding the necessity of confessing the single concrete reality of the Divine Word’s enfleshment," by Cyril, Severus, and John Philoponus. "In the formula:  'mia physis tou theou logou sesarkomene, "physis" can only mean the particular nature of the second divine person, and thus the Logos hypostasis. Therefore Philoponus understands this formula as simply : the one incarnate hypostasis of God-Logos, a formulation that is also fully correct for Chalcedonians." She is thus confirming the convenience of the Ecumenical discussions. 

"Tritheism was little more than a hostile label given to certain intellectuals who tried to make the mystery of the Trinity intelligible in philosophical language. Philoponus was one such intellectual who, again, resorted to Aristotelian terminology to clarify and settle the Trinitarian dispute."--Christian Wildberg

John Philoponus made a breakthrough in the way of thinking about the Trinitarian mystery, which he conceives as unity of a dynamic divine existence :“My Father is still working, and I also am working.” He put the fused Trinitarian conception of the great Didymus in the docks. He simply stated that if the divine persons are in a static unity, the Father and the Holy spirit would have shared in the incarnation of the Logos. He just shifted the primacy of divine Hypostasis while the unity is of the essence (ousia).

Philoponus Teaching on Bodily Resurrection
"you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead, nor will you let your faithful one see decay."-- Ps.16:10

Philoponus laid down his doctrine of the resurrection, expounding it in his writings, of which two have survived; "De resurrectione" and "Contre la lettere de Dosithee." Against his teachings, various writings were composed, among which justifications were that there is no resurrection of these bodies. Rather, new bodies are being created, coming to the resurrection, and replacing those corrupted. John Philoponus writings, about the resurrection were accepted only by the Athanasians. John of Ephesus and Photius were against, most of these were lost.
______________________________________

Philoponus, the polymath 'Science philosopher' of his time, became the appointed Arbiter of Emperor Justinian, to settle the debate on the nature of Christ. John Philoponus disseminated the Alexandrian Miaphysite teaching by explaining that though Christ's humanity was devoid of personhood, it was not dissolved by its fundamental union with the divinity. He criticized the doctrinal statements of  Leo's Tome, as wanting, and the Council of Chalcedon (451) as schismtic. In the 'Tmemata,' his polemic against Chalcedon, written at the time of the second Council of Constantinople (553) resulting in conclusion to his conclusive Arbitration study.

He implied a condemnation to the Chalcedonian expression pseudo-Nestorian, by citing Cyril's twelve anathema. He condemned the Chaledonian canons and criticized Leo's Tome exposing its philosophical inconsistency, and theological weaknesses. Because he held that every nature necessarily is individualized, he concluded that in Christ only one united nature was possible. Such theological position was dubbed heretical Monophysitism, and in 681, a century after his death he was censured by the third Council of Constantinople, until declared Orthodox by the Ecumenical Orthodox  Church in 1990, defended by Thomas Torrance, with Syriac and Greek proofs translated by Dr John McKenna and the Rvd Dr. George Dragas

The Omega Point of Theological and Natural Science
Revd by John Philoponus, October 3, 2004

"All sciences are, in a true sense, anthropology, except for Theology...Theology alone exists because there is a word of God to humanity."-- Karl Rahner, Hearer of the Word

Rise of Modern Science
"Modern science devoted to the investigation of empirical phenomena could not have risen in the classical form given to it by Galileo and Newton if it had been restricted to a purely a priori approach," argues Prof. Thomas Torrance in his book; 'Theological and Natural Science.' He postulates that; "It arose out of the way of the understanding of the universe as created by God and endowed by him with a created or contingent rationality of its own, dependent upon his transcendent rationality. This means that while the contingence of the universe cannot be demonstrated from the world itself, nevertheless scientific understanding of it is reached only through giving attention to the universe itself, apart from God."

Modern Science & Theology
The relationship of the Christian traditions to science from the 'common' era to the late twentieth century, have got their bumps, their intersection suggests a complex interaction rather than non-alterable conflict. Tracing the rise of modern science from the renascence through the scientific revolution major shifts, were marked by discoveries of Copernicus, Galileo, etc., and the Catholic church reactions to 'Human sciences' was so negative that the dissecting table in the pioneering anatomy theater in the University of Padova was designed to instantly conceal the corpus, by lifting of a small handle.

Torrance makes a very interesting observation, or in his words; the problem as he sees it ; "that coupling and decoupling of the contingent universe with God lies deep in the foundation of our western science, but the decoupling loses its significance when its relation to the coupling of God and science is neglected or severed, as happened in the enlightenment, "Because there is a correlation between patterns intrinsic to the scientist's mind and intelligible patterns embodied in the physical world, science is possible at all, he says.

"Just because scientists themselves and the realm of nature have been created alike through the logos or word, the intelligibility inherent in nature and the intelligibility inherent in the structures of human knowing match up. Therefore the realm of nature that science investigates was made through the logos. Then the inner principle of God's mind and being, the rationality of God himself, has been imprinted indelibly on the creation. In short, thanks to creation through the word, there is engraved upon all of nature a rationality, an intelligibility, that reflects the rationality of the Creator's own mind.

Theology & Natural Science                                                                                                                                     
Prof. Torrance masterfully engaging preface, on the subject lectures, gives us the most compelling 'double edged knowledge,' so amazing that you wonder, "if he is a mystic story teller or a sophi-Scientist.

The theological implications of advancing science and contemporary thought on environmentalism, deconstruction, gender studies, and postmodernism, are at the center of current social debates. History, meaning, and implication of science and the technological revolution of the Cyberspace information age, are causing unprecedented theological thought reassessment, since the 'shaking of the foundation' in Vatican II.

Torrance starts relating theology to science, defending a case for their compatibility. He then tour Einstein's mind, a model for the perception of advanced mathematical logic. In the following essays, on the interrelation between Christian theology and natural science, he links the genius of his country man James Maxwell to John Philoponus, a philosopher of late antiquity Alexandria, who started the genuine scientific revolution.

The Omega Point:
Jaroslav Pelikan, in his 'most engaging and enlightening religious compendium of our time' has selected a Jesuit Paleontologist classic: 'The phenomenon of man,' to give a prophetic vision of the distant future, where human spiritual evolution would attain its divinely destined goal. "After allowing itself to be captivated in excess by the charms of the analysis to the extent of falling into illusion, modern thought is at last getting used once more to the idea of the creative value of synthesis in evolution. It is beginning to see that there is definitely more in the molecule than in the atom, more in the cell than in the molecule, more in society than in the individual, and more in mathematical construction than in calculations and theorems. .. But science is nevertheless still far from recognizing that this something has a particular value of independence and solidity." --Teilhard De Chardin.

Thomas Torrance
Second to theology, science is his great intellectual interest. In the past three decades Torrance has written over ten books on the interrelations between science and theology. He has been one of the pioneers in the new and burgeoning discipline of Science and Religion; and in 1978 the Duke of Edinburgh awarded him the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion, given to "those who through original and pioneering ways advanced the knowledge and love of God." Yet, throughout Torrance's more scientific writings, theological passion remains his primary driving force. " (Dictionary of Modern Western Theology)
---------------------------------------------

Scientific Theology from John Philoponus to J. Clerk Maxwell
Reviewed by Didaskalex, Vine Voice, May 29, 2004

Science and Theology
An anonymous saying was iterated secretively in the time of Dr. Inge, popularly known as the Gloomy Dean, that read:
'A graduate student at Trinity..Computed the square of infinity.
But it gave him the fidgets.. To put down the digits,
So he dropped math and took up divinity.' (Anon.)
That was not the trend in Late Antiquity Alexandria, the City of Mathematics, were a heroic figure, John Philoponus, a sixth century science philosopher astonishingly broke through Aristotelian science, while steadfastly defending the genuine Orthodox Christology of Alexandria.

Torrance Theological Science
In nine addresses on the interrelation between Christian theology and natural science, that linked the genius thought of J. Clerk Maxwell and a remarkable anticipation of his medieval predecessor who caused the scientific tension to erupt a millennia later into revolution as per Kuhn's terminology, Prof. Torrance masterfully gives us the most compelling 'double edged knowledge' that leaves you in awe. His engaging preface, on the subject lectures, is so personal that I thought he was telling me his story, meeting with my heroic toil lover, the Alexandrine sophi-Scientist. Torrance introduces readers, anew to many thinkers, whom I thought I really knew!

Torrance's TheoLogos
My own unqualified assumption, that the launching of T. Torrance TheoLogos move that broke 'officially' in Edinburgh at its fourth centennial inauguration of the great Northern Scottish thought Castle, where J. Clerk Maxwell's mathemagical genius in his epoch making work on the electromagnetic field was published has started a huge centennial wave of authentic reality that swept the anathema off the 'toil lover' John, setting his rational soul free. His theological pilgrimage interfacing Cyril's Orthodox Christology is a remedy for the Orientals' abuse by Aristotelian Byzantines, and a patristic encounter with St. Basil's "De Opificio Mundi' through the Neoplatonist's commentary.

Einstein & God
T.T. starts his case of unity of reality, science and theology, by a tour in Albert's noia, the center of perception of Divine Wisdom. His exposition understandably includes a curved space universe, a new mathesis but also Spinoza and Freud. He mentions Einstein later funny claim that "Only an Ox eats strictly kosher," a statement that insinuates he read "Moses and monotheism. There is an assurance that he conversed with M. Buber, about his own faith.

In chapter eight; Michael Polanyi and the Christian faith, his personal report is so touching that I felt for the first time his multi talented and genuinely personal Christianity. T.T. was born to missionary parents, served as moderator of the assembly of the Church of Scotland, and converted John Emory McKenna from a Princeton physicist to a Philoponoi Christologist, John's theognostic language moved from Hebrew to Syriac, a big price for a unique encounter of Christ's Wisdom in the Grammarian.

Thanks John McKenna for advising me to read this theognostically metanoic, an inner thought changing insight for the Theo-minded.

"Modern western empirical science has surely been the most impressive intellectual development since the 16th century. Religion, of course, has been around for much longer, and is presently flourishing, perhaps as never before." -- Alvin Plantinga

Science versus Theology
An anonymous saying iterated in the time of Dr Inge, the Gloomy Dean, read:
"A graduate student at Trinity. . .Computed the square of infinity.
But it gave him the fidgets. . . To put down the digits,
So he dropped math and took up divinity."-- Anon
That was not the case in Late Antiquity Alexandria, the City of Mathematics, philosophy, and Astromnmy where John Philoponus, a sixth century heroic figure in science rooted philosophy, astonishingly took down Aristotelian science, while steadfastly defending Alexandrine Orthodox Christology.

Christian tradition on Science
The relationship of the Christian traditions to science from the 'common' era to the late twentieth century, have got their bumps, their intersection suggests a complex interaction rather than unalterable conflict. Tracing the rise of modern science from the renascence through the scientific revolution major shifts, were marked by discoveries of Copernicus, Galileo, etc., and the Catholic church reactions to 'Human sciences' was so negative that the dissecting table in earliest anatomy theater at Univ. of Padova was designed to instantly conceal the corpus, by lifting of a small handle.

Rise of Modern Science
"Modern science devoted to the investigation of empirical phenomena could not have risen in the classical form given to it by Galileo and Newton if it had been restricted to a purely a priori approach," argues Thomas Torrance in his book 'Theological and Natural Science.' He postulates that,"It arose out of the way of the understanding of the universe as created by God and endowed by him with a created or contingent rationality of its own, dependent upon his transcendent rationality. This means that while the contingence of the universe cannot be demonstrated from the world itself, nevertheless scientific understanding of it is reached only through giving attention to the universe itself, apart from God."

Philoponus' Neoplatonism
Philoponus interpreted Aristotle critically in the light of Neoplatonic Idealism and Christian theology; thus, he identified Aristotle's concept of the first cause with the Christian notion of a personal God. "Although the Aristotelian-Neoplatonic tradition was the source of his intellectual roots and concerns, he was an original thinker who eventually broke with that tradition in many important respects, both substantive and methodological, and cleared part of the way which led to more critical and empirical approaches in the natural sciences."-- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Arguing for the Christian doctrine of creation, he composed a treatise, now lost, “On the Eternity of the World,” contradicting the famous fifth-century Neoplatonist Proclus.
In order to defend the Christian dogma of personal immortality, Philoponus broke with the common Aristotelian and Stoic interpretation of a single universal mind operative in all people and taught that each person possesses an individual intellect. Among his other original contributions to Western thought,was his creative correction of Aristotle's kinetic theory of motion (the principle that nothing moves unless it is moved by an external force), by affirming that velocity is directly proportional to the excess of force to resistance.

Theology and Natural Science
Dean of Scottish theologians, the late Thomas Torrance, has developed 'relating theology to science', defending a case for their compatibility. He then tour Einstein's mind, a model for the perception of advanced mathematical logic. In the following essays, on the interrelation between Christian theology and natural science, he links the genius of his country man James Maxwell to John Philoponus, of late antiquity Alexandria, who sparked the genuine scientific revolution.

Torrance makes a very interesting observation of the problem, as he describes it in his own words, "that coupling and decoupling of the contingent universe with God lies deep in the foundation of our western science, but the decoupling loses its significance when its relation to the coupling of God and science is neglected or severed, as happened in the enlightenment, "Because there is a correlation between patterns intrinsic to the scientist's mind and intelligible patterns embodied in the physical world, science is possible at all."

The intelligent design
The theological implications of advancing science and contemporary thought on postmodernism, deconstruction, gender studies, and environmentalism are at the center of current social debates. History, meaning, and implication of science and the technological revolution by the Cyberspace information age, are causing unprecedented theological thought reassessment. Torrance' engaging preface, on the subject lectures, poses a compelling 'double edged' questions.

"Just because scientists themselves and the realm of nature have been created alike through the logos or word, the intelligibility inherent in nature and that inherent in the structures of human knowing match up. Therefore, the realm of nature that science investigates was made through the logos. Then the inner principle of God's mind and being, the rationality of God himself, has been imprinted indelibly on the creation.

In short, creation through the word has engraved a rationality upon all of nature an intelligibility, that reflects the rationality of the Creator's own mind. Meanwhile, a great deal of academic theology moved away from defending the claims of orthodox theism in traditional ways, seeking devices for re-interpreting these claims in ways congenial to contemporary modes of thought which often ran contrary to the methods employed in analytic philosophy.

The Omega Point and de Chardin
"Teilhard (de Chardin) regarded basic trends in matter – gravitation, inertia, electromagnetism, and so on – as being ordered toward the production of progressively more complex types of aggregate. This process led to the increasingly complex entities of atoms, molecules, cells, and organisms, until finally the human body evolved, with a nervous system sufficiently sophisticated to permit rational reflection, self-awareness, and moral responsibility. While some evolutionists regard man simply as a prolongation of the Pliocene fauna – an animal more successful than the rat or the elephant – Teilhard argued that the appearance of man brought an added dimension into the world. This he defines as the birth of reflection: animals know, but man knows that he knows; he has "knowledge to the square." --Encyclopaedia Britannica

Theologically, "Teilhard saw the process of organic evolution as a sequence of progressive syntheses whose ultimate convergence point is that of God. When humanity and the material world have reached their final state of evolution and exhausted all potential for further development, a new convergence between them and the supernatural order would be initiated by the Parousia, or Second Coming of Christ. Teilhard asserted that the work of Christ is primarily to lead the material world to this cosmic redemption, while the conquest of evil is only secondary to his purpose. Evil is represented by Teilhard merely as growing pains within the cosmic process: the disorder that is implied by order in process of realization."--

Another great advance in Teilhard's scheme of evolution is the socialization of mankind. This is not the triumph of herd instinct but a cultural convergence of humanity toward a single society. Evolution has gone about as far as it can to perfect human beings physically: its next step will be social. Teilhard saw such evolution already in progress; through technology, urbanization, and modern communications, more and more links are being established between different peoples’ politics, economics, and habits of thought in an apparently geometric progression.

The difficulty is not new, confirms Wiles quoting Clement of Alexandria, Knowing of God, not of what he is but of what he is not, known as the 'Via Negativa' developed by pseudo-Dionysius as the Apophatic mystical theology which stormed medieval scholastic European thought. This is Wiles debut of theological elusiveness before he evaluates the impact of natural sciences, human sciences, and history emphasizing that Christianity sees itself as rooted in history in a unique way. "Christianity is historical in a sense in which no other religion is, for it stands or falls by certain events which are alleged to have taken place during a particular period . . ."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTOrYg--9sE&feature=youtube_gdata
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3wDu7NcP0I

"Philoponus produced a Miaphysite commentary on Genesis, the goal of which was to demonstrate to the people of his own place and time that only this correct understanding of Christ, the Miaphysite one, would provide a key to understanding the created universe through correctly reconciling the data of classical science with those of Christian revelation."--Leslie MacCoull

"Leslie MacCoull will be best known to papyrologists for her work on the archive of Dioskoros of Aphrodite, but in later years she published extensively on John Philoponus."-- Roger Bagnall
_____________________________________________________

Prelude, by Leslie MacCoull
"What I should like to do is try and understand Philoponus better within his social background of sixth-century Egypt, the world of the Greek and Coptic documentary papyri. In his great work: De Opificio Mundi or "Explanations of Moses' Cosmogony", Philoponus produced a Miaphysite commentary on Genesis, the goal of which was to demonstrate to the people of his own place and time that only this correct understanding of Christ, the Miaphysite one, would provide a key to understanding the created universe through correctly reconciling the data of classical science with those of Christian revelation." --L. MacCoull

Since the publication of a group of studies entitled "Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science, 1987," this 6th-century Alexandrian polymath; philosopher and  theologian has become the focus of increased scholarly interest. However, despite the growth of scholarship on the late antique society of Egypt, studies on Philoponus have until recently continued to be conducted largely within the closeted universe of late antique classical philosophy, to the comparative neglect of his theological works and his identity as a Miaphysite  non-Chalcedonian thinker at the time of Egypt's early growth of a separate church.

Her own wishes in "The world of the Greek and Coptic documentary papyri" were "What I should like to do is try and understand Philoponus better within his social background of sixth-century Egypt." Leslie MacCoull's wishes were fulfilled by a rising star in Alexandrine Miaphysite Christology and theologies of late antiquity bilingual Copts; Dr. Theresia Hainthaler was a fresh breath in the life of post Chaledonian Nile valley. She admirably narrates the double hierarchy of the Church of Alexandria, in the fifth century, before she presents to her readers the bilingual Dioscorus of Aphrodito, as a member of  Coptic leisured class "According to the translation by L. MacCoull."

T. Hainthaler, presented an integrated chapter on John Philoponus' covering the basic traits of his Christology, by expounding his Tmemata. She exposes his work on different levels of his attack on the Chaledonian formula, as Nestorian in disguise. "Within the framework of a nature union Philoponus can make the two natures remain preserved." She postulates that Philoponus delivers an exposition of his patristic argument on two passages, De fide of Ambrose of Milan and De Unione, attributed to Pope Julius I, both called classical components of the Diphysite florilegia, concluding that in Ambrose' text Philoponus demanded an unnecessarily forced interpretation referring to the two natures.

Hainthaler gave an exhaustive discussion of the Diaetetes and its conceptuality, as in the manner of the union, referring to the number two, On the intellectual division, analyzing John's picture of Christ. She then discusses Philoponus alleged tritheism stating, "The espousal of the tritheistic concept did not occur until late, in the so- called second phase of tritheism. She proposes that the compostion of De trinitate may arose as an answer to John Scholasticus catechetical talk! John's teaching on the resurrection, was described by Hainthaler as, "A third split in the miaphysites."  Van Roey reproduces a patristic florilegium from 'the treatisethat the tritheists wrote against John', possibly a quasiofficial refutation of Philoponus teaching.

Exposing Philoponus Ecclesiastes in MacCoull's "Coptic Dimension," she expressed her scholarly awe,  "This paper examines the two passages of the book of Ecclesiastes quoted by the sixth-century Alexandrian Miaphysite Genesis commentator and philosophical polymath John Philoponus in his hexaemeral (account of the creation story of Genesis) work De Opificio Mundi, and asks two questions: (1) Why did Philoponus quote Ecclesiastes to explain Genesis?; and (2) did he, living and working in the multilingual society of late antique Egypt, have a Coptic-language biblical text in his mind alongside the Hexaplar and Septuagint Greek texts?" 

While a Gottingen Septuagint volume of Ecclesiastes may have not been done yet, the Coptic witnesses are examined alongside the early Greek text in a bilingual manuscript to see if any of them correspond with John Philoponus' interpretation of the text and its use as ammunition in his polemic against the Diophysites, namely Theodore of Mopsuestia and Cosmas Indicopleustes. Philoponus intended to show, above all, that the cosmology of Genesis made sense and harmonized both with the natural science of the sixth century and with the Miaphysite world view. The histori-cal Context of John Philoponus' De Opificio Mundi' would have made sense for him, a learned Alexandrian, to have known the vernacular Bible of his place and time.

Diversified talents of the Alexandrite Gem
Alexandrite is a very rare variety of gem-quality Chrysoberyl. Although most people have probably never seen a natural alexandrite, this gemstone has replaced the traditional pearl as the modern June birthstone. Its glamorous history and beauty have likely contributed to its mystique in the public imagination. Alexandrites are well-known for displaying one of the most remarkable color changes in nature. “Emerald by day, ruby by night,” the most desired and well-cut stones are green in sunlight and red in incandescent light.

Philoponus on the human embryo
In Late Antiquity, most non-Christian philosophers doubted whether the human embryo could be regarded as a true living being. Their Christian rivals held a different conviction. John Philoponos went even further than his Christian predecessors with his view that the human embryo has not only an alive being, but also a rational soul. Unfortunately, he has expounded his arguments in a lost work, which probably antedated his De aeternitate mundi of 529 A.D., so that only reasonable assumptions concerning these arguments are possible.

Imagination, a mental drawing board
Federico Commandino (1509–75) can be considered the personification of the renaissance of mathematics in sixteenth-century Italy. Previous scholars have generally reduced the philosophy of mathematics developed (1572) by Commandino in the preface to his translation of Euclid’s Elements to a superficial synthesis of Neoplatonic and Aristotelian elements. Claessens underlines that until now, no attention has been paid to Commandino’s use of the sixth-century commentary on Aristotle’s De Anima by John Philoponus. Claessens argues that, in depicting imagination as a mental drawing board for geometrical figures, Commandino directly relies on Philoponus’s concept of mathematical imagination. ( Guy A. J. Claessens)

Euripides and notion of Conscience in Philoponus
Jed Atkins  challenges the common view that philosophical analysis of the phenomenon of conscience begins with medieval philosophers. Just as Jerome’s Commentary on Ezekiel furnished the medieval schoolmen with a common text, vocabulary, and philosophical concerns, so Euripides’s Orestes served a similar function for four late antiquity  philosophers: Plutarch, Philostratus, Philoponus, and Olympiodorus. Stimulated by a common text, these philosophers offered a series of intricate and interrelated philosophical accounts of conscience and its place in human psychology. I track the development of the philosophers’ different concepts of conscience, indicating relevant comparison points with later notions of the concept.

Philoponus and the Coptic Eucharist
"John Philoponus' commentary and biblical exegesis, especially De opificio mundi, was deeply connected with and reflective of the eucharist as it was thought about and enacted in the Egypt of Justinian's era, the time of the separation of the Miaphysite church. Creation, the De opificio's subject, always is described in the eucharistic liturgies Philoponus and his Christian students would have experienced, and the heavenly powers he enumerates also appear similarly in anaphoras."-- Leslie MacCoull

"For if you say that in Christ there are two substances (i.e. natures), it must by necessity be said also that both Father and Spirit and, to say it in one word, the Holy Trinity itself is incarnate in the whole of humanity, that is the human race."--Severus of Antioch

Introduction
The New Testament does not speak of two natures in one person, or any statement nearly as philosophic as Chalcedon. St. Cyril appropriated very clearly that, "God was in Christ" when he quoted Paul's mystery confession; "He was revealed in the flesh, vindicated in spirit," 1Ti 3:16.  Cardinal Walter Kasper, eminent Church theologian, concluded that, "On the basis of a detailed analysis of the texts and sources, Andre' Halleux has shown that the (Chalcedon) council's definition really contains no more than two word-for-word quotation from Leo's Tome." The conclusion from all this is that 'Chalcedon's Christological formula represents a more or less homogeneous Eastern creed-indeed a largely Cyrillic one; though admittedly with what A. Ritter calls a Leonine 'thorn in the flesh'."

Philoponus' Career
Philoponus, the first Christian dean of the Alexandrian academy, was one of the most outstanding philosophers, who has allegedly attempted to Christianize ancient Greek philosophy. At the end of his life he actively participated heavily in Christological controversies, as Justinian imperial arbiter. He sided with the Miaphysite defense of Cyril's Christology, and was condemned by the prevailing Chalcedonian  dogmas of the majority of his contemporaries. Philoponus was a thinker whose philosophically grounded doctrine was treated as a schismatic by the attendants of the fifth ecumenical council, marginalizing his Scientific revolutionary concepts.

On the Creation of the World
Philoponus published 'De opificio mundi', a commentary on the biblical creation cosmogony, which is his only theological work extant in Greek. He frequently refers to Aristotle, Plato and Ptolemy as well as to St. Basil the Great, whose own treatise on the creation served as his inspiration. Philoponus suggests at one point that the movement of the heavens could be explained by a ‘motive force’ impressed on the celestial bodies by God at the time of creation.

"Philoponus concept of the nature of the Cosmos as coming from the Hand of the Creator made known to us in the world through the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ still finds resonance even with some of the cosmologies emerging since the development of the science of the great Albert Einstein and his theory of light and gravity in our modern scientific culture. . . ., it seems clear that the fecundity of the concept of the contingent rationality and intelligibility of the creation in the beginning out of nothing is evident . . ."-- John Mckenna

History of Debate 
On the eve of the Council of Constantinople in 553,  John Philoponus, the Alexandrian philosopher and prolific commentator on Aristotle, entered the controversy over the Chalcedonian definition of faith. By clarifying the terms of the debate, he intended to lay the groundwork for a defense of miaphysitism as the appropriate way of understanding the Incarnation.  Valter Lang monograph (John Philoponus and the Controversies over Chalcedon in the Sixth Century) elucidates the argument of Philoponus' Arbiter by locating it within the Christological discussions of the fifth and sixth centuries and by highlighting its indebtedness to the Neoplatonic commentators on Aristotle.

The Christological Debate
"Debates about the Person of Jesus Christ at that time could cause great turmoil in the cities over which he attempted to rule. Monophysites and Diophysites in their struggles to understand and articulate the nature of the personal reality of the revelation of God in Christ could argue with godly passion against one another. Justinian tended to favor the diophysites of Rome. The problem persisted because at the Council in Chalcedon (450 AD) Pope Leo's letter on the two natures of Christ and Cyril of Alexandria's famous confession of 'the one incarnate nature of God the Word' were said to mean to say the same thing. Just how it was possible that they could mean the same thing held the Christological secret the resolution of which still occupies the Church even to our own time.

How the unity of the two become one in union and communion with each other and the Father by the Spirit is not easy to explain. For his part, Justinian asked Philoponus to write a treatise that might settle the issues that had arisen, so that some closure to these debates that could rage and cause riots even in the streets of the Empire. The Church needed to reach a clear resolution of the problem so that the violence among the various parties in the disputes could be ended and the peace of the Empire might be firmly established. Thus, 'The Arbiter' came to be written around 553 AD for the 5th Ecumenical Council of the Church of Jesus Christ. The Anathema against this work came some one hundred years later. St. Thomas Aquinas thus came to know Philoponus only as a heretical Monophysite and knew nothing of his arguments against Aristotle."--John McKenna

Arbiter's Miaphysitism
Philoponus' later theological treatises were characterized by a curious mixture of Christian doctrine and philosophy. On the eve of the fifth Council Philoponus stepped forward as a partisan of mono (Mia) physite Christology which, in the course of the century, had become increasingly influential in the eastern part of the Roman empire. The miaphysites, were scandalized by the conjunction of Christological formulae drafted at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. There, Christ was confessed to be discernible in two natures, a phrase which was directly influenced by ‘a unity of person knowable in both natures’, endorsed by the Bishop of Rome and familiar to the Latin theologians. Such dyophysite proposition could be read as a concession to those who regarded Jesus as a human being merely distinguished by a kind of divine presence or inspiration.

The Arbiter, (surviving only in Syriac translation)
Philoponus main strategy is to argue that in this context the meaning of the terms ‘nature’ and ‘hypóstasis’ is virtually identical, so that if Christ is one hypóstasis he cannot also be discernible in two natures. Since Christ is one person and one hypóstasis, he must consequently also be of one ‘particular’ nature only, not two. Philoponus concedes, that the nature of Christ is not an ordinary one; it is complex, adding and preserving the properties of both what it is of God and what it is of man. Being unable to discern two natures in Christ, we should speak of one complex nature (mía phúsis súnthetos). In the 'Tmemata,' his polemic against Chalcedon, he implied a condemnation to the Chalcedonian pseudo-Nestorian expression, by citing Cyril's twelve anathema, attacking canons III, IV & V aiming at Leo's Tome. Not only did he condemn the canons but criticized Leo's Tome exposing its philosophical inconsistency, and theological weaknesses.

Trinity or Tritheism?
Tritheism was more than a hostile label given to certain intellectuals who tried to make the mystery of the Trinity intelligible in philosophical language. Philoponus was one such intellectual who, again, resorted to Aristotelian terminology to clarify and settle the trinitarian dispute. Already in the Arbiter it was clear that Philoponus tended to understand the crucial term ‘hypóstasis’ as meaning something like ‘primary substance’, i.e. an individual organic being.

Since hypóstasis is certainly not an accident of divinity, Philoponus argues, it must be the case that the three hypostáseis of the Trinity are three particular divine substances with distinct properties. Only on this assumption, too, is it reasonable to speak of the consubstantiality of the three Persons, for if there were only one divine substance, confirmed by fragments of the very late treatise On the Trinity.

When Basil and Gregory of Nyssa spoke of the Trinity as ‘one ousía, three hypostáseis,’ they were not, Philoponus continues, enunciating four primary substances, but used ‘substance’ (ousía) in the secondary, abstract sense of essence or universal nature. In accordance with Aristotle, Philoponus claims that universals exist only in the mind. Thus, the claim that there is only one God appears to be true of the unity constituted by the concept of divinity.

Philoponus' Coptic Eucharistic devotion
In her study L. MacCoull proposes that John Philoponus' philosophical commentary and biblical exegesis, especially his hexaemeral work "De opificio mundi," was deeply connected with and reflective of the eucharist as it was thought about and enacted in the sixth-century Egypt of his era, at the time of the separation of the Miaphysite church. Creation, the De opificio's subject, is always described in the eucharistic liturgies that Philoponus and his Christian students would have experienced. The heavenly powers he enumerates also appear similarly in the three leading anaphoras. When he discusses the imperial image, it is in terms that echo the public prayers for emperors offered at eucharists; he mentions a realistic detail of contemporary social life that resonates with some passages in an Egyptian eucharistic text. Analysis of this evidence leads to the conclusion that Philoponus in his teaching role thought profoundly, like Severus of Antioch, and Shenute of Atripe, about what the eucharist meant to Miaphysite Christians in Justinian's Egypt

https://www.academia.edu/19330242/Two_complementary_VineVoice_reviews_of_The_Christological_Controversy
https://www.academia.edu/11849050/Revisiting_the_life_toil_and_Christology_of_Severus_of_Antioch_Christophorus_theologian_and_Liturgist_with_A._Ritter_and_the_Orthodox_Unity_Joint_Commission
https://www.academia.edu/9847230/Christology_after_Chalcedon_and_the_Transformation_of_the_Philosophical_Tradition

Trinity; a two fold Truth
What does it mean to say that God is Father, Son and Spirit without ceasing to be one God? The history of the disputes which broke out on this great theme include a  philosophical landmark, a revolution in Greek philosophy. . .the identification of the 'hypostasis' with the “person.”-- Johannes Zachhuber, Personhood in Miaphysitism

"Any suspicion of many Gods in existence or in being a personal God, in Jewish conception, is rebutted since while the nature identity is branched into hypostases and their property is consummate."--Isidore of Pelusium, Epistle 11:112

Before  coming to the doctrine of the Triune God revealed in the Bible, our view with respect to the Triune God is to be based on the Holy Scriptures, not according to traditional interpretations. Like all human language, it is liable to be accused of inadequacy and even relative error. It must not be evidently pushed too far, as it may otherwise lead to Tritheism. Using the term to express recognition within the Godhead, we do not imply distinctions amounting to separateness, but that which is associated with an essential mutual co-inherence or inclusiveness.

Arianism portrays a form of tri-theism included within the teaching of Arius. While for Arius, the divine status of the Son and the Spirit was uncertain, his formulation, the Father was fully God, while the Son and the Spirit were inferior in the Pantheon. This is obviously considered as a primitive type of tritheism. The Nicene Creed was concluded by this council condemning the heresy of Arius and tritheism. However,  since the days of the Cappadocians (A.D. 320-95), Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus there has been a tendency toward tritheism.

Church Fathers 'ontological revolution'
Dionysius of Alexandria (A.D. 190-265) is an example of misreadings concerning the Triune God. He was a staunch refuter of Sabellius, but was charged with teaching tritheism. He was accused by Rome, and was asked to declare his views by a synod of bishops. Dionysius denied that he had separated the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, his reason for not using the term homoousios was that he did not find it in Scripture. He was fully vindicated by his writing, and Athanasius, the defender of Orthodoxy, confirms that Dionysius held right views about the Trinity.

Dionysius, the great concludes a letter to his Roman namesake thus:
"Having received from the presbyters who went before us a form and rule, we conclude our present letter to you with those same words by which we, like them, make our (Eucharistic) thanks-giving: To God the Father and the Son our Lord Jesus Christ with (sun) the Holy Spirit be glory and might for ever and ever. Amen. [C. Feltoe (ed.), quoted from/by G. Wainwright)

Cappadocian Trinitarianism
"When Basil and Gregory of Nyssa spoke of the Trinity as ‘one ousía, three hypostáseis', they were not, . . ., enunciating for primary substances, but used ‘substance’ (ousía) in the secondary, abstract sense of essence or universal nature."-- Christian Wildberg, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

This ontological vision of unity and distinction in universal being tallies perfectly with the doctrinal needs of the Trinitarian controversy. God is both one and three; his being (ousia) is one and the same in all three Persons, but it is also possible to draw a clear distinction by emphasizing either the level of commonality or the level of particularity as expressed through sets of properties. Crucially, there is no ousia that exists in separation from the three hypostases, but the common being of the three is realized solely through their hypostatic existence.

Gregory of Nyssa was attacked, at various times, for being both a modalist and a tritheistic, based on Scriptures he used in expounding the mystery of the Triune God. Gregory of Nyssa writes, "They charge us with preaching three Gods . . . Truth fights on our side, for we show both publicly to all men, and privately to those who converse with us, that we anathematize any man who says that there are three Gods, and hold him to be not even a Christian. Then, as soon as they hear this, they find Sabellius a handy weapon against us, . . .subject of continual attacks upon us."

"Zizioulas clearly weighs in on the side of so-called 'social Trinitarians' who bemoan the alleged modalism of the Augustinian model that has loomed large over all later Western discussions. In doing so, he is eager to-present, in the footsteps of Vladimir Lossky, the virtues of the Eastern Orthodox tradition as a potential cure for the ills of the modern, secularized West."


Philoponus ontological vision
More than two hundred years after the Nicene Council, another form of tritheism seemed in the writing of John Philoponus, who stressed the distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Spirit in "hypostatic co-existence," debating that there are/ were three hypostases in the one common divine essence of the Godhead. This was virtually read as tritheism. John of Damascus, who is noted for his stress on the the co-inherence among the Godhead, supplemented this suspected tritheism by his renewed emphasis on the divine fusion (absolute unity).

Trinitarian Theology of Personhood
Najeeb Awad concludes that Colin Gunton’s attempt at understanding personhood by emphasizing unity-in-particularity, rather than communion alone, in theTrinity. In Gunton’s contribution to this issue, he finds both a correction to Zizioulas’ reduction of personhood into mere  communion, as well as an invitation for understanding personhood from the angle of perceiving the notion of ‘hypostasis’ that takes personhood beyond "in-communion" into ‘freedom-in-trans-communion,’ making this last as constitutive of personhood as the first.

Within the core of Christian tradition, there exists an accessible theological concept that emanates perpetually from within the milieu of divine presence of a Trinitarian Godhead. The perichoretic notion of "being-in-one-another; reciprocal inter-penetration" that each of the Persons of the Trinity dwells in the other offers a powerful conceptual means for clarifying aspects of an ontology of human relations which seem to be required of Christian hermeneutical framework for invigorating peaceful culture.

If the church rule of faith "Lex orandi, Lex credendi" applies to both Basil and Gregory Nazianzen anaphoras, adorably prayed by the Coptic  Church of Alexandria, declaring for hundreds of years, the individual personhood of the divine members of the Holy triad - "One is the Holy Father; One is the Holy Son; One is the Holy Spirit." This Cappadocian Trinitarian liturgical confession, daily invoked by both Basil and Gregory the theologian. This affirmation is not the same in the Coptic Rite (St Mark anaphora, written by Cyril the pillar of faith, where it declares One is the father, ALL Holy, a form peculiar to Cyril for repeated for every One of the All Holly Trinity.

Perichoresis as hypostatic co-existence
Perichoresis, a Greek theological term attempting to describe the inter-triune relation  of co-indwelling, inter penetration, and co-inhering.  Lossky asserts that Origen was the first to formulate the doctrine which was later on called the doctrine of the communion of idioms, or "perichoretic." It's use in Trinitarian theology, to describe a sharing relation in the presence of the persons of the Holy Trinity is paleo-orthodox and  patristic. The terms inherence and immanence are closely related to this same meaning, providing the philosophical relevance of the concept and its aspects.

The concept of Trinitarian perichoresis appears for the first time in an article, 'Expositio fidei'  by John damascene. The write-up identifies the sources on which St. John drew and describes the ways in which he modified the positions of his predecessors. Both hermetical and coenobitic monasticism are reflections of the divine indwelling. The Trinitarian relation provides the basis for an ontological movement that renders human divinization possible. Further, humanity acts as the median for human life to God on the form of the hypostatic union in Jesus Christ.

Creation becomes deified through participation; the cosmos receives through grace what belongs to the Trinity by Divine nature. It suggests that the concept of perichoresis is derived from Miaphysite Christology where the two natures interpenetrate, to unite in one’, and therefore it is possible that the Alexandrines were, probably from John Philoponus, who first defended the concept, and that Chalcedonian theologian Leonites learnt it from them. Since then, the idea became  mentioned  in the writings of the church theologians.

"What does it mean to say that God is Father, Son and Spirit without ceasing to be one God?"--J. Zachhuber

The Trinitarian Mystery of God: A “Theological Theology”
Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, John P. Galvin

Prelude:
The Limits and Task of Trinitarian Theology The drama of the revelation of the Trinity bursts the bounds of any metaphor or rational schema. The Trinity, as the great fifth- or sixth-century mystical theologian Pseudo-Dionysius ecstatically proclaims, is “higher than any being, any divinity, any goodness!” For the theologian, whose task is classically defined as “faith seeking understanding,” nothing is more resistant to the categories of understanding than the incomprehensible mystery of the triune God; nothing is more excessive. The revelation of the Father’s salvific love in the life, death, and resurrection of his Son and the perdurance (enduring forever) of the Son’s redemptive power through the ongoing activity of the Spirit - contemplating this dramatic activity of divine life in our history led Gregory of Nazianzus to concede that “to tell of God is not possible  . . . but to know him is even less possible.”

Whatever we can affirm of the triune God (kataphatic theology) is constantly shadowed by the ignorance and limitations that God’s incomprehensibility forces upon us (apophatic theology). This is because revelation is the interplay of presence and absence; our experience of the triune God conceals at the same time it reveals. Perhaps, then, the more adequate means to express this drama of love and its salvific effects should indeed be aesthetic: Andrei Rublev’s famous gentle icon of the Trinity, or the spectacular and inspiring Gnadenstuhl (Throne of Grace) sculpture that hangs high above the altar of the long, narrow Church of St. John Nepomuk (the Asam-Kirche) in Munich, or Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina’s motet “O beata et benedicta et gloriosa Trinitas,” whose vocal lines float down from the heights and then rise ecstatically, all the while intertwining in the most delicious harmonies.

Or perhaps just making the sign of the cross. In other words, the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be reduced to a set of rational categories or any sort of metaphysics of substances and essences . Unfortunately, until recently, Roman Catholic theology was full of attempts like this. In the first edition of this volume, Catherine M. La Cugna noted that previous Catholic seminary education “often went no further than requiring students to memorize the [5- 4- 3- 2-1] formula, a mnemonic device for retaining the essential elements of the Thomistic doctrine of the Trinity: ‘five notions, four relations, three persons, two processions, and one nature.’” She went on to say, though, that “today trinitarian theology is being recovered as a fruitful and intelligible way to articulate what it means to be ‘saved by God through Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit.’” This is certainly the case.


Re: John Philoponus Trinitarian Theology: Three Hypostases, One ousia

Introduction
"Possibly Philoponus’ Christianization of Aristotelian doctrine, writes Brian Duignan, allowed the Alexandrian academy to continue despite criticism from the church. Among his notable commentaries are those on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, the logical treatises of the Organon, the Physics, the three books of De anima (On the Soul), and De generatione animalium (On the Generation of Animals). In philosophical theology Philoponus produced his major work, Diaitetes e peri henoseos (Mediator, or Concerning Union), in which he discusses the Trinity and Christology. Because he held that every nature necessarily is individualized, he concluded that in Christ only one nature was possible, the divine."--Brian Duignan, Senior Editor, Encyclopaedia Britannica

He elaborates, "Although such a theological position appeared to be heretical monophysitism, Philoponus approximated the orthodox miaphysite teaching by explaining that though Christ’s humanity was devoid of personhood, it was not dissolved by its fundamental union with the divinity. An adherent of the miaphysite tradition of St. Cyril of Alexandria (c. 375–444), who emphasized the unity of Christ’s humanity and divinity through the Incarnation, Philoponus criticized the doctrinal statements of (Pope) Leo I (440–461) and the Council of Chalcedon (451). In order to defend the Christian dogma of personal immortality, Philoponus broke with the common Aristotelian and Stoic interpretation of a single universal mind operative in all people and taught that each person possesses an individual intellect."

It would be hard for theologians to debate the Britannica statement, after Johannes Zuchhaber wrote, "It is arguable that its point of origin "as denial: theological heavy weights Karl Barth and Karl Rahner both argued, albeit in different ways, that Trinitarian faith today would do well to dispose of the formula 'one God in three Persons' given its inescapably tri-theistic overtones. This demand has not meant as a late correction to the language of late fourth, century Nicenism according to which the Trinity was one ousia in three hypostases. Instead, the twentieth, century theologians claimed that 'three Persons' was unhelpful as a translation of treis hupostaseis. The church fathers, in other words, had never meant to confess a Godhead in "three persons" in our own meaning of term. Hypostases for them were "modes of existence" and not "independent centers of self-consciousness." The accuracy of the latter claim, however, proved controversial.

Greek theologian John Zizioulas in his influential Being as Communion reversed Barth and Rahner's claims insinuating that in actual fact they betrayed more about the limitations of the Western Trinitarian tradition than about the true signific-ance of Greek Patristic Trinitarian theology. Zizioulas attributed to the Cappadocian fathers of the late fourth century nothing less than an ontological revolution. Where previous Greek thought had emphasized the universal over the particular, according to Zizioulas, the needs of Trinitarian theology prompted a fundamental re-evaluation resulting in a privileging of the particular over the universal: What does it mean to say that God is Father, Son and Spirit without ceasing to be one God? The history of the disputes which broke out on this great theme? includes a philosophical landmark' a revolution in Greek philosophy. This revolution is expressed historically through an identification: the identifcation of the “hypostasis” with the “person.”

http://muse.jhu.edu/chapter/925798

The Trinitarian historical account


In the effort to save monotheism, early theologians explored the two avenues which modern historians of doctrine have called modalist and dynamic monarchianism.  Modalism might appear to fit well with the worship of Christ, but its lifting the distinction between Father and Son ran counter to much else in scripture and in Christian experience.

A dynamist such as Paul of Samosata took the other route and denied Christ's divinity.  . . . Origen solution was to distinguish between prayer, in the strict sense of the term (kyriolexia), which should be offered only to the Father, and (katachresticos), a prayer which is offered in a secondary sense to Christ as the high priest who will convey it to the Father.

The eventual victory of Nicene orthodoxy was accompanied by the growth of major prayers addressed directly to the Son in the public liturgy of the Church. The heavily predominant pattern in earlier practice - and Origen's treatise On prayer had argued in his pre-nicene and origenistic way for the theological propriety of this pattern - had been to address the official liturgy of the Church to God the Father through Christ.

The triumph of the 'homo-ousion' opened the way for even the liturgical president's prayers to be addressed to the Son. the frequency of which, in surviving Gallican and Mosarabic texts indicates a keenness on the part of the Catholics to score against the persistent Arianism of the Visigotic rulers in Gaul and Spain.

In the East, (following the historical development further than M. F. Wiles takes it), the tendency to address liturgical prayers to the Son (given the rule "Lex orandi, Lex credendi" always applied) was increased both by the weighting of trinitarian doctrine in front of three-foldness, (in contrast with the 'Augustinian' stress on the divine unity in the West) and by a certain 'Monophysite' trend in the matter of Christ's person and natures.

After Chlacedon, even the great eucharistic prayer or anaphora could be addressed to Christ in the worship of the 'monophysite' churches. Although the Byzantine did not go as far as that, they introduced the hymn Monogenes, attributed to the emperor Justinuian, into the enarxis or the opening part of the Orthodox liturgy.

"The praise of God in Worship, Doctrine and Life: A Systematic Theology By V. Rev. Geoffrey Wainwright, in his gem, [pp. 51-53, 87-88, and 95-96]


In developed Christian doctrine, the Holy Spirit has been the name reserved for the third divine hypostasis. The development towards full trinitarianism was slower in the case of the third person than in the case of the second, In the latter case, the third-century shift from Word to Son as the major model was symptomatic of a growing hypostatic distinction which had in any case been rendered easier from the start by the obviously 'personal' character of Jesus Christ.

But just as the johannine 'only Son' developed into the full-blown 'God the Son', confirms Wainwright, the nicene 'God from God', so also the johannine 'other Paraclete' eventually developed into 'the Holy spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified'. 

Quoting Wainwright, "In the history of trinitarian thought, it is in the case of the Holy Spirit that the hesitation is most apparent between considering the divine hypostasis as distinct 'modes of being', or even 'centers of consciousness', in God (immanent or essential trinitarianism) considering them simply as God's 'modes of operation' towards creation (economic trinitarianism).

The former tendency reaches its climax when worship or prayer is addressed to the distinctly or even separately named Holy Spirit, i. e. when the Holy Spirit is named as one of the Trinity, or even without mention of the other persons. On the other hand, he confirms, 'economic trinitarianism forswears more knowledge of God's being than is minimally required by the experience that he works within humanity for its sanctification'."

This is the pattern whereby worship or prayer is addressed 'to the Spirit', whether with the other persons of the Trinity or separately. It must be stated at once that the address of praise and glory to the three divine hypostaseis together in fact antedated the Arian controversy. this not, of course, to deny that anti-arian motives then greatly encountered the development of the practice in contexts where it had not been customary.

St. Basil of Caesarea (379) was accused by the Pneumatomachians of 'innovation' when he used a 'co-ordinated' form of doxology: Glory to God the Father with the Son with the Holy Spirit, instead of the usual 'sub-ordinated' form. When he defends himself in his treatise 'On the Holy Spirit', he quotes St Denis (Dionysius the great) of Alexandria (related to the Sanctus).

In the New testament writings, as in the prayers of ordination, the spirit of God is expected to work with enabling effect upon the human spirit, thus includes an ordination petition; "Hallow them with the dew of heavenly unction. May it flow down, O Lord, richly upon their head; may it run below the mouth; may it descend to the furthest parts of the whole body, so that the power of thy Spirit may both fill them within and surround them without."--Ancient Roman Catholic prayer 

Origen, it will be remembered through his student Cyril, who taught that "Worship and prayer should properly be addressed to the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit." The Coptic church inherited and is able to claim with the authority of the Pillar of Faith her liturgical practice to give praise to the Father through the Son, in the Holy Spirit. Since Serapion, bishop of Thmuis, a prominent supporter of Athanasius in the struggle against Arianism, his prayer-book or Euchologion ends, "through your only begotten Son Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramentary_of_Serapion_of_Thmuis

Didymus the seer's  Trinitarian and Christological doctrine is perfectly orthodox; one may even say that he is more explicit than St. Athanasius as to the Unity in Trinity and the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. He has combined the theological vocabulary of St. Athanasius with that of the younger generation, Basil and Gregory Nazianzen. He continually uses the formula treis hypostaseis, mia ousia, which St. Athanasius admitted in his later years, and which has become the catholic watchword. Didymus has been credited with the invention of this formula, and Leipoldt is in favor of the attribution, whereas K. Holl rejects it. Until the fourth century the Greek-speaking Church had no means of expressing the doctrine of the Trinity. The use of hypostasis to express the Latin persona was in itself a clumsy device, for Didymus agrees with St. Jerome (Didymus disciple, who rejected the expression) that philosophically ousia and hypostasis are synonyms. Didymus, however, carefully safeguarded his doctrine from any wrong interpretation. (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Extra Read
https://www.academia.edu/31819111/The_Bible_and_Early_Trinitarian_Theology_CUAP_2017_
https://www.academia.edu/31645592/At_The_Origins_of_Eternal_Generation_Scriptural_Foundations_and_Theological_purpose_in_Origen_of_Alexandria
https://www.academia.edu/29454891/Parys_Trinitarian_Exegesis_and_Theology_Prov_8.22_according_to_the_Cappadocian_Fathers_--_an_English_translation_from_the_French

"whatever shares the definition has also a right to the Name; so in the very same way there is One Essence of God, and One Nature, and One Name; . . . and that whatever is properly called by this Name really is God . . ."-- Gregory of Nazianzen

All three Cappadocian fathers used a primary-secondary substance analogy to explain the one ousia and three hypostasis of the Holy Trinity, and this basic line of Trinitarian analogy, called Primary-Secondary Substance Trinitarianism (PST) is best understood according to Aristotelian categories, as John Philoponus continued to utilize in his theological proof. The positive side of this essay addresses the question raised by modern critics of PST of whether it can ultimately avoid the charge of tritheism. Thus, after making clear his rendering of this line of analogy, Nathan Jacobs, of Calvin Theo. Seminary, considers several objections in an effort to show that PST successfully sustain its claim to monotheism.

Having identified, the centrality of homoousia to PST’s monotheism, the divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit becomes crucial to the cogency of PST. Hence, Nathan Jacobs' Modern Theology  considers whether the doctrines of generation and procession threaten PST’s affirmation of homoousia. Drawing from the Heterousian Aetius, the Anomean, he address a triad of interlocking issues:  (1) Can the Begotten and the Unbegotten be of the same nature?  (2) Can generation and procession be affirmed without an ontological subordination? (3) Can the Son be begotten and exist a se? Jacobs addresses each of these questions in turn in an effort to demonstrate that PST can affirm homoousia without abandoning the Nicene doctrines of eternal generation and eternal procession.

In the end, he concludes that PST is sufficiently distinct from tritheism, as its affirmation of eternal generation and eternal procession in no way violates its claim that the three hypostases are  homoousia. He affirms that PST is not tritheism. This exposition was questioned recently by scholars, who has driven a breach between the Gregories, and Basil. R. Hübner, whose thesis, states that Basil’s view of substance is Stoic; thus, Ep. 38, which displays a more Aristotelian view of substance, could not be prescribed by Basil and is most likely the work of Gregory of Nyssa. Basil in De Spiritu Sancto uses ousia as the most generic of genus terms, and roots particularity in the addition of predicates of specific difference. This latter use of ousia, appears to indicate little more than “being,” as contrary to the Aristotelian use in Ep. 38.

J. Zachhuber has argued that what is espoused in Ep. 38 is a collective theory of universals, typically associated with Platonism. In a response essay, R. Cross notes that the various Platonic ways of rendering universals and particulars include the following notions: “The indivisibility of the extrinsic idea or form; the divisibility of the immanent universal, and the resultant collective theory of such universals.” Cross goes on to show that Gregory, Basil’s brother, rejects all of these claims in favor of “a theory of indivisible immanent universals (referred to indifferently as ousiai and phuseis).” Now, according to Cross, this alternative theory first appears in Ep. 38. Cross makes plain that what this epistle, with its nature/particular analogy for the Trinity, intends to avoid is any notion of extrinsic universals that would result.

One God in Three Persons: Unity of Essence, Distinction of Persons,"
To keep matters as brief as possible, in classical Trinitarian theology ‘personal properties’ designate that on account of which we recognize the persons from each other. Whatever it is that makes them distinct from one another cannot be anything they have in common, what is unique to each person is what is meant by the names ‘Father’, ‘Son’, or ‘Holy Spirit’. The Trinity is unique by something that is designated by the divine names. ‘Properties’ just are ways of reflecting on the names of the divine persons in order to grasp why the Father is Father and not the Son or the Spirit, why the Son is Son and not the Father or the Spirit, and so forth.

Thus we say the Father is distinct from the Son on account of his paternity (i.e., fatherhood), the Son is distinct from the Father on account of his filiation (sonship), and the Spirit is distinct from both because of his spiration (the life-giving breath of God, or ‘procession’). Since the three divine persons are one God, equal in all things, and distinct only in relation to one another, personal properties are the sole means of grasping what it is that makes them distinct. Consider John Damascene, synthesizing Greek thought, 8th century: the three persons are ‘one in all things except . . . the properties of fatherhood, and sonship, and procession only’ (De fide orthodoxa I.8).

Now, that ‘only’ is important, as it voices a conviction that God is incomprehensible      ( not ‘unknowable’) in himself, so when we speak of the eternal distinctions between the persons we do so with humility. We do this not in order to detract from the distinctions between the persons, but in order not to say more than is warranted by scripture. What little warrant there is in Scripture to speak of personal properties has traditionally been found in the personal names of Father, Son, and Spirit ‘as the abstract in the concrete’ (Aquinas, Summa theologiae Ia). The personal properties then inform us about the eternal relations. 

Trinitarian Perichoresis
John Philoponus' mode of the Trinity where the Father, the Son and the Spirit are conceptualized as three particular substances and the common divine nature is a mere abstraction of the Trinity', where the Father, the Son and the Spirit are conceptualized as three hypostases (particular substances) and the Ousia  as common divine nature, alleged to be declared a mere abstraction. Krausmuller offers an elaborate review of Expositio Fidei, a passage by John of Damascus, where the concept of Trinitarian perichoresis appears for the first time. It identifies the sources on which the Damascene drew, describing the way in which he modified his forebears' positions. The ultimate source for this distinction is John Philoponus, who had denied universals an objective existence.

Some of Philoponus' Chalcedonian and "Monophysite" adversaries were prepared to accept the validity of this framework for the created order. In taking this step they distanced them selves from the  position of Gregory of Nyssa who had contended that the species had a reality of its own. They claimed that it was the multitude of hypostatic idioms present in individuals that broke up the oneness of nature. Such mixing of the hypostatic and substantial dimensions went against the Patristic consensus, which had  been defined by Gregory of Nyssa and which was accepted by John Philoponus.


"One implication of the active sense suggested by 'circumincessio' is the beautiful metaphor of the ‘divine dance’, first used in the middle ages as an image of divine perichoresis. The metaphor is in fact based on confusion or, at best, on play on words. Thus the verb chorein, meaning ‘to contain’, is confused with the Greek word choreuo, meaning ‘to dance’, from which is derived perichoreuo , meaning ‘to dance around’."--D. Manastireanu

Christological Perichoresis
The term perichoresis itself, suggests Gunton, does not appear in Scripture. It is rather, ‘a human rational construct which has been developed under the constraints of revelation and inspiration, a process of thinking theologically under the impact of the economy of creation and redemption’. Vladimir Lossky asserts that Origen was the first to formulate the doctrine which was later to be called ‘perichoretic’, or the doctrine of the ‘communication of idioms’. Congar adds that ‘although the words
perichoresis and circumincession may not occur as such in the writings of the earliest Fathers of the Church, the idea certainly does’.


It appears that until Pseudo-Cyril, the term under scrutiny was only used in a Christological sense, as an attempt to account for the relation between the two natures united in the person of the incarnated Christ. According to Larry Wolfson, it was taken over from the Stoics’ vocabulary. In his discussion of  perichoresis and its cognates Wolfson concludes that the term perichoresis, is used by the Church fathers in the sense of a ‘thorough penetration’, as a physical analogy for the purpose of explaining the communicatio idiomatum, as first identified by Origen.

Further Reading
https://www.academia.edu/31645592/At_The_Origins_of_Eternal_Generation_Scriptural_Foundations_and_Theological_purpose_in_Origen_of_Alexandria
https://www.academia.edu/414266/The_Trinity_Universals_and_Particular_Substances_Philoponus_and_Roscelin
https://www.academia.edu/198786/On_Not_Three_Gods_Again_Can_a_Primary_Secondary_Substance_Reading_of_Ousia_and_Hypostasis_Avoid_Tritheism

Prologue to an Apology
"Philoponus, who held a highly 'individualistic' vision of the Trinity and believed in the so called 'particular substance' of each human being,  as well as each Person of the Trinity, ended his life being marginalized by the majority of his contemporaries from all Christian camps."--G. Benevich

Trinity; Universals, and Particulars 
"During late antiquity, Aristotelian logic and its Neoplatonic complements, in particular the teachings of Aristotle's Categories and Porphyry's Isagoge, were progressively accepted as a tool in Christian theology. This acceptance met drawbacks and was never unanimous. Among the authors who used concepts that originated in logic in order to support their theological thinking, we can mention, on very different accounts, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, John Philoponus, Leontius of Byzantium, Maximus the Confessor, and John of Damascus, . . . , showing that logic was perceived to be an important tool for theological thinking."-- Christophe Erismann

Trinitarianism or Tritheism?
"Whereas monophysitism was a reputable and powerful theological movement in the Eastern church, tritheism was little more than a hostile label given to certain intellectuals who tried to make the mystery of the Trinity intelligible in philosophical language. Philoponus was one such intellectual who, again, resorted to Aristotelian terminology to clarify and settle the trinitarian dispute."--Christian Wildberg, SEP
Already in the Arbiter it was evident that Philoponus tended to understand the crucial term ‘hypóstasis’ as meaning something like ‘primary substance’, i.e. an individual organic being. Since hypóstasis is certainly not an accident of divinity, Philoponus argues, it must be the case that the three hypostáses of the Trinity are three particular divine substances with distinct properties.

Only on this assumption, is it reasonable to speak of the consubstantiality of the three Persons, for if there were only one divine substance, confirmed  by the late treatise On the Trinity. When Basil and Gregory of Nyssa spoke of the Trinity as ‘one ousía, three hypostáses,’ they were not, Philoponus argues, enunciating four primary substances, but used ‘substance’ (ousía) in the secondary abstract sense of essence or universal nature. In accordance with Aristotle, Philoponus claims that universals exist only in the mind. Thus, the claim that there is only one God appears to be true of the unity constituted by the concept of divinity.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"For, as I said, all things are from the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit, and the holy and consubstantial Trinity is glorified in all things that are accomplished."--Cyril of Alexandria

Alexandrian Trinitarian Theology
Until the fourth century the Church had not yet agreed to a statement of the  doctrine of the Trinity.  Proponents of Unitarian Trinitarianism claim that the three hypostases of the Trinity do share their powers, due to their omnipotence, not having separate spheres of influence, since it is unlimited. They argue that the persons of the Trinity have one divine essence and are indivisible, whereas Tritheism appears to suggest three separate Persons, with common ousia. Dionysius the great, before Athanasius, had attempted to distinguish Trinitarianism from Tritheism and Modalism.

The use of hypostasis to express the Latin word persona was an inept device, for Jerome agrees with his master Didymus that ousia and hypostasis are philosophical synonyms. Didymus, however, was careful to safeguard his teaching from any distortion. His work on the Holy Spirit is preserved in Jerome's Latin translation. St. Basil amended the reproach of economy, which attaches to Didymus more famous work, his important  theological  essay, "De Trinitate", composed after 379 in three books, which are preserved almost entirely.

Cyril's Trinitarian Theology
The most important intellectual factor shaping Cyril of Alexandria exegesis is his Christologically focused, pro-Nicene Trinitarianism, an inheritance that he received from his Alexandrian precedents.  Revelation, in his understanding, proceeds from the Father, through the Son, and in the Spirit, following the order of Trinitarian relations. Moreover, this pattern applies to the inspiration of Scripture as well, insofar as inspiration occurs when the Son indwells human authors by the Spirit and speaks the words of the Father.

Corresponding to this movement of God towards humanity in revelation is humanity’s growth in understanding that occurs according to a reverse pattern—in the Spirit, through the Son, unto the Father. . More specifically, this Trinitarian pattern implies that the Spirit is required to read Scripture properly, and that in the act of interpretation the Spirit directs the reader to a Christological reading of Scripture, through which the believer gains a limited but genuine apprehension of the Trinitarian mystery."--Matthew R Crawford,  Doctoral thesis, 2012, Durham University.

Philoponus and Tritheism
Besides monophysitism, Philoponus' is alleged with the doctrine of tritheism. However, one has to be aware of an important difference: Whereas monophysitism was a reputable and powerful theological movement in the Eastern church, tritheism was a little more than a hostile label given to intellectuals who tried to make the mystery of the Trinity intelligible in philosophical language. Philoponus was the protagonist, who resorted to Aristotelian terminology to clarify and settle the trinitarian dispute.

Already in the Arbiter it was clear that Philoponus tended to understand the crucial term ‘hypóstasis’ as meaning something like ‘primary substance’ in the sense of Aristotle's Categories, i.e. an individual organic being. The fragments of his treatise On the Trinity confirm this. Since hypóstasis is certainly not an accident of divinity, Philoponus argues, it must be the case that the three hypostáseis of the Trinity are three particular divine substances with distinct properties. Only on this assumption, too, is it reasonable to speak of the consubstantiality of the three Persons, for if there were only one divine substance, what sense would it make to speak of consubstantiality at all?

When Basil and Gregory of Nyssa spoke of the Trinity as ‘one ousía, three hypostáseis,’ they were not, Philoponus continues, enunciating four primary substances, but used ‘substance’ (ousía) in the secondary, abstract sense of essence or universal nature. In accordance with Aristotle, claiming that universals exist only in the mind. Thus, the claim that there is only one God appears to be true of the unity constituted by the concept of divinity. In actual fact, there are three separate divinities, Father, Son, and Spirit. In order to fend off any reminiscences of pagan polytheism.

Philoponus points out that unlike the individually differentiated gods of the pagans the three divinities of the Trinity are all of the same, single divine nature in the universal sense of ‘nature’. Trinitarian philosophy of this kind could hardly be palatable to anyone not committed before all else to Aristotle's ontology. Pagan philosophers abhorred the way in which Philoponus used Christianity as a vantage point from which, in their opinion, he recklessly disturbed the harmony of the Greek philosophy, while Christian theologians could not but castigate his attempt to comprehend in Aristotelian terms what was for them essentially a spiritual mystery.

Nowadays, Philoponus is often celebrated for having been one of the first thinkers to reconcile Aristotelian philosophy with Christianity, but his contemporaries must have taken a different view.The so-called tritheists faced immediate and severe criticism, and Philoponus himself was condemned by the Council of Constantinople of 680-81. In 1990, John Philoponus, defended by Thomas Torrance, with the proofs of his Trinitarian theology, translated by Dr John McKenna and the Rvd Dr. George Dragas, the Ecumenical Orthodox Church, reversed the theological decisions of the Fifth Council of 680, and lifted John Philoponus' anathemas.

"According to nature there is no difference in God: 'Thus if people say that the divinities are of a different nature, their talk is pagan and Arian. if however, they say one (divinity) according to number and in one hypostasis, they become Sabillians. John Philoponus holds throughout that with his explanation he is in agreement with the fathers.Thus he says that Gregory was against three non-consubstantial and by nature alien ousiai in the Trinity, but not against three consubstantial substances."--Theresia Hainthaler
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christening Aristotle
It is said that Thomas Aquinas has baptized Aristotle, but according to Joan Hussey* it was possibly Philoponus, whose commentaries on Aristotle, christening Aristotelian doctrine, that may have allowed the Alexandrian academy to continue despite criticism from the church. She wrote, "It is for instance known that Thomas Aquinas used John Philoponus' commentaries on Aristotle, but much is still not printed, and Byzantine philosophy, like its other sciences needs further investigation."-- Joan Hussey, The Byzantine World 

Emergence of Scholastic Theology
The Christian perception of an Aristotelian philosophy in the sixth century facilitated the emergence of a 'scholastic' theology, of which Philoponus is an important and pioneer representative. A treatment of a number of philological and historical issues concerning Philoponus' Christological writings, an English translation of the Arbiter, and a critical edition of newly discovered Greek fragments of this work. The medieval outlook was an “Aristotelian worldview” and when  Aquinas simply refers to Aristotle as “The Philosopher," he was not merely adopting a façon de parler of the time, as his philosophy is evidently Aristotelian.

Philoponus ontological vision 
More than two hundred years after the Nicene Council, another form of Tritheism was suspected in the writing of John Philoponus, who stressed the distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Spirit in "hypostatic co-existence," debating that there are three hypostases in the one common divine essence (ousia) of the Godhead. This was virtually read as Tritheism. John of Damascus, who is noted for his stress on the the co-inherence among the Godhead, supplemented this alleged tritheism by his renewed emphasis on the divine fusion (absolute unity). 

Non est Natura sine Persona
"Philoponus lends to the Cappadocians a precise thesis on the existence of specific and generic universals, this thesis is philosophical in nature and is expressed in philosophical language. Species have existence (hyparxis) in individuals and don't have any being separate from individuals. The fact that Philoponus presents the Aristotelian thesis of the immanent existence of universals as being the position of the church is very telling as to the importance of logic in Christological discussions." -- Christophe  Erismann

Christophe  Erismann made it clear that Philoponus, tended to describe the crucial term ‘hypóstasis’ as meaning something like ‘primary substance’ in the sense of Aristotle's Categories, i.e. an individual organic being. The fragments of his treatise On the Trinity confirm this. Since hypóstasis is certainly not an accident of divinity, Philoponus argues, it must be the case that the three hypostáseis of the Trinity are three particular divine substances with distinct properties. It is thus reasonable to speak of the consubstantiality of the three Persons, for if there were only one divine substance, what sense would it make to speak of consubstantiality at all? 

". . . in the Eastern church, tritheism was little more than a hostile label given to certain intellectuals who tried to make the mystery of the Trinity intelligible in philosophical language. Philoponus was one such intellectual who, again, resorted to Aristotelian terminology to clarify and settle the trinitarian dispute."-- C. Wildberg, Stanford E. P.


Rahner on Summa Theologiæ
Rahner says that there is a distinction introduced by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiæ. He is critical of what he describes as, "an unfortunate Thomistic distinction between treatises that first deal with God’s unity, essence, attributes and names, and then with the tri-personal God as such (i.e. processions, relations, persons, proper roles, missions). Rahner states that he wishes to link every dogmatic treatise, especially the mystery of our salvation, to the Trinity itself, in this way, rather than the Trinity existing in ‘splendid isolation’

Vincent Battaglia Concludes
Karl Rahner’s The Trinity reminds us that we are called to share in the life of God (cf. 2 Pet 1:4) both now in the life of the grace of the Spirit and the liberating truth of the Incarnate Word, and in the future, when we shall see Him as He really is (cf. 1 Jn 3:2). The mysterium Trinitatis is thus the mysterium salutis because the Father sent His Son to save us and His Spirit to divinise us. This connection between the Trinity and salvation is explicit when Rahner’s works on the doctrine of God, grace and the incarnation, explicitly linked by him in The Trinity, are considered in toto, and this interconnection is a theological commonplace today. 

Rahner’s contribution reminds us that there is a single saving plan encompassing creation, redemption and eschatological plenitude, whose order and possibility is the work of the triune God. Despite some significant limitations, if The Trinity can help us know, love and praise the tri-personal God by considering what He does for us in Truth and Love, then this short work of Rahner has achieved much.

Because John Philoponus held that every nature necessarily is individualized, he concluded that in Christ only one united nature was possible. Such theological position was dubbed heretical Monophysitism, and in 681, a century after his death he was censured by the third Council of Constantinople, until de-anathemised, being declared Orthodox by the Ecumenical Byzantine  church in 1990, defended by V Rvd Thomas Torrance, with proofs translated by Rvd Dr John McKenna and Rvd Dr. George Dragas.

This apology is written to acknowledge the toil taken by these three defenders of Truth

Prologue
"Lord of all life and power, who through the mighty resurrection of your son overcame the old order of sin and death to make all things new, grant that we, being dead to sin and alive to you in Jesus Christ, may reign with him in glory. Amen."

Unless Christ has been risen from the dead, unless the tomb of the Lord was found 'empty', the Christian kerygma would indeed be useless.  “If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain.” The resurrection of the body, perhaps more than any other Christian doctrine, requires us to face the implications of faith for our personal lives and for our understanding of the world.' This issue faced St Paul in his dealing with the early church and also troubles St Gregory of Nyssa in the fourth century AD. St Gregory, educated in the prevailing Greek philosophical system, yearned to synthesize his faith and his philosophy.

Struggling with the issue of resurrection, he followed Plato's example and dramatized the interior workings of his mind in dialogue form, in which his elder sister St Macrina plays the role of teacher. The position which Gregory and Macrina eventually reach corresponds essentially to that of St Paul, namely that our bodies will rise again as bodies, but in a purer and more glorious form than we got. The dialogue assumes that the same physical elements composing our mundane bodies be reassembled in our resurrected bodies; otherwise those would be recreated rather than raised.

Two generations before John Philoponus, Procopius and scholars from Gaza, trying to attract Alexandrian attention, defended the Christian teaching of resurrection against rival Neoplatonist philosophic views. Aeneas defends an argument defying resurrection, based on an unusual perception about food, supporting that our bodies will be consumed by worms. Zacharias ridicules the Platonist synchronous creation, which were the production of light, of shadow, and of a footprint in the sand.  It was only Philoponus, however, who was able to embarrass the Neoplatonists by arguing against them on their own terms.

http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/aeneas-of-gaza-theophrastus-with-zacharias-of-mytilene-ammonius-9781780932095/#sthash.41GSSUAK.dpuf
_________________________________________________________________________________

"The idea of resurrection, as it had been expounded by the traditional theologians, seemed to him irrational and philosophically untenable. John (Philoponus) was unusual in that he did not hesitate to say so, however much damage it might cause venerable reputations." -- Lionel Wickham

"The resurrection of the dead according to Origen and Philoponus is spiritual and not of the flesh. Their opinion, contrary to the official Christian view, was influenced by the neo-Platonic doctrine of “the subtle body of the soul” and based upon Aristotelian logic. Origen’s argumentation was formed as a personal interpretation of the passage of the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 15:39–47) where Paul mentions that the risen body will be spiritual. Philoponus argumentation, on the other hand, was mostly based upon the Aristotelian logic and he thus directed his polemic against the irrationality of the arguments of Cyril of Alexandria and of Gregory of Nyssa.?"-- Antonia Kakavelaki

John Philoponus was a protagonist of Cyril's Christology, and with his patron Severus of Antioch had expounded its theological relevance and attested to its philosophical validity. Of the works that John Philoponus composed on Resurrection, only fragments are extant, according to Wickham's research and A. van Roey related publications. The latter discloses that John elaborated - out of proportion, a contradiction of terms with Cyril of Alexandria, who has stated, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians, that the resurrected will be what they are but "incomparably nobler, incorruptible and immortal."

John inquires, "But how can Cyril do so? He has destroyed the definition of man with incorruptible and immortal, since man is by definition a rational and mortal animal. It is no use saying that a mere change of form in the body is involved. What we are dealing with is a total change of nature." 'Consequently', John goes on, in Wickham translation; "men's bodies will, at the resurrection, become what they were not. If therefore those previous bodies do not rise, as they would have perished, they will be also dissimilar to them, replaced by new bodies which constitute a new class of entity.

Cyril has written in his commentary on 1 Corinthians, that the resurrected will be incorruptible and immortal, in conformity with St. Paul's words, "What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable,"(1 Cor 15:42).  Cyril, the pillar of faith, was the exact standard of orthodoxy, whose every word was cherished as if it were holy writ. Yet, John Philoponus did not hesitate to declare his philosophical veto has destroyed the definition of man. In fact, John Philoponus is here questioning even the validity of parts of Paul's statement together with his great exegete Cyril of Alexandria (St), and Gregory of Nyssa(St)

John Philoponus laid down his doctrine of the resurrection, expounding it in his writings, of which two have survived; "De resurrectione" and "Contre la lettere de Dosithee." Against his teachings, various writings were composed, among which justifications were that there is no resurrection of these bodies. Rather, new bodies are being created, coming to the resurrection, and replacing those corrupted. John Philoponus writings, about the resurrection were accepted only by the Athanasians. John of Ephesus and Photius were against, most of these were lost.

Van Roey reproduced a patristic florilegium which the Tritheists wrote against John, possibly an almost official refutation of Philoponus teaching. Van Roey edition of the 'Resurrection' is presented briefly as: Christ is the first of those who have fallen asleep, to be resurrected into incorruption, and no other before him. It is obvious that Christ has the resurrected nature as a new One, can no longer have a human body, which is an essential character of being mortal. This means that the mortal body, Christ received from his mother had to be transformed into an incorruptible body that arose.

John Philoponus had reserved in the fourth book of his "Treatise on the Resurrection" the sharpest criticism, for Gregory of Nyssa's intermediate theorem (in his argument or proof) held in the remaining fragments. John, in order to defend the Christian dogma of personal immortality, Philoponus broke with the common Aristotelian and Stoic interpretation of a single universal mind operative in all people and taught that each person possesses an individual intellect. One of the discrete fragments in Syriac read; "As usual he (Gregory) thinks inappropriately, fashioning non-existent images to absurdity." 

Many could have thought that John did not abide by Jesus Christ declaration, that no one is better than his teacher, because they refuse to profess that our, and their teacher is One, the Christ.

Basil Lourie' reconstructed Philoponus teaching on the resurrected bodies as follows: The resurrected bodies are physically “by number,” completely distinct from their corruptible predecessors, but the resurrected bodies share with the corruptible bodies a common soul, which is for them their eidos that makes them rational beings, that is, humans,therefore, the identity between the resurrected person and the dead person is secured not only with their common soul but also with their common  soul but also with their common eido: which is now applied to other matter which consists of other elements.The nature of the body is changed, but the nature of the whole human being as composed from the soul and the body is not affected.From the physical viewpoint, the soul of the human body must be considered its “quantifying eidos."

"12. If any one confess not that the Word of God suffered in the Flesh and hath been crucified in the Flesh and tasted death in the Flesh and hath been made First-born of the Dead, inasmuch as He is both Life and Life-giving as God, be he anathema."-- Cyril, the pillar of faith, to Nestorius; 12th  Anthema
______________________________________________

Christological Prologue
"In the formula 'mia physis tou theou logou sesarkomene',  physis can only mean a particular nature of the second devine person and thus the Logos hypostasis." -- Theresia Hainthaler

"When Basil and Gregory of Nyssa spoke of the Trinity as ‘one ousía, three hypostáseis,’ they were not, Philoponus continues, enunciating for primary substances, but used ‘substance’ (ousía) in the secondary, abstract sense of essence or universal nature."-- C. Wildberg, John Philoponus; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
_____________________________________________________________________________

Leslie MacCoull, the celebrated Coptologist who led the discovery and recognition, declaring a bilingual Egyptian provincial elite, actively sharing 'Miaphysite' Christology of their country's faithful.  Dioscorus, the learned lawyer and lyric poet, reveals John Philoponus, Alexandrine teaching on both the Trinitarian and Theopaschite faith. ‘One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh', shouted the Scythian monks, led by John Maxentius, which arose in Constantinople in 519, expressing their opposition to what they saw as a Nestorian exposition of the Chalcedonian definition.

Theopaschite formula
"The doctrine of the suffering of God is so fundamental to the very soul of modern Christianity that it has emerged with very few theological shots ever needing to be fired. Indeed, this doctrinal revolution occurred without a widespread awareness that it was happening. A list of modern Theopaschite thinkers would include Barth, Berdyaev, Bonhoeffer, Brunner, Cobb, and liberation theologians generally, Küng, Moltmann, R. Niebuhr,  Pannenberg, Ruether and feminist theologians, Temple, and Teilhard.

Contemporary scholars admit now that behind Arius’s campaign to differentiate Jesus from God was the Hellenistic doctrinal conviction that the Almighty God cannot suffer. "Rowan Williams argues that Arius had the right idea about divine suffering, but the wrong idea of God, which “puts the unavoidable question of what the respective schemes in the long term make possible for theology.” One must honestly admit, according to Williams, the “odd conclusion that the Nicene fathers achieved not only more than they knew but a good deal more than they wanted.”--Jeff Meyers, Yes, I’m a Theopaschite

The bitter arguments over Christology had focused on the arguments and the debates about Christ's combined nature or His two natures. But on Calvary it was not a nature who suffered, but a person. And the Theopaschite formula draws us back to reflect on Who that person is - the Logos, God the Son and Word of God, known to us in His humanity as Jesus of Nazareth. It is the Word of God Who suffers, impassible in His deity, he has put on our humanity, and lives, suffers and dies with us as one of us to raise us with Him."

By using the Theopaschite formula, in the face of the hostility of the akoimetoi (unsleeping monks), who recited the divine office continuously in their monasteries by relays of choirs), Emperor Justinian was convinced the formula was orthodox. Through the good offices of Bishop Hypatios of Ephesus, who visited rome in 533, Justinian won the support of Pope John II in his letter Olim Quidem to the Constantinopolitan Senate. The Theopaschite formula can be read in a schismatical sense to assert that one of the Trinity suffered as God!

Meanwhile, in a perfectly Orthodox sense, asserting that Jesus who suffered is the same person as the Logos, the second hypostasis of the trinity. The doctrine of communicatio idiomatum provides the theological basis for the formula's orthodox sense, attributing all acts of Jesus Christ to one and the same divine person. The term ‘Theopaschite’ has a confusing use: it designates the orthodox doctrine that the divine Logos is the person who suffered as man on the cross of Calvary, but also designates a radical position of Eutychian monophysites.

The Gramaticus' Miaphysitism
"The startng point for Philoponus is that a union of natures (out of two, 'one composite One') takes place; that is seen already in the proem of the Diaetetes. The union in Christ is in reality; it is not a cohaesio. Two particular natures - even the humanity of Christ, although with its existence it is immediately united to the Logos, is to be confessed a nature and hypostasis! - are united in one composite nature, which corresponds to a hypostasis. - The union in Christ is conceived as one that is called forth by the natures. . ." --T. Hainthaler, John Philoponus

Tritheism and Trinitarian God
While the Bible reveals that there is only one God, the Scripture as plainly affirms the distinction of the three persons in the Godhead. In Isaiah 6:8 God says, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Here, on the one hand God speaks of Himself as “I, ” and on the other hand as “Us.” Then, is God singular or plural? This is a mystery, since God also speaks of Himself as “Us," Gen 1:26. In His divine words, the one unique God frequently speaks of Himself as “Us.” This is believed due to the three Persons of the Godhead – the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.

Although God is uniquely one, there is still the  issue of the three Persons. The threefold distinction in God, expressed by the description ‘Trinity, ‘ as an attempt of Christians to conceive and express the mystery of the Infinite God in Jesus Christ own terms. Theologians believe that the use of the phrase, ‘The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, One God‘ is the simplest address of the mystery that the Miaphysite Church of Alexandria has clung to. The case of John Philoponus and Tritheism is well treated by T. Hainthaler, a Catholic Christologist in a concse but clear review (Christ in Christian Tradition, Vol 2, Part 4, pp. 131-138)

Proceeding from the doctrine of the Trinity, John Philoponus is inspired to propose the final thesis, that the union in the Godhead is expressed only in abstraction. T. Hainthaler wrote, "Divinity and substance, which are in the venerable Trinity, are not one in reality but only in the mind, and in the reason. And so we understand God as one. But there are three substances of God and of nature, since they are separated into hypostases. And thus one is God the Father, one God the Son, and one God the Holy Spirit."   

Accordingly, he confesses three consubstantial divine persons, suggesting that the homoousios is lacking in the idiomata (properties), namely, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, nor in the koinon. After six decades praying the Coptic liturgy of St. Basil, I got it, saying: < One is the Holy Father, One is the Holy Son, One is the Holy Spirit. > "Philoponus put his contemporaries on notice that this settlement "as about to unravel: for what should the one nature of the divinity be if not the common intelligible content of the divine nature seen on its own and separated in the conception (Te epinoia) of the property of each hypostasis?

"For this outspoken and provocative position' Philoponus has been widely condemned as a tritheist' but as Dirk Krausmuller has shown' his thinking "as far less idiosyncratic than heresiological accounts would suggest. Whatever one's assessment of Philoponus' own contribution to the history of Christian thought - and any such assessment is marred by the fragmentary transmission of his works - his rigorous commitment to intellectual coherence serves to highlight the knock, on-effect Severus' emphasis on the ontological divinity of the individual had on the ontological status universal physis."--Johannes Zachhuber

Philoponus' Conclusion
Since hypóstasis is certainly not an accident of divinity, it must be the case that the three hypostáseis of the Trinity are three particular divine substances with distinct properties. Only on this assumption, too, is it reasonable to speak of the consubstantiality of the three Persons, for if there were only one divine substance, confirmed by fragments of the very late treatise On the Trinity.  In accordance with Aristotle, Philoponus claims that universals exist only in the mind. Thus, the claim that there is only one God appears to be true of the unity constituted by the concept of divinity.

http://grbs.library.duke.edu/article/viewFile/1971/6177
https://www.academia.edu/14493771/Discerning_the_Boundary_between_Trinitarianism_and_Tritheism
https://www.academia.edu/1971933/Support_Me_in_the_Whelming_Flood_Karl_Barth_and_His_Interpreters_on_Christ_Chalcedon_and_the_Suffering_of_the_Impassible_God
https://www.academia.edu/3816426/Basil_and_the_Three-Hypostases-Tradition_Reconsidering_the_origins_of_Cappadocian_Theology

"Nowadays, Philoponus is often celebrated for having been one of the first thinkers to reconcile Aristotelian philosophy with Christianity."--Christian Wildberg

"It is possible that these accumulations of the medieval centuries may also prove to be of value in tracing the development of philosophical thought in the West. It is for instance known that Thomas Aquinas used John Philoponus' commentaries on Aristotle." --Joan Hussey, The Byzantine World


Christianizing Aristotle
It is said that Thomas Aquinas has baptized Aristotle, but according to Joan Hussey* it was possibly Philoponus, whose commentaries on Aristotle, christianizing Aristotelian doctrine, that may have allowed the Alexandrian academy to continue. She wrote, "It is for instance known that Thomas Aquinas used John Philoponus' commentaries on Aristotle, but much is still not printed, and Byzantine philosophy, like its other sciences needs further investigation." -- J. Hussey, The Byzantine World

Philoponus influence on scholastic theology
The Christian pereception of an Aristotelian philosophy in the sixth century facilitated the emergence of a 'scholastic' theology, of which Philoponus is an important and pioneer representative. A treatment of a number of philological and historical issues concerning Philoponus' Christological writings, an English translation of the Arbiter, and a critical edition of newly discovered Greek fragments of this work. The medieval outlook was an “Aristotelian worldview” and when  Aquinas simply refers to Aristotle as “The Philosopher," he was not merely adopting a façon de parler of the time, as his philosophy is evidently Aristotelian.

Aquinas' perceptive understanding of the Macedonian is there from his earliest years, not awaiting the end of his life when he read Philoponus, writing his commentaries on Aristotle. He adopted Aristotle's analysis of physical objects, his view of place,  time and motion, his proof of the prime mover, his cosmology. He made his own Aristotle's account of sense perception and intellectual knowledge. His moral philosophy is closely based on what he learned from Aristotle and in his commentary on the Metaphysics he provides a cogent and coherent account of what is going on in those difficult pages.

Thomas Aquinas, was raised from Chesterston dumb Ox to the holy Ibis of Philosophy and Christian Theology, defended as the rescuer of Aristotle from Averroes, by those who failed to mention, that Aquinas used John Philoponus commentaries on Aristotle, to perfect his Summa. Kaufmann warned earlier, "It is easy to underestimate the originality of St. Thomas because he seems to synthesize Scripture and Aristotle, making ample use of all the labors of his predecessors. Gilson says, St. Thomas made "Aristotle say so many things he never said." --W. Kaufmann, Critique of Religion & Philosophy

Philoponus Christian theology
As a Christian philosopher, theologian, and literary scholar, whose writings expressed an independent Christian synthesis of Hellenistic thought. John Philoponus interpreted Aristotle critically, in the light of Neoplatonic Idealism and Christian theology.  He identified Aristotle's concept of the first cause with the Christian notion of a personal God. Arguing for the Christian doctrine of creation, he composed a treatise,  “On the Eternity of the World,” now lost, contradicting the 5th-century Neoplatonist Proclus.  He shaped Aquinas views on Aristotle, and was known and highly praised by G. Galellei. 

In 529 John Philoponus wrote his critique Against Proclus in which he systematically argued against every proposition put forward for the eternity of the world. The intellectual battle against eternalism became one of Philoponus’ major preoccupations and dominated several of his publications for decades. Thomas Aquinas argued against Averrois, claiming that neither the eternity nor the finite nature of the world could be proved by logical argument alone. According to Aquinas the possible eternity of the world and its creation would be contradictory if an efficient cause precede its effect in duration or if non-existence precedes existence in duration.

The study of Aristotle was particularly intense in Alexandria ( Ammonius taught, at the academy, most of the important Platonists of the late 5th and early 6th centuries: Philoponus, Asclepius, Simplicius, and Olympiodorus).  In order to defend the Christian dogma of personal immortality, Philoponus has broken with the common Aristotelian and Stoic interpretation of a single universal mind operative in all people and taught that each person possesses an individual intellect. Among his other original contributions to Western thought was development of Aristotle's kinetic theory of motion (the principle that nothing moves unless it is moved by an external force), affirming that velocity is directly proportional to the excess of force to resistance.

Philoponus on Aristotle's physics
Among Philoponus notable commentaries are those on Aristotle's Metaphysics, the logical treatises of the Organon, the tract on Physics, the three books of De anima (On the Soul). In philosophical theology Philoponus produced his major work, 'Diaitetes e peri henoseos (Mediator, or Concerning Union), in which he discusses the Trinity and Christology.  Because he held that every nature necessarily is individualized, he concluded, as Cyril and Severus of Antioch, that in Christ only one united nature was possible, but this Miaphysite position was censured a century after his death.

Philoponus the Arbiter
Philoponus, the pioneering science philosopher of his time,  became the first Christian dean of the Alexandrian Academy, appointed  as Arbiter by the learned Emperor Justinian, to settle the debate on the nature of Christ. Philoponus approximated the orthodox teaching by explaining that though Christ's humanity was devoid of personhood, it was not dissolved by its fundamental union with the divinity. Claiming that his Christology was traditional, he criticized the doctrinal statements of Pope Leo I (440–461) and the Council of Chalcedon (451), and in 681, a century after his death he was censured by the third Council of Constantinople for his alleged Monophysitism, until declared Orthodox by the Byzantine  church in 1990, defended by Thomas Torrance, with proofs translated by Dr George Dragas. ( edited from Britannica Online & Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

It was known that when his book was written,  Philoponus was not only a millennia ahead in his scientific genius, but was equally so in articulating Orthodox doctrines, of 'Creation ex Nihilo,' and the 'Resurrection.' His 'Diaetetes', was adopted later, by John of Damascus in his 'Doctrina Patrum.' In the 'Tmemata,' his polemic against Chalcedon, written at the time of the second Council of Constantinople (553), he implied a condemnation to the Chalcedonian pseudo-Nestorian expression, by citing Cyril's twelve anathema. He condemned the Chaledonian canons and criticized Leo's Tome exposing its philosophical inconsistency, and theological weaknesses.

Philoponus' Lasting Influence
The ecclesiastic world view in the seventh century was described by Dionysius ps-Areopagite, that the universe appeared to be constituted of a continuous chain of creatures extending down from God, at the periphery of the universe to the inhabitants of hell, at the center of the earth. Such was the Neoplatonic theory incorporating Ptolemy's system with elements of Aristotle's cosmology. The physical aspects of this established view of the universe was opposed by John Philoponus, who denied that angelic beings moved the heavenly bodies.

"Philoponus’ reading of the Physics, were passed onto the Latin West and so influenced the scholastics’"--Jon McGinnis, The originality of John Philoponus’
He has proven Aristotle's physics obsolete, and was read by Galileo and is widely regarded the greatest scientist before Newton, and together with J. C. Maxwell and Einstein the most influential three on revolutionizing scientific thinking. His 'Impetus theory' of motion and gravitation has  advanced the physics a thousand years ahead, when rediscovered by the scientists of  the renaissance.

His impetus theory was revived during the thirteenth century, in a radical departure from Aristotle and Dionysius' influential views established until then. It was translated from Greek by the Irish philosopher, John Scot. William Ockham revived impetus theory, and agreed with Philoponus that in the beginning God may have conferred an impetus upon the heavenly bodies which did not decay with time. Discussions of the impetus continued at Oxford, and were further developed at Paris, by Jean Buridan,  Sorbonne  University rector, in 1327.

* Joan Mervyn Hussey (5 June 1907 Trowbridge, Wiltshire – 20 February 2006 Virginia Water, Surrey), PhD FSA was a British Byzantine scholar and historian.

"Nowadays, Philoponus is often celebrated for having been one of the first thinkers to reconcile Aristotelian philosophy with Christianity. To some extent, this is true, but crucially, his contemporaries must have taken a different view. "--Christian Wildberg


Johannes Philoponus (490-570), was a Coptic philosopher, theologian, and literary scholar whose writings expressed an independent Christian synthesis of classical Hellenistic Alexandrine thought. A native of Alexandria, Egypt, and a student there of the celebrated Aristotelian commentator Ammonius Hermiae, Philoponus may had been the first Christian dean of the Academy of Alexandria. He interpreted Aristotle critically in the light of Neoplatonic Idealism and Christian theology; he identified Aristotle’s concept of the first cause with the Christian notion of a personal God.

The essential part of his criticism is in the commentary on Aristotle’s Meteoro-logica, in his book De aeternitate mundi contra Proclum, and in excerpts from his book against Aristotle’s doctrine of the eternity of the world. This last work has been lost, but Philoponus’ pagan adversary Simplicius quoted from it extensively in his commentaries on Aristotle’s Physica and De caelo." Among his other original contributions to Western thought was his development of Aristotle’s kinetic theory of motion, by affirming that velocity is directly proportional to the excess of force to resistance.

Philoponus’ two treatises on grammar were later revised in lexicon form and received wide recognition during the European Middle Ages. The unity of heaven and earth had been accepted as a fact, but Philoponus was the first to interpret it in the framework of a scientific conception and to explain it in terms of a world view differing from myth or pagan beliefs. His point of departure was a criticism, supported by physical arguments, of Aristotle’s doctrine of the eternity of the universe and the invariable structure of the celestial region."

Philoponus’ philosophy of nature was the first to combine scientific cosmology and monotheism, as pointed out by the eminent Jewish philosophy of Science scholar, S. Sambursky, who wrote, "The monotheistic belief in the universe as a creation of God and the subsequent assumption that there is no essential difference between things in heaven and on earth, as well as the rejection of the belief in the divine nature of the stars, had already been expressed in the Old Testament and was taken over by christianity and later by Islam.

During the sixth century, the traditional Greco-Roman culture was still influential in the Eastern empire with prominent representatives such as the natural philosopher John Philoponus. Nevertheless, the Christian philosophy and culture were in the ascendant and began to dominate the older culture. Hymns written marked the development of Divine Liturgy.Philoponus’ Christianization of Aristotelian doctrine, possibly allowed the Alexandrian academy to continue despite criticism from the church.

Among his notable commentaries are those on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, the logical treatises of the Organon, the tract on Physics, the three books of De anima "On the Soul", and De generatione animalium "On the Generation of Animals". In philosophical theology Philoponus produced his major work, "Mediator, or Concerning Union”, in which he discusses the Trinity and Christology. In order to defend the Christian dogma of personal immortality, Philoponus broke with the common Aristotelian and Stoic interpretation of a single universal mind operative in all people and taught that each person possesses an individual intellect.

Arguing for the Christian doctrine of creation, he composed a treatise, now lost, “On the Eternity of the World,” contradicting the 5th-century Neoplatonist Proclus. In translation Philoponus, contributed to Syriac and Arabic culture and to medieval Western thought. He shaped Aquinas views on Aristotle and was known and highly praised by G. Galellei. It was known that when his book was written, Philoponus was not only a millennia ahead in his scientific genius, but was equally so in articulating Orthodox doctrines, of 'Creation ex Nihilo,' and the 'Resurrection.' His 'Diaetetes', was adopted later, by John of Damascus in his 'Doctrina Patrum.'

Philoponus, the polimath philosopher of his time, became the appointed Arbiter of Emperor Justinian, to settle the debate on the nature of Christ. John Philoponus disseminated the Alexandrian Miaphysite teaching by explaining that though Christ's humanity was devoid of personhood, it was not dissolved by its fundamental union with the divinity. He criticized the doctrinal statements of  Leo's Tome, as wanting, and the Council of Chalcedon (451) as schismtic. In the 'Tmemata,' his polemic against Chalcedon, written at the time of the second Council of Constantinople (553) resulting in conclusion to his analytical study as Imperial Umpire.

He implied a condemnation to the Chalcedonian expression pseudo-Nestorian, by citing Cyril's twelve anathema. He condemned the Chaledonian canons and criticized Leo's Tome exposing its philosophical inconsistency, and theological weaknesses. Because he held that every nature necessarily is individualized, he concluded that in Christ only one united nature was possible. Such theological position was dubbed heretical Monophysitism, and in 681, a century after his death he was censured by the third Council of Constantinople, until declared Orthodox by the Byzantine  church in 1990, defended by Thomas Torrance, with proofs translated by Dr John McKenna and Rvd Dr. George Dragas.

Hypostatic union
(Greek: ὑπόστασις hypóstasis,) means "foundation, substance, subsistence" is a philosophical term in Christian theology employed in mainstream Christology to describe the union of Christ's humanity and divinity in one hypostasis. The First Council of Ephesus, presided by Cyril in 431 AD affirmed the doctrine of hypostatic union, and affirmed its importance, stating that the humanity and divinity of Christ are made one according to nature and hypostasis in the Logos. In Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments, the dual nature of Christ is explored as a paradox, "the ultimate paradox."  The paradox of the hypostatic union was crucial to an abiding faith in the Christian God.  Kierkegaard thought that only by a leap of faith away from one's logical understanding  towards belief in God.

Prologue
"It was science that first drew me in to the theology of T. F. Torrance.  I didn’t even believe in God at the time, but when I heard our new theology professor John McKenna had studied under Einstein, I had to give him a listen.  The rest is history. But it’s the science side of Torrance that has been the hardest for me to articulate to others — how the theologians the world needs right now are theologians who are also scientists, and how post-Einsteinian science has a lot of help to offer theologians as we attempt to dig ourselves out of our Augustinian ditches."-- John Stonecypher
___________________________________________________________________________________

5 of 7 people found the following review helpful
Scientific Theology from John Philoponus to J. Clerk Maxwell
By Didaskalex, Vine Voice, May 2004
This review is from: Theological and Natural Science

"Torrance masterfully engaging preface, on the subject lectures, gives us the most compelling 'double edged knowledge', so amazing that you wonder, "if he is a mystic story teller or a sophi-Scientist."

Science and Theology
An anonymous saying was iterated secretively in the time of Dr. Inge,  known as the Gloomy Dean, that read:
'A graduate student at Trinity..Computed the square of infinity.
But it gave him the fidgets.. To put down the digits,
So he dropped math and took up divinity.' (Anon.)
That was not the trend in Late Antiquity Alexandria, the City of Mathematics, were a heroic figure, John Philoponus, a sixth century science philosopher astonishingly broke through Aristotelian science, while steadfastly defending the genuine Orthodox Christology of Alexandria.

Cambridge philosopher Scientists
Led by Sir Arthur Eddington, in the early 1930s, a group of Cambridge eminent scientists exploring the depth of 20th century physics, came to a conclusive world view that the staff of the Cosmos is a mathematical 'mind-stuff.' Eddington, Jeans and Whitehead came to the same conclusion on the 'Mathematical Cosmic Mind,' through different approaches of thought. Sir James Jeans argued that, "If the universe is a universe of thought, then its creation must be an act of thought." Dr. Forster suggests that the void is God's 'mental space,' supported by Einstein's matter-tensor, giving mathematics a mass-energy substance of 'shaping of the void.'

Torrance Theological Science
In nine lucent addresses on the interrelation between Christian theology and natural science, that linked the genius thought of J. Clerk Maxwell and a remarkable anticipation of his medieval predecessor who caused the scientific tension to erupt a millennia later into revolution as per Kuhn's terminology, Prof. Torrance masterfully gives us the most compelling 'double edged knowledge' that leaves you in awe. His engaging preface, on the subject lectures, is so personal that I thought he was telling me his story, meeting with my heroic toil lover, the Alexandrine sophi-Scientist. Torrance introduces readers, anew to many thinkers, whom I thought I really knew!

Torrance's TheoLogos
My own unqualified assumption, that the launching of T. Torrance Theo.Logos move that broke 'officially' in Edinburgh at its fourth centennial inauguration of the great Northern Scottish thought Castle, where J. Clerk Maxwell's mathemagical genius in his epoch making work on the electromagnetic field was published has started a huge centennial wave of authentic reality that swept the anathema off the 'toil lover' John, setting his rational soul free. His theological pilgrimage interfacing Cyril's Orthodox Christology is a remedy for the Orientals' abuse by Aristotelian Byzantines, and a patristic encounter with St. Basil's "De Opificio Mundi' through the Neoplatonist's commentary.

Einstein's God
T. Torrance starts his case of unity of reality, science and theology, by a tour in Albert's Noia, the center of perception of Divine Wisdom. His exposition understandably includes a curved space universe, a new mathesis but also Spinoza and Freud. He mentions Einstein later funny claim that "Only an Ox eats strictly kosher," a statement that insinuates he read "Moses and monotheism. There is an assurance that he conversed with M. Buber, about his own faith.

In chapter eight; Michael Polanyi and the Christian faith, his personal report is so touching that I felt for the first time his multi talented and genuinely personal Christianity. T. T. was born to missionary parents, served as moderator of the assembly of the Church of Scotland, and converted John Emory McKenna from a Princeton physicist to a Philoponoi Christologist, John's theognostic language moved from Hebrew to Syriac, a big price for a unique encounter of Christ's Wisdom in the Grammarian.

Thanks John McKenna for advising me to read this theognostically metanoic, an inner thought changing insight for the Theo-minded.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


5 of 5 people found the following review helpful
The Omega Point of Theological and Natural Science,
By John Philoponus, October 2004

"All sciences are, in a true sense, anthropology, except for Theology...Theology alone exists because there is a word of God to humanity." Karl Rahner, Hearer of the Word

Rise of Modern Science
"Modern science devoted to the investigation of empirical phenomena could not have risen in the classical form given to it by Galileo and Newton if it had been restricted to a purely a priori approach," argues Prof. Thomas Torrance in his book; 'Theological and Natural Science.' He postulates that; "It arose out of the way of the understanding of the universe as created by God and endowed by him with a created or contingent rationality of its own, dependent upon his transcendent rationality. This means that while the contingence of the universe cannot be demonstrated from the world itself, nevertheless scientific understanding of it is reached only through giving attention to the universe itself, apart from God."

Modern Science & Theology
The relationship of the Christian traditions to science from the 'common' era to the late twentieth century, have got their bumps, their intersection suggests a complex interaction rather than inalterable conflict. Tracing the rise of modern science from the renascence through the scientific revolution major shifts, were marked by discoveries of Copernicus, Galileo, etc., and the Catholic church reactions to 'Human sciences' was so negative that the dissecting table in the pioneering anatomy theater in the University of Padova was designed to instantly conceal the corpus, by lifting of a small handle.

Torrance makes a very interesting observation, in his words; the problem as he sees it ; "that coupling and decoupling of the contingent universe with God lies deep in the foundation of our western science, but the decoupling loses its significance when its relation to the coupling of God and science is neglected or severed, as happened in the enlightenment, "Because there is a correlation between patterns intrinsic to the scientist's mind and intelligible patterns embodied in the physical world, science is possible at all.

He says. "Just because scientists themselves and the realm of nature have been created alike through the logos or word, the intelligibility inherent in nature and the intelligibility inherent in the structures of human knowing match up. Therefore the realm of nature that science investigates was made through the logos. Then the inner principle of God's mind and being, the rationality of God himself, has been imprinted indelibly on the creation. In short, thanks to creation through the word, there is engraved upon all of nature a rationality, an intelligibility, that reflects the rationality of the Creator's own mind.

Theology & Natural Science
The theological implications of advancing science and contemporary thought on environmentalism, deconstruction, gender studies, and postmodernism, are at the center of current social debates. History, meaning, and implication of science and the technological revolution of the Cyberspace information age, are causing unprecedented theological thought reassessment, since Paul Tillich 'shaking of the foundation', may have started in Vatican II.

Torrance continues relating theology to science, defending a case for their compatibility. He then tours Einstein's mind, a model for the perception of advanced mathematical logic. In the following essays, on the interrelation between Christian theology and natural science, he links the genius of his country man James Maxwell to John Philoponus, a philosopher of late antiquity Alexandria, who started the genuine scientific revolution.

The Omega Point
Jaroslav Pelikan, in his 'most engaging and enlightening religious compendium of our time' has selected a Jesuit Paleontologist classic: 'The phenomenon of man,' to give a prophetic vision of the distant future, where human spiritual evolution would attain its divinely destined goal.
"After allowing itself to be captivated in excess by the charms of the analysis to the extent of falling into illusion, modern thought is at last getting used once more to the idea of the creative value of synthesis in evolution. (?)

It is beginning to see that there is definitely more in the molecule than in the atom, more in the cell than in the molecule, more in society than in the individual, and more in mathematical construction than in calculations and theorems. .. But science is nevertheless still far from recognizing that this something has a particular value of independence and solidity." Teilhard De Chardin.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/
http://www.quodlibet.net/articles/mckenna-philoponus.shtml
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7726

Prologue
For over a century following Chalcedon, the Non-Chalcedonians led by their articulate theologians fought hard to restore the whole Church to Cyrillic Orthodoxy, and seemed on the verge of achieving their goal, on different occasions. Yet, many factors complicated the theological debate that took place after Chalcedon, extending to 620 when Syria and Egypt fell under the sword of Islamic Invasion. There was a growing sense of national identity in the great Sees, of Alexandria and Antioch, while Rome fell to the barbarians. Theological divisions were no help and a uniform Christology was always one of the Emperors underlying ambitions. At times this meant that political policies impinged on theological and ecclesiastical affairs.

Christolgy after Chalcedon:
Ian Torrance takes the reader into the stage of Christological debate, that dominated Post Chalcedonian theology, through his translation and exposition of letters of Severus, the greatest Cyrilian advocate of Alexandrian Orthodoxy. It is true that the difference was literally between letters K and N, from and in  two natures of Jesus the Christ. But, as Severus own friend, John Philoponus, the eminent sixth century theologian and scientist (dean of the great academy of Alexandria), proved in his defense of the teaching of Athanasius and Cyril, and his philosophical attack of Leo's confused perception of the basic terms in the Neoplatonic and Aristotalian concepts.

Rediscovering Miaphysitism:
In his introduction Iain Torrance states, "Beyond question, the greatest work that has been produced on the 'Monophysites' is that by Lebon: "Le Monophysisme Severien." Lebon brought his 1909 study up to date in 1951, in an extensive article, in 160 pages, to which the author refers. Lebon gave an overall view of three fine Syrian Henophysites; Timothy Aelurus, Philoxinus of Hierapolis, and Severus of Antioch.

Cyril to Severus:
Starting from Alexandrine Incarnation Christology of Cyril, he follows with Lebon the outline features of Cyril's Miaphysitism, picking out particular key concepts of its soteriology. God the Word was made flesh, but remained who He was. He shows the 'Monophyisite' going to great pain denying that the union involved any mixture or confusion, using the union of body and soul as a model. He further compares the views of professors VC Samuel, a Syrian Orthodx, with Zambolotsky, a Russian Orthodox, who claims that, "Severus human nature is not hypostatic but like the human nature of Leontius of Byzantium and John of Damascus 'hypostatised,' received to the unity of the hypostatis of the Logos."
_________________________________________________________________________________

The Unity of Christ The Monogenis, By Didaskalex, Vine Voice, July 2002
(This review is from: On the Unity of Christ )

"Only if it is one and the same Christ who is consubstantial with the Father and with men can He save us, for the meeting ground between God and man is Flesh and Christ. ... Because the Son is God from God, in some mysterious way he passes this honor on to us."-- St Cyril of Alexandria, Pillar of Faith

Alexandrian versus Antiochene Theology
The Alexandrines based their Christology on john 1:14 amending it mystically with 1 Tim 3:16. They explained the Logos-sarx union with the soul-body analogy to illustrate the substantial union, an ontological oneness, between divinity and humanity in Christ. The rival theology of the Antiochenes employed the soul-body analogy to explain how the Divinity and humanity united in Christ without loosing their full integrity.

Cyril of Alexandria
Cyril, the pillar of faith, developed the theology of the famous school of Alexandria (Catechetical Didaskalia) He was trained there, followed faithfully the Tradition of Alexandria from Origen to Athanasius and Didymus the blind. He was a great biblical expositor, and his Christology is Biblically grounded. He wrote the most elaborate commentary on the Gospel of John, the cornerstone of Alexandrine Sarx-Logos Christology. Thomas Weinandy, debates that Cyril is the first, if not the only patristic theologian to employ the soul-body analogy properly.

Different Church fathers express the incarnation union in Christ depending on their carrier philosophy, Aristotelian or Neo platonic. Following Chalcedon, Every party, claimed to express what Cyril expounded and defended, one nature of the incarnate Logos, fully divine and genuinely human, which expressed the dual aspects in a harmonious and coordinated way. He builds on Athanasius theological defense of the divinity of the Son, and accordingly perfected the orthodox doctrine of theopesis, salvation by participation in the divine nature.

On The unity of Christ
Fr. john McGuckin, a patristic scholar, who teaches Early Church History, has revisited the controversial debate on one of the turning doctrines of the early Church. The translation is in a lucid language, with an elaborate introduction on Cyril's life and Christology. An in depth treatment of Cyril dogmatic theology, which has been revived in the last decades. Fr. McGuckin made a great job in reintroducing the historical and theological debate.

In the Coptic Church Review, comments on the book written by the doctor of the Universal Church, and Judge of Orthodoxy,"This book is the last of Cyril's theological essays discrediting Nestorius and his Antiochene Christology, and contains his most mature teaching on the mystery of union that baffled the theologians since the fourth century. It was written in the form of a dialogue, to explain the Hypostatic Union in Christ."--R. Yanney

Translator/Editor:
Fr. john McGuckin, is professor of Early Church History, Union Theological Seminary, NY. He is a patristic scholar, and theologian. He wrote seven books and numerous articles, and is an expert on Cyril's soteriology and Alexandrine theology.

https://www.academia.edu/25704705/Personhood_in_Miaphysitism_Severus_of_Antioch_and_John_Philoponus
___________________________________________________________________________________

9 of 13 people found the following review helpful
In Defense Of Miaphysite Orthodoxy, By TheoGnostus, Vine Voice, December  2004
( This review is from: The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined)

"the well known Cyrillic formula of 'One united nature of the Incarnate Word' has constituted the basis, the crux of our Christologies, for us the Oriental Orthodox, . . emphasis on that; 'it was the Logos who assumed humanity." Armenian Catholicos

Ecumenical Christology
Oriental Orthodox, Copts, Armenians, and Syriacs were always defiant, and have persistently challenged Caledonian's habitual errancy in calling them-the ancient apostolic churches of the Miaphysite (Hypostatically United) tradition-as Mono-physite. Such devious terminology alleged their unity with Eutichian heterodox, in Christological belief, which could not be sustained by any sound theological analysis, old or novel.

Most of contemporary eminent Roman Catholic and Protestant experts have criticized the Chalcedonian expression as futile and biblically indefensible. Luther, and Barth, support Alexandrine Christology, while von Harnack, Baillie, Kasper, Rahner, Schoonenberg, Tillich, and many others like R. Brown, J. Fitzmyer, and J.Knox were uncomfortable with consequential lack of soteriology in Leo's Tome.

Chalcedon in the dock?
"Chalcedon was a stumbling block-and still is. It has been said that present day theology has put Chalcedon in the dock." Cardinal Kasper writes that it is not difficult to find many utterances among leading theologians, Protestant and Catholic, which tend in the same direction of A. von Harnack. Everywhere we hear about the impossible deadlock (aporia), presented by the doctrine of the 'two natures' in in Kung, Rahner,Tillich, and Pannenberg, and many others." (W. Kasper, Theology and the Church, Crossroads, 1989, p. 95)

Severian Christology
Based on his doctoral dissertation, whose thesis analyzed "The Council of Chalcedon and the Christology of Severus of Antioch," the book included his subsequent research on primary source material. His supported findings addressed the christological controversy, and is another earnest attempt to theologically reevaluate the Chalcedonian expression pros and cons. The 'Council of schism' has divided the church, and split the Byzantine empire, helping the advent of Islam.

In his research work, and thorough examination of source documents-mostly in their original language-has cast some light on the root cause of present-day ecclesiological differences. The work of Fr. Samuel made possible "to revisit genuine incarnation theologies of the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries in order to equip itself with powerful instruments for overcoming dualistic concepts in cosmology, anthropology and in political ethics" (German theologian Dietrich Ritschl)

https://www.academia.edu/9847230/Christology_after_Chalcedon_and_the_Transformation_of_the_Philosophical_Tradition

"Fools say in their hearts, 'There is no God." Ps 14:1 NRSV

"The most incomprehensible thing about the Universe is that it is comprehensible." Albert Einstein

Cosmic Design
"I have been asked to comment on whether the universe shows signs of having been designed. I don't see how it's possible to talk about this without having at least some vague idea of what a designer would be like. Any possible universe could be explained as the work of some sort of designer. . . . Now, it doesn't settle the matter for me to say that we cannot see the hand of a designer in what we know about the fundamental principles of science. It might be that, although these principles do not refer explicitly to life, much less human life, they are nevertheless craftily designed to bring it about."-- Steven Weinberg

In an address given at the Conference on Cosmic Design, Dr Steven Weinberg, 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics, notably observed, "It used to be obvious that the world was designed by some sort of intelligence. What else could account for fire and rain and lightning and earthquakes? Above all, the wonderful abilities of living things seemed to point to a creator who had a special interest in life. Today we understand most of these things in terms of physical forces acting under impersonal laws. We don't yet know the most fundamental laws, and we can't work out all the consequences of the laws we do know."

Cosmic Coincidences
Evidence is mounting up from many scientific disciplines that human life depended on a series of remarkable coincidences. It is hard, unless one is logically myopic to miss or parallax the developing picture that from its first moments of the big bang of creation, the universe has been designed to produce animal and human life, in a remarkable intentional conspiracy. Advanced studies of atomic physics and cosmology support the realizations of a series of precariously balanced probabilities without which organic existence, and human life, in particular would never have been viable or achievable.  . . . The laws of physics are finely tuned for a tailor-made Hoyle Anthropic Universe.

Cosmological Argument
The cosmological argument, known as the first cause argument, is an argument for God's existence, it is an affirmative for the existence of God.  Aristotle's argument was found to form one of the earliest and most influential versions of the cosmological debate. The cosmological argument does not attempt to prove anything about God besides existence. Scholastic philosophers proclaimed that further arguments could be a means to prove, via logic some of God's attributes, omniscience, simple unity, but more could not be known about God through deduction, while only be understood by divine revelation.

Anthropic Cosmology
Ever since Copernicus, scientists have continually adjusted their view of human nature, moving it further and further from its ancient position at the center of Creation. But in recent years, a startling new concept has evolved that places it more firmly than ever in a special position. As we have come to discover more, and scientifically rationalize about the new marvelous world around us, powerful tools of scientific theory and research have fitted together an intricate complexity of pieces, from quarks to quasars, with atoms, molecules, polimers, and the intricate chains of life with a meticulously detailed picture of what makes up the universe around our world and how it functions.

Yet, through a subversive rubric called the "anthropic principle," science seems to threaten to integrate God back, in full circle, out of our advanced scientific realization of an intelligent designer of the highly complex but fundamentally rational and logical universe. Known as the Anthropic Cosmological Principle, this collection of ideas holds that the existence of intelligent observers determines the fundamental structure of the Universe. In its most radical version, the Anthropic Principle asserts that "intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the Universe, and once it comes into existence, it will never die out."

The Anthropic Principle
"The Universe we inhibit is a very particular sort of place, full of elaborate structure and complex activity. . . . Among the infinity of alternative worlds which surround us in superspace, why do our conscious minds perceive this particular one rather than another?An examination of life on earth reveals just how delicately our existence is balanced on the scale of chance. There is a long list of indispensable prerequisites for the survival of our species. . . . A fifth requirement is that the Earth's gravity is strong enough to restrain the atmosphere from evaporating away into space, but weak enough so that we may move about easily, falling over occasionally without disastrous injury." Paul Davies, Other worlds

Anthropic Argument
An anthropic argument is one which suggests that certain physical conditions, such as the oxygen content of the atmosphere or the Earth's distance from the Sun, are not accidentally beneficial to intelligent life, but might actually be especially fine-tuned for life. This viewpoint has been slow to gain acceptance among scientists because anthropic logic seems to defy the arrow of time: was not the universe here long before man evolved?  Yes, but there may be more than one universe (as some theories predict), or the universe we are in may have many domains, each with different physical parameters. So we would find ourselves, according to these arguments, in a domain of just the right physics ingredients.

Physicists at the Bartol Research Institute, and the University of Massachusetts consider what the anthropic principle has to say not about atmospheric oxygen and Earth orbit, but about parameters of even more fundamental importance: the mass of the Higgs boson (that endows all other particles with mass), the cosmological constant (the energy density of the universal vacuum), and the Planck mass (thought to prevail in the very early universe---associated with gravity, and the energy at which all known physical forces would have been equivalent). -- V. Agrawal et al., Physical Review Letters

Shaping of the void
"What is being revealed is 'Supernatural Science' which transcends rational laws of nature and leads to the conclusion that God exists. But if God exists, then how does he create the universe? Sir James Jeans, Cambridge eminent astronomer, stated that, "If the Universe is a universe of thought, then its creation is an act of thought.' David Foster suggests that the universe is thought up into existence by the shaping of the Void. This could be validated by Einstein's matter-tensor. In reply to the outstanding question of whether God's 'Cosmic Intelligence' could shape the void (Nihilo), Dr Foster suggests that the Void (ether) is God's mental space.

Society of Intelligent Design
Didaskalex lists: Dembski, Polkinghorne, Ross and Schroeder, as heirs to John Philoponus, who started the Intelligent Design with his criticism of Aristotle's Eternity of the World, and redefinition of Prime Matter, launching in the seventh century, his thesis on Creation Ex Nihil exposed by F. de Haas, in "John Philoponus on matter: Towards a metaphysics of creation." Christian Wildberg, writes, "Like the polemic against Proclus, Against Aristotle is mainly devoted to removing obstacles for the creationist. If Aristotle were right about the existence of an immutable fifth element (ether) in the celestial region, and if he were right about motion and time being eternal, any belief in creation would surely be unwarranted.

The  Anthropic Constants
Philoponus cosmic concepts were further developed by Thomas Aquinas, in his essay, "God and the Order of Creation," a cornerstone church doctrine. Recently, John Polkinghorne, a physicist turned priest, lists sixteen cosmic coincidences and has a couple of figures showing the ranges of some of the fundamental constants which allow carbon based life. Informed scientists now universally recognize that the Universe is exquisitely finely tuned to allow the coming into being of intelligent life. The only reasonable debate is whether this is due to;  a. A Loving Ultimate Creator, b. An extraordinary coincidence, or; c. The fact that there exists an infinity of other 'Universes' in which the constants are different, in an overall 'Multiverse'.

"John Philoponus both denied the life of the stars and claimed, against Aristotle, that heavenly events were governed by the same physical principles as those on earth. His insights, however, did not have much influence."--Alan Scott, Origen & Life of the Stars


Language of Christian Doctrine
Some early Christian thinkers such as Tertullian were of the view that any intrusion of secular philosophical reason into theological reflection was out of order. Other early Christian thinkers, argued that philosophical reflection complemented theology, when these philosophical reflections were firmly grounded in a prior intellectual commitment to the underlying truth of the Christian faith. Clement of Alexandria spearheaded utilizing philosophy, and later Origen applied a christanized form of Saccha's Neo-Platonism. Neoplatonism and Aristotlian philosophy had sometimes been seen as a natural complement to theological reflection, by Alexandrine and Antiochine theologians. Advocates for the two disciplines have regarded each other as potential heretics.

Alexandria continued to emit a vivid culture by her many brilliant writers, philosophers, Mathematicians, and theologians in late antiquity. Among them stands out in line with Philo, Clement, and Origen; later outstanding figures in orthodox theology, like Athanasius, Cyril and Severus of Antioch. During the 5th and 6h century many Copts from all over Egypt, were educated in Alexandria as Hypatia, John Philoponus, and Cosmas. Others included Zacharias the Rhetor, Panopolis' poet Nonnus, Dioscorus of Aphrodito, Pamperius, and Cyrus. Two Alexandrian exegetes, presbyter Ammonius, an ardent anti Chaledonian who wrote commentaries on John, and Olympiodore the deacon, a moderate Coptic theologian who cited Severus of Antioch.

Origen of Alexandria
"one of the greatest Christian theologians, is famous for composing the seminal work of Christian Neoplatonism, his treatise On First Principles. Origen lived through a turbulent period of the Christian Church, when persecution was wide-spread and little or no doctrinal consensus existed among the various regional churches. In this environment, Gnosticism flourished, and Origen was the first truly philosophical thinker to turn his hand not only to a refutation of Gnosticism, but to offer an alternative Christian system that was more rigorous and philosophically respectable than the mythological speculations of the various Gnostic sects. Origen was also an astute critic of the pagan philosophy of his era, yet he also learned much from it, and adapted its most useful and edifying teachings to a grand elucidation of the Christian faith. Porphyry, a tenacious adversary of Christianity, grudgingly admitted Origen’s mastery of the Greek philosophical tradition."--Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Origen's Lasting Influence
Although Origen continued to compose numerous biblical commentaries and sermons, his importance for the history of philosophy rests mainly on two works, On First Principles, a systematic treatise, and his response to the pagan philosopher Celsus’ attack on Christianity, the treatise Against Celsus." Origen’s influence on Christian writers and theologians is profound and far reaching. Didymus taught St. Gregory of Nazianzen, Rufinus of Aquileia, and Jerome, three figures who spread Origen’s influence and preserved his works. Rowan Greer writes, "His influence upon the Cappadocian Fathers of the fourth century means that he is an important source for the theology that had become the classical articulation of Christian spirituality. Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa preserved Origen's thought for the Church and adapted it to a theological explanation of monasticism understood as the perfect life meant to be lived by all."

G. Heidl argues that reading Origen, fueled Augustine's anti-Manichean polemic and promoted his coming to Christianity. The vast and deep influence of Origen; is stated in St. Augustine of Hippo converting from Manichaenism to Christian NeoPlatonism on reading Victorinus, Origen's student. As for Thomas Aquinas, his second in line, may have been raised to the holy ranks of the Ibis of Philosophy and school Theology, by the outdated scholastics. Those who tried to defend Aquinas as the rescuer of Aristotle from Averroes, have failed to mention, what is common knowledge, that Thomas Aquinas used John Philoponus personal commentaries on Aristotle.

The roots of Scriptural reflection and interpretation go back to Origen in the 3rd century, after whom St. Ambrose taught them to St. Augustine. The monastic practice of Lectio Divina was first established in the 6th century by Saint Benedict and was then formalized as a 4 step process by the Carthusian monk, Guigo, in the 12th century. In the 20th century, the constitution Dei Verbum of the Second Vatican Council recommended Lectio Divina for the general public. Jean Leclercq, the eminent abbot of Clairvaux, underlined the role of Origen's spirituality in the revival of Latin monasticism as was the case of St. Bernard of Clairvaux who revived the monastic spiritual life in mediaeval Europe. "Benedict urged the monks to read the Fathers... , when monasticism was strong the monks turned to the Fathers, and especially to the Church Father Origen..., the monks sought help in living monastic life,..."

Philoponus' Philosophical Theology
Walter Kaufmann warned three decades earlier, "It is easy to underestimate the originality of 'St.' Thomas because he seems to synthesize Scripture and Aristotle, making ample use of all the precedent works. "St. Thomas made Aristotle say so many things he never said," states Butas Gilson, Critique of Religion and Philosophy. It is now evident that John Philoponus (490-570), the first Christian Dean of the  Alexandrian Academy, was not only a millennia ahead in his scientific genius, but equally in Orthodox doctrines, of 'Creation ex Nihilo,' and the 'Resurrection'. His 'Diaetetes', was adopted later, by John of Damascus in his 'Doctrina Patrum.'

In the 'Tmemata,' his polemic against Chalcedon, written at the time of the second Council of Constantinople (553), he implied a condemnation to the Chalcedonian pseudo-Nestorian expression, by citing Cyril's twelve anathema, attacking canons III, IV & V aiming at Leo's Tome. Not only did he condemn the canons but criticized Leo's Tome exposing its philosophical inconsistency, and theological weaknesses. He was sarcastic of the unfounded allegations of 'preeminence' of the 'Roman Pontiff Maximus', a thousand year before the Protestant criticized it during the reformation.

Creation Ex Nihilo The question of how the universe began, and why it hangs together, still puzzles scientists. Their puzzlement began since John philoponus first decided against Aristotalian physics, and Ptolomeo's astronomy: a theory of everything.  In philosophical theology Philoponus produced his major work, 'Diaitetes e peri henoseos (Mediator, or Concerning Union), in which he discusses the Trinity and Christology.  In 529 he wrote his critique Against Proclus in which he systematically argued against every proposition put forward for the eternity of the world. Philoponus originated the argument now known as the Traversal of the infinite.

Christianization of Aristotle
It is said that Thomas Aquinas, who according to J. Hussey used Philoponus' commentaries on Aristotle, has baptized Aristotle. But, it was possibly Philoponus' Christianization of Aristotelian doctrine that allowed the Alexandrian academy to continue despite criticism from the church. Among his notable commentaries are those on Aristotle's Metaphysics, the logical treatises of the Organon, the tract on Physics, the three books of De anima (“On the Soul”), and De generatione animalium (“On the Generation of Animals”).

Aquinas points out that the universe could have existed for ever but that species such as humans and other animals might have had a beginning, and so the difficulties raised by Philoponus and his followers can be avoided. Despite his defence of Aristotle’s reasoning, Aquinas does not accept Aristotle’s assertion that the universe is eternal, because the Christian faith says otherwise; but he doesn’t think that Aristotle’s position is illogical. Like Philoponus and his followers, Aquinas wants to show that the universe had a beginning—but he also wants to show that there is no flaw in Aristotle’s reasoning.

Further reading
1.  Critique of Religion and Philosophy, by Walter  Kaufmann
2.  Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom,  by David Bradshaw
3.  Origen Against Plato (Ashgate Studies in Philosophy & Theology in Late Antiquity)  by M. J. Edwards
4.  Origen's Influence on the Young Augustine: A Chapter of the History of Origenism. (Eastern Christian Studies)  by György Heidl
5. The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas (Five Volumes), by Thomas Aquinas, Fathers of the English Dominican Provinc (Translator)
6.  Philoponus: Against Proclus On the Eternity of the World 1-5 (Ancient Commentators on Aristotle)  by John Philoponus

The Omega Point of Theological and Natural Science
By John Philoponus on October 3, 2004

"All sciences are, in a true sense, anthropology, except for Theology...Theology alone exists because there is a word of God to humanity." --Karl Rahner, Hearer of the Word

Rise of Modern Science
"Modern science devoted to the investigation of empirical phenomena could not have risen in the classical form given to it by Galileo and Newton if it had been restricted to a purely a priori approach," argues Prof. Thomas Torrance in his book; 'Theological and Natural Science.' He postulates that; "It arose out of the way of the understanding of the universe as created by God and endowed by him with a created or contingent rationality of its own, dependent upon his transcendent rationality. This means that while the contingence of the universe cannot be demonstrated from the world itself, nevertheless scientific understanding of it is reached only through giving attention to the universe itself, apart from God."

Modern Science & Theology
The relationship of the Christian traditions to science from the 'common' era to the late twentieth century, have got their bumps, their intersection suggests a complex interaction rather than unalterable conflict. Tracing the rise of modern science from the renascence through the scientific revolution major shifts, were marked by discoveries of Copernicus, Galileo, etc., and the Catholic church reactions to 'Human sciences' was so negative that the dissecting table in the first anatomy theater in the University of Padova was designed to instantly conceal the corpus, by lifting of a small handle.

Torrance makes a very interesting observation, or in his words; the problem as he sees it ; "that coupling and decoupling of the contingent universe with God lies deep in the foundation of our western science, but the decoupling loses its significance when its relation to the coupling of God and science is neglected or severed, as happened in the enlightenment, "Because there is a correlation between patterns intrinsic to the scientist's mind and intelligible patterns embodied in the physical world, science is possible at all, he says."

Just because scientists themselves and the realm of nature have been created alike through the Logos or Word, the intelligibility inherent in nature and the intelligibility inherent in the structures of human knowing match up. Therefore the realm of nature that science investigates was made through the logos. Then the inner principle of God's mind and being, the rationality of God himself, has been imprinted indelibly on the creation. In short, thanks to creation through the word, there is engraved upon all of nature a rationality, an intelligibility, that reflects the rationality of the Creator's own mind.

Theology & Natural Science
The theological implications of advancing science and contemporary thought on environmentalism, deconstruction, gender studies, and postmodernism, are at the center of current social debates. History, meaning, and implication of science and the technological revolution of the Cyberspace information age, are causing unprecedented theological thought reassessment, since the 'shaking of the old foundation' in Vatican II.

Torrance starts relating theology to science, defending a case for their  compatibility. He then tour Einstein's mind, a model for the perception of advanced mathematical logic. In the following essays, on the interrelation between Christian theology and natural science, he links the genius of his country man James Maxwell to John Philoponus, a philosopher of late antiquity Alexandria, who started the genuine scientific revolution. Prof. Torrance masterfully engaging preface, on the subject lectures, gives us the most compelling 'double edged knowledge.

The Omega Point
Jaroslav Pelikan, in his 'most engaging and enlightening religious compendium of our time' has selected a Jesuit Paleontologist classic: 'The phenomenon of man,' to give a prophetic vision of the distant future, where human spiritual evolution would attain its divinely destined goal. "After allowing itself to be captivated in excess by the charms of the analysis to the extent of falling into illusion, modern thought is at last getting used once more to the idea of the creative value of synthesis in evolution. It is beginning to see that there is definitely more in the molecule than in the atom, more in the cell than in the molecule, more in society than in the individual, and more in mathematical construction than in calculations and theorems. .. But science is nevertheless still far from recognizing that this something has a particular value of independence and solidity." Teilhard De Chardin.

Thomas Torrance:
Second to theology, science is his great intellectual interest. In the past three decades Torrance has written over ten books on the interrelations between science and theology. He has been one of the pioneers in the new and burgeoning discipline of Science and Religion; and in 1978 the Duke of Edinburgh awarded him the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion, given to "those who through original and pioneering ways advanced the knowledge and love of God." Yet, throughout Torrance's more scientific writings, theological passion remains his primary driving force. " (Dictionary of Modern Western Theology)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Theology from John Philoponus to James C. Maxwell,
By Didaskalex Vine Voice, May  2004

Science and Theology
The trend in Late Antiquity Alexandria, the City of Mathematics, where John Philoponus, a sixth century Polymath philosopher astonishingly broke through Aristotelian science, steadfastly defending genuine scientific concepts of Alexandrian Neoplatonic Academy,  from denying the eternity of the world, to the novel  impetus theory and gravitation of falling objects.

Cambridge philosopher Scientists
Led by Sir Arthur Eddington, in the early 1930s, a group of Cambridge scientists exploring 20th century physics, came to a world view that the staff of the Cosmos is a mathematical 'mind-stuff.'  Eddington, Jeans and Whitehead came to the  conclusion while  Sir James Jeans argued that, "If the universe is a universe of thought, then its creation must be an act of thought." Dr. Forster suggests that the void is God's 'mental space,' supported by Einstein's matter-tensor, giving mathematics a mass-energy substance of 'shaping of the void.'

Torrance Theological Science
In nine addresses on the interrelation between Christian theology and natural science, linking the thought of J. Clerk Maxwell and a remarkable anticipation of his medieval predecessor who caused the scientific tension to erupt a millennia later into revolution as per Kuhn's terminology, Prof. Torrance masterfully gives us the most compelling 'double edged knowledge' that leaves you in awe. His engaging preface, on the subject lectures, is so personal that I thought he was telling me his story, meeting with the Alexandrian toil lover.

Torrance's TheoLogos
My assumption, that the launching of T. Torrance TheoLogos move, that broke 'in Edinburgh at its fourth centennial inauguration of the great N. Scottish thought Castle, where J. Clerk Maxwell's genius in his epoch making work on the electromagnetic field was published, has started a huge centennial wave of authentic reality that swept the anathema off the 'toil lover', setting his soul free.

Einstein & God
T.T. starts his case of unity of reality, science and theology, by a tour in Albert's noia, the center of perception of Divine Wisdom. His exposition understandably includes a curved space universe, a new mathesis but also Spinoza and Freud. He mentions Einstein later funny claim that "Only an Ox eats strictly kosher," a statement that insinuates he read "Moses and monotheism. There is an assurance that he conversed with M. Buber, about his own faith.  In chapter eight; Michael Polanyi and the Christian faith, his personal report is so touching that I felt for the first time his multi talented and genuinely personal Christianity.

T.T. was born to missionary parents, served as moderator of the assembly of the Church of Scotland, and converted John Emory McKenna from a Princeton physicist to a Philoponoi Christologist, John's theognostic language changed from Hebrew to Syriac, a price for a unique encounter of Christ's Unity defence by the Grammarian.

http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_3_No_20_December_2013/31.pdf
https://www.gci.org/science/philoponus

Thanks to Dr John McKenna for advising me to read this theognostically metanoic, an (inner thought changing) insight for the TheoNoiatic.

Schools of Thought in AD Alexandria
Among the several schools of thought of the early Christian period three were Scholarly dependent on the Mouseion, Library of Alexandria: Egyptian Hermeticism (Corpus Hermeticum: Alexandrian rendering of ancient Egyptian thought), Gnosticism, and Neoplatonism. The first attempt to preach Christian scriptures to the Nations, defending its nascent theology in Greek philosophic terms was started by its great Catechetical school, spear headed by Clement. Panthaenus, assembled the Coptic Alphabet from the Greek plus extra seven Demotic characters, thus preserving Egyptian thought, and Origen exalted its fame by establishing Christian theology throughout the Old world.

Middle Platonism is alleged to begin with Antiochus of Ascalon (ca. 130-68 B.C.E.) and ends with Plotinus (204-70 C.E.), the founder of Neoplatonism. But earlier, In Alexandria, Philo Judaeus (c. 25 BCE – c. 50 CE), a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who used allegory in an attempt to harmonize Greek philosophy with the Hebrew bible, in its Greek translation, the Septuagint. He followed the practices of both Jewish exegesis and Stoic philosophy. His allegorical exegesis was fundamental for several Christian Church Fathers, especially Origen, but he has no interior allusion of Rabbinic reception. He deduced that literal interpretations of the Hebrew text would restrain the human perception of a God, too prodigious to be concieved in literal human terms.

In the first century Alexandrian Jewish Therapeutae, who waited for the Messiah, accepted the good news preached by John Mark in a nascent Christ community. They established the Didascalium, a Catechetical School for Christian teaching.  Alexandria became the home of Christian Philosophy, and Ammon-Saccha was the founder of the middle Platonic Alexandrine School. The earliest recorded dean of the Didascalium was supposedly Athenagoras (c. 176), succeeded by Pantaenus (c. 181), who was succeeded as head of the school by Clement of Alexandria in 190. Other notable theologians with a connection to the school include Origen, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Heraclas, Dionysius, the Great, and Didymus the Blind.

Neoplatonism
Neo-Platonism is defined as; the collective designation for the philosophical and metaphysical doctrines of a heterogeneous school of speculative thinkers who sought to develop and resynthesize the metaphysical ideas of Plato, developed by Plotinus, embracing elements of Aristotelianism, Pythagoreanism, and Stoicism, and combined them into a mystical, metaphysical, philosophical, religious carrier system of Truth and Beauty. Such synthesis occurred especially in Alexandria, included in its pot Hellenistic Judaism, as represented by Philo Judaeus' allegorical debates, and mystical approaches. The Neoplatonic philosophy kept its essentially Greek character of being that started from the mind, not from matter as is the case for Nihilism, Existentialism, or our present postmodern thought schools.

Philo Judaeus of Alexandria
Early in the first century AD Alexandria, Philo Judaeus became attracted to Plato's writings and assimilated his concepts, while studying in the Mouseion. His own expositions became classified as Hellenistic Judaism and strongly influenced the Neoplatonists, as well as the founding Christians Fathers of the school of Alexandria, especially Origen, who became the greatest exponent to his allegorical way of discerning the scripture.

Clement, first anagogic Christian
Among early Christian philosophers of Alexandria, Clement attributed truth in philosophy, and in particular metaphysics, to the inspiration of the Eternal Logos, a divine gift bestowed on the Greeks. The Hebrew Bible asserts that Wisdom is from God (Proverbs 8), revealed partially in nature to the inspired who receive a spirit of perception from the Logos, giving them a clarity in sublime vision (Psalms). The whole intellectual tradition of the Greeks, their philosophy, came down from God to men. Philosophy, "an inquiry concerning Truth and the nature of Being"; declared by Jesus Christ as; 'I am the Way, the Truth, the Life.' When the initiated receive, the true philosophy, they have it from the Truth itself; or Him who is true."

Ammonias Sacchas
Neo.Platonism able founder, little known, Egyptian master Ammon Saccha (:water bag in Greek) was inspiring to his pagan and Christian Students. His students included Longinus, Olympius, Origen, and Plotinus, after whom his own student Porphyry named the reconstructed metaphysical philosophy.  Plotinus is said to have been so impressed when first heard Amon teaching, that he cried; "This is the master I was looking for." It was reported that the intellectuals of Alexandria recognized Ammonius as an outstanding thinker and conferred upon him the title "divinely taught." Saccha like the Pythagorean would not allow his discourses and discussions to be recorded. Even Plotinus was only to allow Porphyry, to later reveal Neoplatonic metaphysical logic, which was the key point of conversion of Augustine from Manechaenism to Neoplatonic Christianity,  by Victorinus in defense of the Christian Trinitarian belief.

"By any standard of intellectual prowess, Plotinus is one of the intellectual giants of antiquity, on a par with the likes of Plato, Aristotle, and Chrysippus, even if modernity is still hesitant to accord him such an exalted status. As in the case of his preeminent precursors, Plotinus’ philosophical system combines innovation with tradition. The question of precisely which predecessors inspired him is still unclear and in need of further investigation."--Christian Wildberg

Catechetical School of Alexandria
Panthaenos established, Clement commissioned, and Origen launched what has defined the special points of departure of Christian from pagan philosophy. Origen is regarded by many prominent Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant theologians, as second only to Saint Paul, with respect to expounding the very character of Christian living, and theological thinking. His students range from St. Athanasius, St. Basil, Rufinus, Jerome, Evagrius Ponticus, Cassianus all the way to Pseudo Dionysius, and John Philoponus who completed its structure including Creation Ex nihil. All Western theologians to the twentieth century, outstanding of them members of the 'Nouvelle Theologie'; French Catholic theologians who became crucial peritus in Vatican II rejuvenation of Roman Catholicism. Thanks to Alexandrian Fathers, and their sound philosophical carrier, Neoplatonism.

Origenes Adamantius
One demonstration of Origen's genius, is evident in his classic "contra Celsius" His thought and writings (voluminous 6000 works, including the monumental textual criticism: the Hexapla) was the earliest attempt to establish a systematic Christian theology. He ventured a to explore in a most daring speculative ways through his Neoplatonic convictions, a great deal of mystical doctrine, that was developed by Dionysius Pseudo-Areopagite, a sixth century Neoplatonist who shaped the mystical theology of Oriental Orthodoxy.

Origen was a prodigy, wrote to his father urging him to martyrdom, wanted to join him, but could not find his garments (His mother hid it outside their house.) He became responsible for his family at an early age, teaching grammar in Alexandria were he was born. Dimitrius, Bishop of Alexandria assigned him to teach the catechumenate, and early in his life headed the Catechetical school of Alexandria. He became the most celebrated Didaskalos, the distinguished office of faith teacher. Two of his senior students and assistants Archelas, a student of Sacca, and Dionysius became Patriarchs of the See of St. Mark.

Their everlasting Influence
Philosophy and mathematics develop in crystalline patterns, of time and serenity. Plato drew upon Pythagorean and pre-Socratic thought, and Aristotle modified Plato. Plotinus and his school perfected Plato, and commented on Aristotle. St. Augustine came across "certain books of the neo-Platonists", some of which Matins Victorinus had translated into Latin. The books probably included Plotinus' Enneads. Victorinus, who has long been neglected, played a significant part in the history of Western thought. Aquinas drew on Aristotle, Plotinus and the church fathers, not to mention Jewish and Islamic philosophy. Descartes was indebted to Aquinas, and so forth...

https://archive.org/details/thechristianplat00bigguoft
http://mariannedorman.homestead.com/Alexandria.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandrian_school
http://desertfathers.blogspot.com/2011/01/educating-early-monksthe-alexandrine.html

Prologue
The Late Antique world, between ca 250 and 700, came to differ from "Classical civilization. These centuries, as the author demonstrates, were the era in which the most deeply rooted of ancient institutions. By 476 the Roman empire had vanished from western Europe. Peter Brown, Professor of History at Princeton University, examines these changes and men's reactions to them.

His account shows that the period was also one of outstanding new beginnings and defines the far-reaching impact both of Christianity on Europe and of Islam on the Near East. The result is a lucid answer to a crucial question in world history; how the exceptionally homogeneous Mediterranean world of c. 200 became divided into the three mutually estranged societies of the Middle Ages, that we still live with the results of these contrasts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandria's Philosophic Milieu
By 220 Alexandria has replaced Athens as the center of the old world, and started to adjust the mind of philosophical thought, when Amon Saccha started to homogenize its philosophy. Her schools and academy became the educational Ivy of the Roman Empire, as Pluten traveled to Rome to establish the new Alexandrine trend. Its great Academy started to admit Christian students, of John's generation, that the Grammarian, born around 490 could became its first Christian dean. Meanwhile the Athenian Lyceum declined after Proclus, and was closed later in 529.

First Alexandrian Neoplatonists
Middle or Neoplatonism was quite different from what Plato taught. Middle Platonism began with Antiochus of Ascalon and ends with Plotinus (204-70 C.E.), who is considered the founder of Neoplatonism. The Middle Platonic philosophers inherited the exegetical and speculative problems of the Old Academy, established by Plato and continued by his successors. The term "neo" was only added by modern scholars to distinguish between the two, but at the time, the practitioners called themselves "Platonists."

Neoplatonism began with Plotinus, a philosopher born in upper Egypt, claimed to have received his instructions from Ammonius Saccas. Ammon Sacca, an Alexandrian, who reconstructed Greek philosophy was a philosopher of second/ third century AD. Recognized as the founder of the Neoplatonic school, he taught Origen and Longinus together with Plotinus, who later moved to Rome. Plotinus's writings were gathered and published by his student Porphyry.

Alexandria in Late Antiquity
Alexandria continued to emit a vivid culture of its many brilliant, late antiquity philosophers, Mathematicians, writers, and theologians. Among them stands out in line with Philo, Clement, and Origen, outstanding figures in theology and science Athanasius, Cyril, Hypatia, John Philoponus, and Cosmas. During the fifth and sixth century many outstanding Copts from all over Egypt, were educated in Alexandria, including Zacharias the Rhetor, John philoponus, poet Nonnus of Panopolis, Dioscorus of Aphrodito, Pamperius, and Cyrus. Two Alexandrian exegetes, presbyter Ammonius, an ardent anti Chaledonian who wrote commentaries on John, and Olympiodore the deacon a Coptic theologian who cited Severus of Antioch.

Severus of Antioch
Severus of Antioch was born in Sozopolis in Pisidia about 465. His family was well-to-do, and as a young man, was sent with his older brother to Alexandria to study grammar and rhetoric. From Alexandria he moved to Beirut to study Roman law, where Severus came under the influence of Miaphysite Christian students and began to study works of Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus. Under the influence of Zacharias the Scholastic, he also acquired an interest in religious questions. After his baptism in Tripoli in 488, Severus became a monk at the monastery of Peter the Oberian, at Maiouma, near Gaza. In an attempt to live a more ascetic life, he left the monastery for the desert.

When proved harmful to his health, he eventually returned to Maiouma, and in 512 Severus left Constantinople for Antioch where he was subsequently elected patriarch. As patriarch he attempted to strengthen monophysitism through the election of bishops, but his efforts failed. The death of Anastasius I in 518 precipitated a drastic change in ecclesiastical policy. With the ascendancy of the pro-Chalcedonian emperor Justin I (518–527). He was once again forced to flee to Egypt, where he continued to write until his death in Alexandria in 538. Jacobite Syrians and the Copts venerate him as a saint; his feast is on February 8.

Zaccharia the Rhetor
The life of Zacharias of Mytilene can be reconstructed only from a few scattered reports in contemporary sources (the accounts are also partly conflicting – for example, some Syrian authors have "Melitene" instead of "Mytilene"). Zacharias was born and raised in a Christian family near Gaza, which hosted a significant school of rhetorics in late antiquity. That was also where he received his initial education. In 485, he travelled to Alexandria, where he studied philosophy for two years. In Alexandria, he was embroiled in a conflict between Christians and Pagans in connection with the Horapollo affair. It was also there he met Severus, who was later to become a notable patriarch of Antioch. Zacharias travelled in 487 to Beirut to study law at its law school.

Ioannis Philoponus
""The greatest challenge for a student of this period of the history of philosophy is to understand how a phenomenon such as Philoponus could have happened."-- S. E. P.

Known as John the grammarian (490-570), was the first Christian dean of the great Academy of Alexandria. Ioannis joined a committed Christian, in the Philo-ponoi (toil loving) fellowship, that St. Severus of Antioch, patronized, with Zacharias the Rhetor. He was called: the most learned man of his time. This sixth century Alexandrian is now regarded as the greatest natural philosopher before Newton, by many contemporary philosophers. His original and creative commentaries on Aristotle mounted a critical blow to the deductive methods and content of Greek physics and cosmology. 

John's Opponents; Simplicus to Cosmas
We should first notice that this tradition is known to us only through quite late sources, dating from more than 10 centuries after Plato: it is mentioned by Johannes Philoponus, of whom several commentaries on works by Aristotle are still extant. Opponents of his philosophical works, matched the breadth of his scientific knowledge and theological undertakings, from Simplicus to Cosmas Indicopleustes.
In his commentary on Aristotle's De Anima by Elias, another late neoplatonic philospher from Alexandria (6th century A. D.) who lived after Philoponus and a Christian too, in his commentary of Aristotle's Analytics; and also by Joannes Tzetzes, byzantine author from the early seventh century A. D., in his 'Chiliades', where it is quoted in the complete form.

Cosmas Indicopleustes
Cosmas Topographicos (Indicopleustes), was a well traveled discoverer, an astronomer, topographer, biblical commentator, and philosophist/ theogian, who happened to be a contemporary of the first Christian dean of the great Academy, in sixth century megalopolis of Alexandria, where he perused his studies. Cosmas wrote books on geography, dedicated to colleague Constantine, another on astronomy, to honor deacon Homoluogus, and at the request of friend Theophilus, I wrote a commentary on the Song of Songs. But his main work was 'Topographia Christiana,' which he composed between 547 and 549, in Alexandria. His christological position was tarnished, as pro Nestorian by the uninformed Aristotalian Byzantines of his time, who did the same to his colleagues, great sixth century Alexandrines, Severus of Antioch, John Philoponoi, and Zacharias the Rhetor. Those disagreement, between him and Philoponus are reflected in the latter's 'De Opficio Mundi.

Those Great Thinkers
Now, let us take a thought tour with Charles Bigg, reading "The Christian Platonists of Alexandria,"  Among the early Christian philosophers of Alexandria, Clement probed with keen insights on what it really means to know God, 'Theo-gnosis'. Charles Bigg was very informed on French and German scholarship on the subject of his book. I wish I could remember great books by what I experienced*, as a young teenager, with these well searched lectures. *(continued reading overnight to complete 'The Moon Stone,' by Wilkie Collins.) I continued reading the lectures as I acquired it from a Hyde Park booksellers, in the vicinity of thought promoting University of Chicago.



https://archive.org/details/christianplatoni00bigg
http://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/cp.htm
https://www.academia.edu/5852056/The_Influence_of_Neo-Platonic_Conceptions_of_God_on_Early_Christian_Theology
http://www.sunypress.edu/p-577-neoplatonism-and-christian-thou.aspx
http://www.iep.utm.edu/origen-of-alexandria/

Prologue
Fifteen years after my review of Rev Charles Bigg's Bampton lectures, and two decades with the writings of John Philoponus, one of the most creative Alexandrian Neoplaonists, who in fact, anticipated and fulfilled Bamptons will. Neoplatonism is a novel name for an Alexandrian move led by Amun Sacca (Greek; water bag) with Origen and Pluten*, all of whom are Egyptians, mostly Alexandrian, in the early third century., to face lift' Greek philosophy, meaning to update Aristotle philosophy.

*Plutenus was born in Lycopolis, upper Egypt in 204/5 C.E. His growing  interest in philosophy led him to the feet of  Ammun Sacca in Alexandria, Origen was his senior who formatted Sacca's unwritten philosophy into Christian Neo-Platonism, homogen-izing his critical studies on matters of ethics, science, politics, with Plato, the language of his classic De Principiis, which matches John's Gospel (Phio's middle Platonism)
__________________________________________________________________________

The Christian Alexandrian Neoplatonists are still very engaging after 18 centuries!
A review by, Didaskalex,Vine Voice, July 2004

Oxford Bampton's Lectures
The Bampton lectures were established in accordance with an English clergyman who gave his name to one of most distinguished lectureship, the Bampton lectures at Oxford University. They consist of eight lecture-sermons 'preached' every year, never another time by any lecturer what-ever his status was. Rev. Bampton studied at Trinity College, Oxford, and was honorary Canon of Salisbury Cathedral from 1718 until his death.


Those Great Thinkers
Charles Bigg was a century ahead of his time, and very informed on French and German scholarship on the subject of this book. I wish I
could say about other great books what I experienced with these very well searched lectures. For the first time since I stayed overnight to
finish Wilkie Collins' "The Moon Stone," as a young teenager. I could
not, put this book down, after I acquired it from one of the Hyde Park used booksellers, in the University of Chicago thought promoting Center. Every Neoplatonist, Scholar, Seminarian, or Theologian should read this classic to listen to Bigg's sermons, meditating on the most influential church teacher's thought, these eight - ever brisk - lectures, should be read a second and third time.

Synopsis of Bigg's Lectures
Come take the tour of thought in the Alexandrian Didaskalia, meet with the Egyptian Jews and their Greek Bible: The Septuagint, while Philo is briefly exposed: The Logos, Wisdom and world. The Gnostics, their dualism, salvation, Christology and eschatology.
II. Alexandrine Church, Clement, Canon of scripture, its unity and allegory. The Holy Trinity, the incarnation and redemption.
III. Creation, Origin of evil & free will in Clement's thought. Faith and grace, Baptism & regeneration. gnosticism & Paulinism, Legalism, knowledge & Love. Church & the world, Via media, Gnosticism & egotism. Mysticism. Church, priesthood & Eucharist.
IV-VI. Origen, life, character and works heavens& earths. Natural & Mosaic Laws. Gospel, Church, Clergy, Eucharist.
Refiner's fire: Beatific vision, Poena Damni, Exegesis, commentaries and Allegory. Regula Fidei, Theology: Nature of God, Holy Trinity, Unity in Trinity, Cosmology, creation, .
VII. Reformed Paganism of the second century. Unitarian Platonists. Celsus & his two masters.
VIII. Summary: Clement, Origen, Restitution and quietism.

BIGG's career
Charles Bigg, the Bampton lecturer in 1886, has edited few Greek classics, St. Augustine's Confessions; the Didache, Thomas Kempis' 'De Imitatione Christi'. He wrote among other books, The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, Neoplatonism, Unity in Diversity, etc.. He was born at Manchester in 1840, studied at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, became a Senior Student of Christ Church in 1862, tutor in 1863, MA 1864, DD 1876.

He was master in Cheltenham College, Brighton College, and rector of Fenny Compton, and hon. canon of Worcester from 1889 to 1901, when he was appointed Regius professor of ecclesiastical history in Oxford University. and has been canon of Christ Church, Oxford, since 1901. He was examining chaplain to the bishops of Worcester, Peterborough, London, and Manchester (1889-1903). He died at Oxford in 1908.

Epilogue;
this Epilogue shows how the eminent Biggs valued the contribution of third and fourth century Christian Neoplatonists of Alexandria, the loving city of Jesus Christ, from Amon Sacca, Clement, origen and Plutin, and his right. Augustine converted from Manechaenism to Neoplatonism, reading a book by Victorinus,Origen's disciple, to understand the Good News, baptized by (St.) Ambrose!
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~rdwallin/syl/GreatBooks/202.W99/Augustine/AugPlaton.htm

John Bamptons Will
". . . . . Also I direct and appoint, that the eight Divinity Lecture Sermons shall be preached upon either of the following Subjects to confirm and establish the Christian Faith, and to confute all heretics and schismatics upon the divine authority of the holy Scriptures upon the authority of the writings of the primitive (early) Fathers, as to the faith and practice of the primitive Church upon the Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ upon the Divinity of the Holy Ghost upon the Articles of the Christian Faith, as comprehended in the Apostles and Nicene Creed.

Also I direct, that thirty copies of the eight Divinity Lecture Sermons shall be always printed, within two months after they are preached; and one copy shall be given to the Chancellor of the University, and one copy to the Head of every College, and one copy to the Mayor of the city of Oxford, and one copy to be put into the Bodleian Library; and the expense of printing them shall be paid out of the revenue of the Land or Estates given for establishing theD ivinity Lecture Sermons; and the Preacher shall not be paid, nor be entitled to the revenue, before they are printed.
Also I direct and appoint, that no person shall be qualified to preach the Divinity Lecture Sermons, unless he hath taken the degree of Master of Arts at least, in one of the two Universities of Oxford or Cambridge; and that the same person shall never preach the Divinity Lecture Sermons"

Epilogue
A majority of the philosophers today, who have taken time to reflect on the 'Neoplatonist Interpretation of Plato', would assert that the later Neo-Platonic interpretation of Plato is, if not false in every part, at least grossly mistaken on some general points.  A massive historical problem is involved, as long as we are seeking some chain of influences leading up to the Neoplatonic exegesis? But the real underlying question is this: what is the decisive characteristic of the Neoplatonic interpretation? That the question is worth raising may be dubious until we pause to remember that Neoplatonism was one of the most powerful forces that shaped the tradition of philosophy.

So powerful, that it had perhaps, a decisive role in the philosophical theology of medieval times, and that it still has certain charms both for students of the dialogues of Plato and for many others who are not ex professo philosophers. More important, we can never be sure that we too cannot be misled in the same way that the Neoplatonists were misled and by the same features of Plato's dialogues. It is frequently forgotten that the Neoplatonist commentators had an excellent text of the dia-logues, possessed critical philological principles, and lived in some periods in a genuinely critical philosophical environment.' Neoplatonism, in other words, can be seen as a persistent problem.

http://muse.jhu.edu/article/229484/pdf
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Aristotle_vs_Plato

A Cautionary Preface
Responding to eminent professor C. W. challenge, I fetched recently to find out how John Philoponus, Emperor Justinian's Arbitrator, shed his title. He had to pay what he strove to achieve all his life, mainly the leadership of the Alexandrian Neoplatonic Academy. During the year 518, after meeting with Severus of Antioch (St.), in the Enaton Monastery, as he listened to what was written by Dionysius the ps-Areopagite, realizing that 'Apophatism' was then shaped by Proclus' out of Neoplatonism.       
---------------------------------------------------------------

The Mystical Experience of Belief
By Didaskalex, Vine Voice, July 2005

"The goal of the Christian life, according to Rowan Williams, the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury, is not enlightenment but wholeness - 'an acceptance of this complicated and muddled bundle of experiences as a possible theater for God's creative work.'"-- Frederic & Mary Ann Brussat

"Oh who my grief can mend!  Come, make the last surrender that I yearn for," John taught an advanced philosophy class to Dioscorus of Aphrodito and Stephanus, keeping Gramaticus as the ecclesiastically tolerated title. Philoponus, anticipated the  529 Imperial edict, supporting fit by publishing his attack on Proclus, "On the Eternity of the World." He thus defeated every argument for world eternity, the core and thesis of pagan attack on the Christian doctrine of creation.

V. Rvd. Rowan Williams presents in his thematically rich and diversified volume, "The wound of Knowledge," a mystical overview of Christian spiritual life from the Apostolic Fathers to St. John of the Cross. Among those included are Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons,  Origen, Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine of Hippo, with Martin Luther, and others. The reader of this book will take: a Patristic journey in space and time to discover ancient Christian traditions, through delving into a mystical  door of the fathers. Living the faith, is part of this pilgrimage, reflected in a contribution to the  'Anglican quest for holiness,' sought in his book: 'The Making of Orthodoxy.'

Wound of Knowledge
The Passion of my God; starts with teaching (doctrine), belief, faith, and spirituality as presented in the Philippians' Christological hymn. His first Patristics example was on Ignatius of Antioch, allegedly the kid who offered the five loaves to Lord Jesus Christ. Concluding, "Thus martyrdom comes as a natural culmination of a far more prosaic process of kenosis (self emptying) from "the shadow of the Flesh."

A tour with the Mystics
Starting with Philo, the mystical Jew Irenaeus, and Clement, Origen, the Apophatic Alexandrines, in a fascinating virtual tour. Origen and Anthony struggled with the meaning of sharing divine life. Gregory of Nyssa wrote about imitating the pattern of God's life as revealed in Jesus. Throughout the book, Williams became absorbed in mystical expressions: End without end (Arian Crisis, and Athanasius), The glamour of the heart (Augustine of Hippo), Acrobats and jugglers.

Mystical Circus
The City? The desert (Anthony, Macarius, and the desert fathers). He refers here to D. Chitty's book: The desert, a city. The Monastery is the third development in his account, John Cassian carries to the West a monastic ideal of the Pachomian scheme of 'Organized Spirituality,' where Benedict relaxes the rule, then Bernard of Clairvaux (12th century), returns back to the serious desert tradition of self mortification, kenosis, or emptying our negative passions, which leaving the disciple in complete darkness: Ps. 73:22

Ecstasy in understanding
R. Williams contrasts the Apophaic tradition of the great Syrian mystic of pseudonym; Dennis the Areopagite with the Cataphatic Aristotelian Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas, a back shift from Neo-Platonism of the East. Johannes Eckhart, another Dominican was dubbed heretical by those who could not perceive his mystical language and expressions.

End Of Christendom
The Sign of the Son of Man: Luther and Ockham, reformation and its dogmas: Faith, and Sola Scriptura. In the secret stair: Williams recounts in the "Way of Denial," from a similar spiritual experience of john of the Cross and Luther, both being in hell, but broke off differently through an apophatic versus Luther's cataphatic solution. Now John+ and associate Teresa of Avila, both embodied their vocation, through Carmelites failure.

"Oh who my grief can mend! Come, make the last surrender that I yearn for, and let there be an end Of messengers you send Who bring me other tidings that I burn for."

Theological History, NT to John+
A long subtitle, for a fast virtual tour. In less than 180 pages you join the party of the Mystics and say with Abbot Chapman: "The unperceived, infused contemplation occupies the mind, and it can't think of something else;..."

Alas, the party is over but never my longing for the company of the holy mystics.

The ground of belief
"It is the intractable strangeness of the ground of belief that must constantly be allowed to challenge the fixed assumptions of religiosity; it is a given, whose question to each succeeding age is fundamentally one and the same. And the greatness of the great Christian saints lies in their readiness to be questioned, judged, stripped naked, and left speechless by that which lies at the center of their faith."-- Cowley publications

Archbishop Williams
The Archbishop of Canterbury is unique in being the only theologian to have been Professor of Divinity at both Oxford and Cambridge universities. His depth of knowledge and evident spirituality have made him a sought after Church figure and became a spokesperson for Christianity since he was elected Archbishop of Canterbury. He never gave up on his belief in ecumenical values that bind all Christians.
_____________________________________________________________________________

Discerning the Cloud with a pricked heart
By Didaskalex, Vine Voice, July  2002

"The unknowing Englishman gave a brilliant little summary of the Dionysian ideas"-- Rowan Williams, The wound of knowledge

The theme of the writings
In short but instructive chapters, the mysterious Briton, who mastered the way of the mystics gave an admirable essay on Christian life and its development through contemplation. Prayer is in fact the core of Christian life, and the backbone of this marvelous work, where he explained conducting oneself with respect to examining and silencing the thoughts with humility. Love is the goal in which a faithful should abide through contemplation.

Apophatic tradition of the Orientals
Eastern monastics started the root to mysticism, practicing the Macarian arrow prayer (K. Ware, in Study of Spirituality p176), carried to Europe as "The Jesus Prayer," through the Praktikos of Evagrius Ponticos.In chapter 38 of the Cloud, this holy English mystic speaks of a little prayer of one syllable Kyriya Elaison (Lord have mercy) that is powerful enough to pierce the heavens.

Origen was the initiator of the Apophatic concept (the commentary on song of Songs), carrying over from Philo, based on roots that go all the way to Asaph, Ps 73:21-24. But, the crystallization of the whole theology took final shape in the writings of a Syrian monk of early six century of pseudonym Dionysius the Areopagite (who was probably a student or companion of Severus of Antioch), taking to himself the name of St. Paul's Athenian disciple.

A wave in the Mystical Milieu
During 14th and 15th century Europe, a pilgrimage to the unknown God started by Eckhart and his fellow Dominicans Susa and Tauler based on spiritual poverty. In England, Rolle, Hilton, and Julian of Norwich took the same road. These were all disciples in the school of negation. The influence came through John Scotus who in the ninth century translated the corpus Dionysium into Latin, initiating a chain of commentaries from Aquinas, Bonaventure, and Gallus. The English Counselor translated Dionysius' Mystical Theology under the title" Hid Divinity"

Enjoying the way of Unknowing
After reading the expert introduction by Wm. Johnston, helpful for a reader of some background on the subject, but the seal of the deal is reading his Privy Counselings. The less informed could attain a better appreciation after reading "The wound of knowledge". Many books on mysticism explain Apophaticism or the way of unknowing in elaboration.

Book of Privy Counseling
This smaller work, written by the same unknown medieval English mystic, is a short and moving text on the way to enlightenment through a total loss of self and consciousness only of the divine. It can be read as a prayer meditation and reflection. Each chapter provides adequate material to for reading, meditating or daily prayer.

Companion read
The Foundation of Mysticism, Bernard McGinn, The mysticism of Dionysius

Prologue
In modern scholarship a periodization of Philoponus’ life has been made by Koenraad'  "De Opificio Mundi". He  drew a sharp distinction between the purely philosophical (non-Christian) and the “Christian” periods of Philoponus’ biography. However, Clemens Scholten challenged Verrycken by expressing a unitary view of Piloponus’ creative activity. Verrycken defended his bipartite schema in his review of Scholten. Some of Verrycken’s ideas were also criticized by Christian Wildberg.  However, Wildberg’s criticism was centered on Verrycken’s explanation of Philoponus’ transition from one period to another, not his periodization itself. 

Verrycken observations on the intellectual works are logical, but as only Leslie MacCoull suggested in; "John Philoponus: Egyptian Exegete, Ecclesiastical Politician." She examines his ecclesiastic writings after his turning point in; "Ecclesiastes in philoponus: The Coptic dimension, examining the two passages of the book of Ecclesiastes (quoted by the sixth-century Alexandrian)  The Genesis Miaphysite commentator and philosophical polymath, "John Philoponus in his hexaemeral work De Opificio Mundi and asks two questions: (1) Why did Philoponus quote Ecclesiastes to explain Genesis?; and (2) did he, living and working in the multilingual society of late antique Egypt, have a Coptic-language biblical text in his mind alongside the Hexaplar and Septuagint Greek texts?

While a Gottingen LXX volume of Ecclesiastes has not yet been made, here the Coptic witnesses are examined alongside the early Greek text in a Coptic-Greek bilingual manuscript to see if any of them correspond with Philoponus' interpretation of the text and its use as ammunition in his polemic against the Diophysites, especially Theodore of Mopsuestia and Cosmas Indicopleustes. Philoponus intended above all to show that the cosmology of Genesis made sense and harmonized both with the natural science of the sixth century and with the Miaphysite world view. It would have made sense for him, a learned Alexandrian practising sophisticated text comparison, to have known the vernacular Bible of his place and time.

Daniele Granata study discusses an original philosophical contribution made by Philoponus, who in In Cat. 18, 14–22 equates koinon in its most peculiar meaning with the concept of koinônia understood as a particu­lar case of Platonic methexis. First, the paper analyzes the passages where the Neoplatonic commentators of the Categories distinguish four distinct meanings of the Aristotelian concept of koinon. Subsequently, this article emphasizes the differences between Philoponus’ herme­neutical suggestions and those of the other commentators.

Philopo­nus clarifies that while every koinon is methekton, Aristotle’s koinon is characterized by the fact that the participation is ex isou and kata meros. Thus, koinônia, according to Philoponus, is a particular case of methexis, where everyone participating in something participates in it equally and singly. The example cited by Philoponus to explain Aristotle’s koinon is that of men participating equally and singly in human nature. The study concludes with a discussion of the relationship among the concepts of koinon, koinônia and methexis.
__________________________________________  

* The main extra source for this concluding assumptions is from, "A collection of letters by Severus of Antioch, from numerous Syriac manuscripts,  edited and translated by E. W. Brooks, Patrologia Orientalis, Vol. xii: 175-328. These are mostly before 518 when he left to Alexandria.

"Where did Dioscorus get the word monoeliodis ? From Cyril, certainly, and fom John Philoponus (whether or not the polymath-had ever been his teacher,"-- L. MacCoull  

MacCoull ran into John Philoponus through Dioscorus of Aphrodito, his studious disciple, and later bilingual lawyer. "As a documentary papyrologist working on the sixth-century Egyptian lawyer-poet Dioscorus of Aphrodito, I had even earlier come to speculate about a possible connection between that writer and Philoponus." Accordingly her scope was through Dioscorus' professor of philology, who (may have) had a position in the Neoplatonic school in Alexandria as editor of Ammonius’s lectures," stating later that Philoponus was a Christian since his birth, as evident in his name, while very busy challenging his 'pagan' colleagues. 

Since joining the dots is  part of a Coptologist task, it is evident that the year 518 was a turning point in his career, after meeting with Severus of Antioch, hearing readings from ps-Dionysius the Aeropagite, one of Severus own monastic circle. Severus studied with Zachariah rhetor, under Ammonius a generation before. John was overwhelmed, that Proclus Platonic philosophy, was so vivid to be restated as a mystical Neoplatonic theology. Severus life was saved by Zachariah, who could entice him to replace Libanius philosophy with Basil's inspiring theology, and this what he ventured to do with John, who then joined the established  fellowship of the intellectual toil lovers, the Philoponoi.

The plan with Severus was to attack Proclus philosophy showing its pagan weak points, then going further to attack Aristotle physics which was Philoponus own great desire. Meanwhile, Severus supported appointing John as Philosophos, while the deanship was given to Eutocius. As soon as John completed his work on Contra Proclum, a copy was provided to Theodora that enacted Justinian closure of the Athenian Academy, while Alexandria was thriving in John Chairing Philosophy, and was proclaimed dean same year, with Severus full support. It is very probable that his Deanship now for the Alexandrian Neoplatonic Academy continued just before he assumed Justinian Imperial Arbiter before 533, when he could no more keep his mundane honor, his Imperial assignment and the Alexandrian Church Canons, let it down to his senior amenuences Olympiodorus. Severus passed away in 538, while John continued his Christological and Trinitarian battles.
___________________________________________

The Context of John Philoponus' De Opificio Mundi, By, Leslie MacCoull, Jan 2006

In his great work, the De Opificio Mundi or "Explanations of Moses' Cosmogony" (CPG 7265), Philoponus produced a Miaphysite commentary on Genesis, the goal of which was to demonstrate to the people of his own place and time that only this correct understanding of Christ, the Miaphysite one, would provide a key to understanding the created universe through correctly reconciling the data of classical science with those of Christian revelation.

John Philoponus (ca. 490-575) was the first and probably only universal mind of the culture of Christian Egypt. Since the publication eighteen years ago of a collection of studies entitled Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science, this sixth-century Alexandrian philosopher, theologian and polymath has become the focus of increased scholarly interest. As a documentary papyrologist working on the sixth-century Egyptian lawyer-poet Dioscorus of Aphrodito, I had even earlier come to speculate about a possible connection between that writer and Philoponus. However, despite the growth of scholarship on the society of late antique Egypt.

Studies on Philoponus have until recently continued to be carried on largely within the closed universe of late antique classical philosophy, with little attention paid to the actual social world within which Philoponus lived and worked. Concentrating on only one aspect of his output, philosophical commentaries, to the comparative neglect of his theological works and his identity as a non-Chalcedonian thinker at the time of the early growth of Egypt's separate church. What I should like to do is try and understand Philoponus better within his social background of sixth-century Egypt, the world of the Greek and Coptic documentary papyri.

The theological influence of Severus of Antioch on John Philoponus may had exceeded that of Origen writigs on Dydimus the seer, the eminent dean of the great Catechetical school. Severus was the major defender of Cyril Redeeming Christology.
Johannes Zachhuber is the brilliant theologian who links the mutual effort of Severus with Philoponus, but John  Philoponus is the champion of Trinitarian Theology and was condemned 682, more than a century after his death, as expressed in C. Wildberg compelling statement:

"The greatest challenge for a student of this period of the history of philosophy is to understand how a phenomenon such as Philoponus could have occurred at all. To be sure, elusive individual qualities of his mind and personality must have played an essential rôle, but it is equally true that philosophical, social, and religious parameters are likely to have supplied conditions which allowed him to carry forward his unprecedented and unparalleled challenge to a widely accepted intellectual tradition."

"Philoponus has to be admired for being a leading force in the history of philosophy, at times far ahead of his time."--C. Wildberg, Philosophy in the age of Justinian


I encountered John Philoponus, for the first time, in a paragraph on page 119 of Kuhn's classic, "The Copernican Revolution," and Kuhn was the perfect Protagonist‎. Twenty years later I percieved what Christian Wildberg meant, "The greatest challenge for a student of this period of the history of philosophy is to understand how a phenomenon such as Philoponus could have happened. To be sure, elusive individual qualities of his mind and personality must have played an essential rôle, but it is equally true that philosophical, social, and religious parameters are likely to have supplied conditions which allowed him to carry forward his unprecedented and unparalleled act of emancipation from a widely accepted intellectual tradition."

Introduction by Christian Wildberg
'Philoponus' oeuvre comprises at least 40 items on diverse subjects such as grammar, logic, mathematics, physics, psychology, cosmology, astronomy, theology and church politics; even medical treatises have been attributed to him. A substantial part of his work has come down to us, but some treatises are known only indirectly through quotations or translations into Syriac and Arabic. Although his fame rests predominantly on the fact that, even within some of his commentaries on works of Aristotle, he initiated and in fact anticipated the eventual liberation of natural philosophy from the straitjacket of Aristotelianism, his non-polemical commentaries on Aristotle as well as his theological treatises deserve to be appreciated as well. 

The many Facets of an Alexandrite Gem
Alexandrite is a very rare (and very expensive) variety of gem-quality Chrysoberyl. Although most people have probably never seen a natural alexandrite, this gemstone has replaced the traditional pearl as the modern June birthstone. Its glamorous history and beauty have likely contributed to its mystique in the public imagination. Alexandrites are well-known for displaying one of the most remarkable color changes in nature. “Emerald by day, ruby by night,” the most desired and well-cut stones are green in sunlight and red in incandescent light.

Neoplatonic Sailors and Peripatetic Ships
It has been acknowledged that Aristotle’s nautical analogy is hard to accommodate within the general framework of his hylomorphic (metaphysical view of body) psychology. Jorge Mittelmann contends that while Alexander of Aphrodisias tried to make sense of the analogy by turning the sailor into a dispositional state of his ship, Philoponus struggled to show how a separate substance can nonetheless behave as the ship’s “first actuality”. It is argued that neither Alexander’s psychological naturalism nor Philoponus’ ontological opportunism provide satisfactory readings of the analogy. Philoponus’s proposal, however, is preferred, as it preserves Alexander’s insights to a greater extent than the other way around. Further, Philoponus achieves this result at a lower theoretical price, since he does not need to distort the most obvious features of the nautical analogy.

Imagination as a mental drawing board
Federico Commandino (1509–1575) can be considered the personification of the renaissance of mathematics in sixteenth-century Italy. Previous scholars have generally reduced the philosophy of mathematics developed (1572) by Commandino in the preface to his translation of Euclid’s Elements to a superficial synthesis of Neoplatonic and Aristotelian elements. Claessens underlines that until now, no attention has been paid to Commandino’s use of the sixth-century commentary on Aristotle’s De Anima by John Philoponus. Claessens argues that, in depicting imagination as a mental drawing board for geometrical figures, Commandino directly relies on Philoponus’s concept of mathematical imagination. ( Guy A. J. Claessens)

Projectile Motion, and Impetus Theory
Abel B. Franco provides a historical evaluation of the originality and implications of  Ibn Bâjja, (Avempace : Latinate name)  critique of Aristotle's causal explanation of the motion of projectiles. It also offers a serious revision of the place which has usually been assigned to Avempace in the history of science. The views regarding projectiles defended in  Avempace's Arabic commentary are in sharp opposition to the anti-Aristotelian Avempace that was known in the Medieval West through Averroes. Avempace's commentary reveals only a moderate critic of Aristotle, a critic who did not, in any case, break with the master, and who, therefore, did not even go as far as Philoponus in Authors creating a new, profound theory of projectile motion.

Euripides and notion of Conscience in Philoponus
Jed Atkins  challenges the common view that philosophical analysis of the phenomenon of conscience begins with medieval philosophers. Just as Jerome’s Commentary on Ezekiel furnished the medieval schoolmen with a common text, vocabulary, and philosophical concerns, so Euripides’s Orestes served a similar function for four late antiquity  philosophers: Plutarch, Philostratus, Philoponus, and Olympiodorus. Stimulated by a common text, these philosophers offered a series of intricate and interrelated philosophical accounts of conscience and its place in human psychology. I track the development of the philosophers’ different concepts of conscience, indicating relevant comparison points with later notions of the concept.

Coptic Exegete, Ecclesiastical Politician
Leslie Maccoull argues that, "While John Philoponus' life and thought have been studied almost entirely in the context of the history of classical philosophy, she attempts to view his work as more closely connected concepts to the social and cultural history of Byzantine Egypt as known from papyrological sources. Philoponus, a committed (toil loving) Miaphysite, chose particular philosophical texts and problems as objects of his work because they were the material of current Mono/ Diphysite debate." As Imperial Arbiter, his intention consolidated to provide the Leading Alexandrian church with a powerful set of tools for argument, with which Eastern Miaphysites could silence their Chalcedonian Melekite opponents.
http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/bookchapters/Bountiful_Harvest_Essays_in_Honor_of_S_Kent_Brown/BountifulHarvest-MacCoull.pdf

Trinity; Universals, and Particulars 
Christophe Erismann dwells more specifically that, "During late antiquity, an interesting doctrinal shift can be observed: Aristotelian logic and its Neoplatonic complements, in particular the teachings of Aristotle's Categories and Porphyry's Isagoge, were progressively acceptedas a tool in Christian theology. This acceptance met drawbacks and was never unanimous. Among the authors who used concepts that originated in logic in order to support their theological thinking, we can mention, on very different accounts, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, John Philoponus, Leontius of Byzantium, Maximus the Confessor, Theodore of Raithu, and John of Damascus, . . . In the Byzantine context, handbooks of logic were written specifically for Christian theologians, showing that logic was perceived to be an important tool for theological thinking."

Philoponus' Coptic Eucharistic devotion
In her study L. MacCoull proposes that John Philoponus' philosophical commentary and biblical exegesis, especially his hexaemeral work "De opificio mundi," was deeply connected with and reflective of the eucharist as it was thought about and enacted in the sixth-century Egypt of his era, at the time of the separation of the Miaphysite church. Creation, the De opificio's subject, is always described in the eucharistic liturgies that Philoponus and his Christian students would have experienced. The heavenly powers he enumerates also appear similarly in the three leading anaphoras. When he discusses the imperial image, it is in terms that echo the public prayers for emperors offered at eucharists; he mentions a realistic detail of contemporary social life that resonates with some passages in an Egyptian eucharistic text. Analysis of this evidence leads to the conclusion that Philoponus in his teaching role thought profoundly, like Severus of Antioch, and Shenute of Atripe, about what the eucharist meant to Miaphysite Christians in Justinian's Egypt.

Systematic Reviews for Philoponus data
"Systematic reviews differ from traditional narrative reviews in several ways. Narrative reviews tend to be mainly descriptive, do not involve a systematic search of the literature, and thereby often focus on a subset of studies in an area chosen based on availability or author selection. Thus narrative reviews while informative, can often include an element of selection bias."--Lindsay S. Uman
A systematic review typically involves following steps, ; A. Asking an answerable question, B. Identifying one or more databases to search, C. Developing an explicit search strategy, D. Selecting titles, abstracts, and manuscripts based on explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria, and, E. Abstracting data in a standardized format.

First universal mind, by L. MacCoull
John Philoponus (ca. 490-575) was the first and probably only universal mind of the culture of Christian Egypt. Since the publication eighteen years ago of a collection of studies entitled Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science, this sixth-century Alexandrian philosopher, theologian and polymath has become the focus of increased scholarly interest. As a documentary papyrologist working on the sixth-century Egyptian lawyer-poet Dioscorus of Aphrodito, I had even earlier come to speculate about a possible connection between that writer and Philoponus.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Philoponus was one of the last holders of the chair of philosophy in Alexandria, succeeding Ammonius the son of Hermiae. His Philosophical background was Neoplatonic; but he was a member of the Mono-physite sect, " --S. Sambursky, John Philoponus, Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography. 2008.


Emperor Justinian's Edict
Justinian closed the school of Athens in 529 AD. His edict states, "We wish to widen the law once made by us and by our father of blessed memory against all remaining heresies, so that it ought to apply not only to them but also to Samaritans and pagans. Thus, since they have had such an ill effect, they should have no influence nor enjoy any dignity, nor, acting as teachers of any subjects, should they drag the minds of the simple to their errors and, in this way, turn the more ignorant among them against the pure and true orthodox faith; so we permit only those who are of the orthodox faith to teach and accept a public stipend." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Code-of-Justinian

Besides the Academy of Athens, there were several other important centers of learning in the Roman Empire. Foremost among these was Alexandria. James Hannam wrote that, "there is no evidence that there was ever a formal decision to suppress the Alexandrian schools although they gradually Christianized together with the rest of the Empire.  However, by far the greatest thinker of the time was the Christian John Philoponus whose commentaries on Aristotle contained trenchant criticisms of his thought, many of which scholars have subsequently vindicated.

The first Christian Dean of the Alexandrian Academy?
Due to the Imperial edict, One of the last pagans to teach there was Olympiodorus who was active in the late sixth century. Was Philoponus the first Christian dean of the Alexandrian Academy? A question posted to Dr. Christian Wildberg,  historian of ancient philosophy supportively replied, "Best wishes for your researches!"
Wildberg wrote, in his compelling review on Philoponus career, "his independent-minded or even disrespectful approach to philosophical commentary, as well as the conclusions he drew, antagonized Philoponus' pagan colleagues;" concluding, "their opposition may have compelled him to abandon his philosophical career in the 530's, Philoponus never succeeded his teacher Ammonius as head of the school."

The Alexandrine academy
Ammonius, as head of the Neoplatonist school in Alexandria, lectured on Plato and Aristotle for the rest of his life. He also taught Asclepius of Tralles, Damascius, John Philoponus, and Simplicius. He was also an accomplished astronomer; he lectured on Ptolemy and is known to have written a treatise on the astrolabe.
According to Damascius, during the persecution of the pagans at Alexandria in the late 480's, Ammonius made concessions to the Christian authorities so that he could continue his lectures.[1] Damascius, who scolds Ammonius for the agreement that he made, does not say what the concessions were, but it may have involved limitations on the doctrines he could teach or promote. He was still teaching in 515; Olympiodorus heard him lecture on Plato's Gorgias in that year.[2]  (Ammonius Hermiae, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
[1] Damascius, Philosophos Historia, 118B, Athanassiadi
[2] Olympiodorus, in Gorgias, 199, 8–10

Philoponus, Ammonius' heir apparent
"Some of Philoponus (JP) commentaries profess to be based on Ammonius' lectures, but others give more room to Philoponus' own ideas. Eventually, he transformed the usual format of apologetic commentary into a discourse of open criticism, in the course of which he examined and repudiated fundamental Aristotelian-Neoplatonic tenets, most prominently the doctrine of the eternity of the world. Edward Watts  believes that Philoponus started to write Contr. Procl. in 525 and it was a part of his competition for the chair of the head he school with Olympiodorus, a pagan pupil of Ammonius. (See E. J. Watts, City and School in Late Antique Athens and Alexandria)
It is evident that when the Pagan philosopher died, John Philoponus took over, by the vertue of his genius, and support by Empress Theodora, at a time Olimpiodorus was still a novice grammarian.

While Dr John McKenna, Philoponus rescuer, wrote, "The argument of The Arbiter was written (553) in response to the Emperor Justinian's call for a resolution to the Christological debates dividing up and weakening his Empire. John Philoponous, as a scientist of some renown in his time and in response to the Emperor, presented his argument to the Church with a dynamically open-ended and truly kinetic grasp of the natures of Christ within the physical nature of a Ptolemaic Cosmos that he understood to be God's Creation. Thus, nature for Philoponus was to be understood through the inherent relations the Creator had created and revealed through Jesus Christ in the world."-- http://www.quodlibet.net/articles/mckenna-arbiter.shtml

Justinian, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, "In 525 he received the title of caesar and, on April 4, 527, was made coemperor with the rank of augustus. At the same time, his wife, the former actress Theodora, who exercised considerable influence over him, was crowned augusta." Justinian regarded himself as the vicar of Christ, and the Eastern Roman Empire knew no such clear-cut distinction between church and state. His famous decree forbade Pagans, heretics, and Samaritans, for instance, to teach any subject whatsoever, and, though fully appreciative of the classical heritage, Justinian expelled pagan teachers from the once-famous Academy at Athens, an action directed against paganism rather than philosophy. 


"John the Grammarian labored at its Academy "purged of pagans by the Emperor Justinian." There he attempted to think together the theological and physical significance of the Word of God in relationship to the world," confirms John Mckenna
"Another theory proposed some time ago by Henri Saffrey is that Alexandria was spared the same fate as Athens (in 529 CE) by the good offices of John Philoponus, who around that time wrote his repudiation of Proclus' 'On the Eternity of the World'. "But then, exclaims Wildberg, why did Philoponus not take further charge of the philo-sophical affairs of the school?"--C. Wildberg, Philosophy in the age of Justinian, p. 334

In the same fine paper, written by Christian Wildberg,  who attests to Justinian's intellectual relation with Philoponus.  He writes, "we can glean, for example, from John Philoponus letters, addressed to the emperor to convince him of the reasonability of Miaphysitism, how much of an abstract and speculative 'tool kit' any two interlocutors who approached such matters had to have at their disposal. It seems that Christianity itself generated a certain pressure and demand for philosophical training, and we may infer that pagan philosophy survived and thrived in part because it rendered vital services to the different Christian community it was embedded in."

Olympiodorus; a deacon, a monk?
"Olympiodorus Of Alexandria, a Greek monk, said also to have been a deacon of a church in Alexandria, is believed to have lived in the first part of the 6th century A.D. He was a Peripatetic in philosophy, and wrote a commentary on the Meteorologica of Aristotle, . . . He is sometimes called the Younger, to distinguish him from the Peripatetic philosopher of the same name who was the master of Proclus, but who is not known to us by any extant work."-- McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia

Competing for the School Dean?
"In his below cited paper; Grigory Benevich wrote that, Edward Watts  believes that Philoponus started to write Contr. Procl. in 525 and it was a part of his competition for chair of the head of the school with Olympiodorus, Ammonius  pagan pupil, p. 244. 

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-2830905967.html
http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3AOlympiodorus%2C&qt=hot_author
https://www.academia.edu/5697678/John_Philoponus_and_Maximus_the_Confessor_at_the_Crossroads_of_Philosophical_and_Theological_Thought_in_Late_Antiquity
https://www.academia.edu/3353874/Philosophy_in_the_Age_of_Justinian_from_Maas_ed._The_Age_of_Justinian_

Prologue: The revived Byzantine Milieu
I encountered Emperor Justinian and Empress Theodora, in the mid 1960's at the Church of San Vitale in Ravenna, Italy, facing opposite one another in the church's apse. Each mosaic (ca. 547 A.D.) depicts the main figure, adorned in  regalia  and surrounded by a retinue of austerely dressed bishop and top general, Belisarius. Empress Theodora is also draped in a royal purple chlamys over an embroidered gunna.

In A.D. 527, the formidable emperor came to Constantinople, the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, known as the Byzantine Empire, Justinian I considered himself a Roman Caesar. Between A.D. 529 and 534, he issued a state constitution for his Roman Empire. His all embracing Code "Corpus Juris Civilis," was based on the Roman law.  His motto says it all: “One empire, one church, one law.”

Systematic Review of historic events
L. MacCoull argues that despite the growth of scholarship on the society of late antique Egypt, studies on Philoponus have until recently continued to be carried on largely within the closed universe of late antique classical philosophy, with little attention paid to the actual social world within which Philoponus lived and worked, and concentrating on philosophical commentaries, to the comparative neglect of his theological identity as a non-Chalcedonian thinker.

The importance of systematic reviews to support evidence-based practice in historical research with sociopolitical environment is stressed. Related concepts and definitions of terms are to be presented. The value of systematic reviews for late antiquity research is a guarantor of reliability. Three key steps are needed to have a systematic review;  identify, retrieve, and critically appraise intervention research.
https://www.academia.edu/2363106/_History_and_Historiography_in_Coptic_Studies

Applying basic tools of meta analysis, we start by reviewing  an experts' statement; "Yet when I approach this different task, I find it hard indeed to have to stammer and retract what I have written before about the lives of Justinian and Theodora. Worse yet, . . .what I am now about to tell will seem neither probable nor plausible to future generations, especially as time flows on and my story becomes ancient history. I fear they may think me a writer of fiction, and even put me among the poets."-- Procopius

To supplement Procopius,  scholarship about the Coptic milieu of people and monuments by Otto Meinardus, great archeologist and historian of Christian Egypt is fundamental. Contemporary work, and numerous papers by  L. MacCoull, J. McKenna, E. Watts, and C. Wildberg are sought including "Philosophy in the Age of Justinian," and "City and School in Late Antique Athens and Alexandria."
____________________________________________________________________________________

"John the Grammarian labored at its Academy, purged of pagans by the Emperor Justinian."--John McKenna

Alexandrian Neoplatonic Academy;
While the Platonic origins of the Athenian school are not evident,  Alexandria has a long tradition of Platonism, started by Philo Judaeus and Clement of Alexandria. Ammonius Saccas, Plotinus' teacher, and the Christian Origen. Hypatia, the only prominent female philosopher of late antiquity, following her father, taught here. Heimonius and his son Ammonius started a definite succession to be traced at Alexandria. Olympiodorus was the last pagan head of the school, after his death it passed into Christian hands under the commentators Elias and David. Its last head, Stephanus, moved to become head of an academy in Constantinople in 610. 

Ironically, the school of Alexandria had also included among its members a number of Christian philosophers, such as Aeneas and Zacharias. S. Gertz  wrote that fifty years before Philoponus, two Gazan philosophers, defended the doctrine of temporal finitism, (duration of the world), and attacked rival Neoplatonist views. Aeneas addresses an argument against Christian resurrection, while Zacharias attacks the Platonist concept of synchronous creation. Zacharias has claimed a leading role in the riot which led  Damascius to flee to Athens.

Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis
In 529, Justinian appointed a ten-man commission chaired by John the Cappadocian to revise Roman law and create a new codification of laws and jurists' extracts, known as the "Corpus Juris Civilis". In 534, the Corpus was updated and, along with the enactments promulgated by Justinian after 534, formed the system of law used for most of the rest of the Byzantine era. The Corpus forms the basis of civil law of many modern states.

In his Corpus, Emperor Justinian promulgated the edict that forbade pagans from teaching non-pagans and from receiving public money or holding public office. This edict is often credited with closing the school of Athens and forbidding pagan teaching philosophy, but what happened is unclear. The Christian historian Aegatia says that Damascius and six other philosophers moved to the Persian Empire in hopes of favorable conditions.

Justinian's edict states, "We wish to widen the law once made by us and by our father of blessed memory against all remaining heresies, so that it ought to apply not only to them but also to Samaritans and pagans. Thus, since they have had such an ill effect, they should have no influence nor enjoy any dignity, nor, acting as teachers of any subjects, . . . ; so we permit only those of the orthodox faith to teach and accept a public stipend."

The School after Ammonius
During his long and influential career, Ammonius formed the minds of most of the philosophers of this closing epoch. Damascius was his disciple, and later on John Philoponus, Asclepius, Simplicius and Olympiodorus. Christians attended his lectures and he always avoided wounding their religious susceptibilities.  John Philoponus, wrote a treatise on the Eternity of the World directed against Proclus, within the first third of the sixth century.

Not only in fact did the Alexandrian school display a considerate sympathy with the Christian beliefs, but it even tended daily more and more in the direction of Christianity. After the death of Ammonius the school's leadership seems to have passed into the hands of Eutocius  the mathematicianand then on to the philosopher Olympiodorus (c. 495-570), who was a pagan and still taught in Alexandria in the year 565. Olympiodorus was also a convert.
https://www3.nd.edu/~maritain/jmc/etext/homp091.htm

C. Wildberg; on Ammonius successors
It is generally assumed that Ammonius passed away (or at least stopped teaching) sometime in the period between 517 and 520. If these dates are correct, we can infer that Olympiodorus was a young man when he came to be one of the last pupils of Ammonius and that he led an active intellectual life into his late sixties, or early seventies of that century.

Accordingly, the dates of Olympiodorus' life should be approximately 500–570, encompassing the entire reign of emperor Justinian the Great (527–565). Since John Philoponus was teaching philosophy actively until the mid-30s (without ever holding the chair of philosophy), it seems likely that Olympiodorus began his teaching career around that time to become the official successor to Ammonius (with 15 years gap).

J. McKenna; J. Philoponus Apologia
The polemical nature of the Grammarian’s theological science and scientific theology was met with more than fierce opposition both within and without the Church. Debates raged throughout Justinian’s Empire, East and West, and John Philoponus found himself in the midst of them. In those times, the relationship between theology and science could indeed pit Athens against Jerusalem, the Philosopher or Scientist against Christian Dogma.
http://www.quodlibet.net/articles/mckenna-philoponus.shtml

Olympiodorus, please stand up!
The conflation of two Olympiodoruses stems from a treatise, variously titled “The Alexandrian Philosopher Olympiodorus on the Book Kat’energeian (On the action or According to the action) by Zosimus and on the Sayings of Hermes and the Philosophers” and “The Philosopher Olympiodorus to Petasius, King of Armenia, on the Divine and Sacred Art of the Philosophical Stone.” The question of the historical identification of this alchemist named Olympiodorus has been discussed at great length.

"Olympiodorus, (the name of several Greek authors); a Neoplatonist philosopher, also of Alexandria, who flourished in the 6th century of our era, during Justinian's reign. He was, therefore, a younger contemporary of Damascius, and seems to have carried on the Platonic tradition after the closing of the Athenian School in 529, at a time when the old pagan philosophy was at its last ebb. His philosophy is in closing conformity with that of Damascius, and, apart from lucidity of expression, shows no striking features." -- 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica

Olympiodorus of Alexandria
Paul Tannery concluded that the person in question was Olympiodorus the Neoplatonic commentator of Aristotle (b. ca. 495-505; d. >565) .
"Neoplatonic philosopher and a student of Ammonius, Olympiodorus taught Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy in Alexandria during the second half of the sixth century. A pagan and a defender of Hellenism, he had as successors Christians such as David (Elias) and Stephanus." -- Encyclopedia.com

Olympiodorus output
"Although Olympiodorus comes across as a very learned man and guardian of traditional paideia, both literary and philosophical, his œuvre compares unfavorably, from a philosophical standpoint, with commentaries written by either Ammonius or Olympiodorus' contemporaries such as Simplicius and John Philoponus."--C. Wildberg

https://www.amazon.com/Secret-History-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140455280
http://legacy.fordham.edu/Halsall/basis/procop-anec.asp
http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/bookchapters/Bountiful_Harvest_Essays_in_Honor_of_S_Kent_Brown/BountifulHarvest-MacCoull.pdf

". . . there must have been an audience for all this philosophical literature, part of this audience was, of course, made up of the students who flocked to places such as Alexandria,. . ." --Christian Wildberg


John Philoponus, a Systematic Review   
"Philoponus was teaching these courses himself, having presumably taken over as lecturer from Ammonius at some point. Nevertheless it seems that he never held the chair of philosophy but remained professor of philology. By the end of 530 Philoponus stopped producing philosophical works and devoted his writing on theological topics. His earlier texts stay close to the pagan philosophical teaching of his teacher Ammonius (c.440-520), whereas the later ones consist in a polemical attitude against Neoplatonist positions, in favor of the Christian dogma.

He wrote two critical treatises;"On the Eternity of the world," against Proclus (529) (a detailed criticism of a work written by Proclus (c.411-485) who was Ammonius teacher- (in which Proclus defended the pagan Greek belief in the eternity of the world). In this work, Philoponus refutes Proclus within the frame work of the Platonist philosophy keeping biblical theology out of his polemic, although he was evidently motivated by his Christian faith.

On the eternity of the world against  Aristotle ( 530-34) involves a close examination of the first chapters of Aristotle’s "On the Heavens" (the Aristotelian theory of ether, an element considered divine, that is, incapable of generation and destruction, of which heavenly bodies are made) and the eighth book on Physics which argues for the eternity of time and motion."
(Abridged from Dr Kakavelaki paper)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eutocius of Ascalon (c. 480 – c. 540) was a Greek-speaking Palestinian mathematic-ian who wrote commentaries on Archimedean treatises and on the Apollonian Conics.
He was born in Ascalon, then moved to Palestina Prima. He wrote commentaries on Apollonius and on Archimedes.

The scholia to the Greek mathematical treatises  (page 139)
School of Alexandria. As we have seen, the “exemplar of the philosopher” was most likely the working copy of an Alexandrian Diadochus,  by implication of someone giving official classes. We are thus left, in order of diadoxia, with Ammonius, Eutocius * 7³, Olympiodorus and Stephanus of Alexandria.

* 73. That Eutocius was the successor of Ammonius is suggested by the fact that, according to Elias, he gave classes on Porphyry’s, in Westerink 1961, within a fragment of a commentary of Elias on Aristotle’s, contained in the composite manuscript Paris. suppl. gr. 678, ff. 131–138 (XIII th century this quire).


The surviving works of Eutocius are; a Commentary on the first four books of the Conics of Apollonius. Commentaries on; the Sphere and Cylinder of Archimedes.
- Quadrature of the Circle of Archimedes.
- Two Books on Equilibrium of Archimedes.
- Historians owe much of their knowledge of Archimedes' solution of a cubic by means of intersecting conics, alluded to in The Sphere and Cylinder, to Eutocius and his commentaries. Eutocius dedicated his commentary on Apollonius' Conics to Anthemius of Tralles, also a mathematician, and architect of the Hagia Sophia patriarchal basilica in Constantinople.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Johannes passionate mathematical philosophy

"Those who passionately love philosophical arguments and have tasted the pleasure that derives from them . . . , are evidently pulled towards these arguments by some kind of madness and in their souls evoke the love for them by the knowledge . . ."--David, Prolegomena

The Drawing Board of Imagination
Federico Commandino (1509–75) can be visualized as the epitome of renaissance of mathematics in 16th-century Italy.  "no attention has been paid to Commandino’s use of the sixth-century commentary on Aristotle’s De Anima by John Philoponus.
In his article, I argue that, in depicting imagination as a mental drawing board for geometrical figures, Commandino directly relies on Philoponus’s concept of mathematical imagination."-- Guy  Claessens

Philoponus on Mathematical Analysis
"Gulley cites both Albinus and Diogenes Laertius to show that the method of geometrical analysis had a close kinship with that of philosophical analysis. Both philosophers trace the origin of the analytic method to Plato's explaining the technique to his student Leodamas. It is not unreasonable to propose that philosophical and geometrical forms of analysis had a reciprocally beneficial influence in this environment.Yet in all of the many references cited (these include Aristotle, Albinous, Laertus, Proclus, Alexander, Ammonius, Themistius, and Philoponus) Gulley can nowhere find“any account of analysis corresponding to Pappus’ account of it as deductive." --Mark A. Faller, The Philosophical Use of Mathematical Analysis

The method of cube duplication
Presented by Hero survives in at least six different versions. . . .Pappus presents a version of Hero’s text in Collection III (HP), while Eutocius includes yet another version. To these we may add one of the three methods given by John Philoponus in his commentary on Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics, Philoponus assigns it to Apollonius. Support for this attribution comes from Eutocius, . . . We may infer from Eutocius and Philoponus that this manner of solution was known through a textual tradition stemming from Apollonius.

Our efforts to understand the fundamental realities
These problems that we face about some real correspondence between theory and experience, the intelligible and the sensible, when we seek to understand the whole and parts in any field of knowledge, is wondrously evident throughout the works of Philoponus. Evidently, the use of terms and concepts associated with nature, their universal and particular properties, their wholes and their parts, are to be variously assessed in diverse fields of knowledge across the centuries of the development of human thought. Our efforts to understand the fundamental realities that belong to the vital correspondence between thought and experience in our relations with nature is in fact at the very heart of the interface of our concerns both then and now.

Prologue,  a Systematic Review
The Problem of Authorship (C. Wildberg)
The title of a recently published manuscript, dated to the 13th or 14th century, containing a Prior Analytics commentary suggests that Elias, who is named as the author of the commentary, once held the political office of prefect in the Byzantine empire, presumably before he became a professor of philosophy. In the Novellae of Justinian a prefect by the name of Elias is in fact mentioned (Novel. CLIII, dated 12 December 541; cf. Westerink 1961). Since the name Elias was rare in secular circles at the time, Westerink (1961) proposes that unless evidence to the contrary emerges, our commentator and the former prefect should be considered identical.

Unfortunately, nothing else is known about a philosopher named Elias; apart from the late manuscripts of the extant commentaries we have no further evidence of the existence of a philosopher by that name. Even worse, a fairly comprehensive Byzantine list of commentators on Porphyry and Aristotle does not know of any philosopher Elias, nor does Photius (9th c. Byzantine scholar) or the Suda (10th c. encyclopedia). A look into the manuscript tradition reveals that the texts now attribut-ed to Elias probably circulated as anonymous manuscripts for a considerable time.

Given that there is nothing explicitly Christian about these works (there are no references to the Bible, but a lot of references to pagan philosophers and literary figures), and given that we find an explicit avowal of doctrines that are quite obviously at variance with Christianity (e.g. that a philosopher must strive to imitate the sun; that the world is eternal), it is possible to take a more skeptical position (cf. Wildberg 1990). The suspicion arises that the original author may not have been Christian at all, but a latter-day pagan who taught Greek philosophy to a Christian audience.

In that case, the attribution of these commentaries to some “Elias” may well have been motivated by later scribes who sought to justify, by giving a monastic name to their author, the copying of what were in fact pagan philosophical texts. Alternatively, if the author was indeed the Christian retired prefect Elias, as Westerink suggests, we are invited to modify our preconceptions about the (im-)possibility of pagan discourse within the Christian culture of the Byzantine empire. In either case, the commentaries testify to the vitality and importance of pagan philosophy and learning in the mid- or late 6th century CE.

". . . there must have been an audience for all this philosophical literature, .  , made up of students who flocked to places such as Alexandria, the most important remaining citadel of learning in Justinian's empire."--Christian Wildberg, Philosophy in the age of Justinian

". . . with John philoponus we come into contact with the milieu of the philosophical school of Alexandria, which in the fifth century was borne by an influential pagan elite. With its academy, Alexandria proved to be an educational center for the whole Orient." --T. Hainthaler


Egypt was depicted as the land of wisdom and ancient learning; the story of Egypt is the story of history itself, of the eternal human effort to live, endure, and understand the mystery of our universe. Christian upper class of late antique Alexandria exerted economic and political pressures to neutralize pagan elements of the traditional educational system, according to Zacharias Rhetor. While Theresia Hainthaler wrote, "already in the fifth century, as well as the fact that it was not until the generation of John Philoponus that Christians could play a role in the Academy of Alexandria. ...,  in Alexandria the school successfully continued to operate even in the time of Islam."

Alexandria was an icon of the greatest Aristotelian achievement, the rearing and instruction of Alexander the Macedonian, into a builder who diffused Hellenism, establishing Alexandria, a great center that could provide for its thriving leadership of the world of antiquity. Convinced that the generals could not maintain the unity of Alexander’s empire, Ptolemy I (Soter: a divine title granted to him by Rhodesians) proposed, after Alexander’s death, in a council at Babylon, that the provinces of the huge empire be divided among the generals. The learned comrade of Alexander became satrap of Egypt. Taking advantage of Egypt's remoteness, and her great civilization, Ptolemy I Soter started to realize Alexandria as Megalopolis; great city.

He started to realize Aristotle's vision, for the core of the city was the Mouseion, a seat of the Muses, Alexandria's greatest center of classical learning for the world. Ptolemy built the Pharos, its glorious lighthouse, where the Hebrew Bible was translated to Koine Greek. Alexandria attracted scholars from all over the old world,  and Philo Judaeus, Greek-speaking Jewish philosopher, adopted Plato. Philo's reverence for Plato's Symposium and the Timaeus, echoed the core of his middle Platonism. Aristotle is credited to his cosmology and ethics. H. Wolfson, revealed Philo’s originality as a thinker. In particular, Philo was the first to show the difference between the knowability of God’s existence and the unknowability of God's essence.

Philosophic Schools of Alexandria
Among the several schools of thought of the early Christian period three depended  on the Mouseion, gteat Library of Alexandria: Egyptian Hermeticism, Gnosticism, and Neoplatonism. When Egyptian speculative thinkers sought to correct Greek philosophy, they ventured to the collective designation for the philosophical and metaphysical doctrines of thought schools, developed by Harmonizing the ideas of Plato and Aristotle. In his mid-twenties, Plotinus gravitated from upper Egypt to Alexandria, his avid desire of philosophy led him to the feet of Amon Saccha (175–242), a self-taught thinker, and the Egyptian harmonizer of Greek philosophy. However, no writings of Ammonius have survived, while Plotinus left Alexandria, to settle in Rome, and founded a Philosophy school there in 244.

Neoplatonic Schools 
Porphyry, Plotinus pupil remained in Rome, made vast use of allegory in expounding Plotinus' rational thought, while attacking Christianity, as main challenger of Hellenic paganism. Iamblichus, who wrote the philosophical basics of Neoplatonic theurgy, returned to Chalcis in Syria to establish a Neoplatonic school. Eminent figures at the school of Athens, Plutarch the younger, and Proclus. Simplicius and Damascius were the only survivors when it was closed in 529.
In Alexandria, the mystical trends of the East, including divination, demonology, and astrology, were grafted on Neoplatonism. The Alexandrian Academy, which hosted earlier lady Hypatia, has adapted to Christian theology, under Peter Mongus, edited by Zacharias Rhetor. The Academy last deans were mostly Christians, surviving to the 7th century under Stephanos, who moved the school to Constantinople.
___________________________________________________________________

Prelogomena; to a Systematic Review of Philoponus career
1. "John the Grammarian labored at its Academy, purged of pagans by the Emperor Justinian."--John McKenna
2. "Philoponus was one of the last holders of the chair of philosophy in Alexandria, succeeding Ammonius the son of Hermias."--Encyclopedia.com
3. "Philoponus was one of the last holders of the chair of philosophy in Alexandria, succeeding Ammonius the son of Hermiae. His Philosophical background was Neoplatonic; but he was a member of the Monophysite sect, . ." -- S. Sambursky, John Philoponus, Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography. 2008.
4. "By the end of 530 Philoponus stopped producing philosophical works and devoted his writing on theological topics. His earlier texts stay close to the pagan philosophical teaching of his teacher Ammonius (c.440-520), whereas the later ones consist in a polemical attitude against Neoplatonic positions, in favor of the Christian dogma."-- Antonia Kakavelaki

Meta review findings
It is Logical that when Ammonius, the pagan dean of the Neoplatonic Academy in Alexandria retired/died, in 517/520, when John Philoponus became  professor of philosophy, by virtue of his achievements, and support of influential Church leaders. His status has been confirmed, in 529, with his attack of Proclus. Olympiodorus was a novice  grammarian, while John may occupied his office as Philosophy chair and Academy Dean.  After the fifth Council of 553, as he contradicted the Council, not persuading the Emperor with his renewed vision, supporting the Alexandrian church orthodoxy.

Conclusion
At Ammonius death, no prominent philosophos was ready, as John Philoponus was still young for the office (27-30 years), so Eutechios, my have become dean, while John has taught philosophy.  Olympiodorus was still a young man, attending in 515 a lecture  on Plato's Gorgias, that year.

"Due to the Imperial edict, One of the last pagans* to teach there was Olympiodorus who was active in the late sixth century." --C. Wildberg

Justinian's Firm Edict
Justinian edict is firm, in support of John Philoponus, "We wish to widen the law once made by us and by our father of blessed memory against remaining heresies, so that it ought to apply not only to them but also to Samaritans and pagans. Thus, since they have had such an ill effect, they should have no influence nor enjoy any dignity, nor, acting as teachers of any subjects, . . . ; so we permit only those who are of the orthodox faith to teach and accept a public stipend."
Geometer Eutocius, a pagan Mathematician, could not qualify for Justinian's edict, and was to briefly fill the vacant dean, while teaching mathematics.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Code-of-Justinian

Dates don't add up?
It is puzzling that some Byzantine records kept changing Olympiodorus birth dates from 505 down to 495, so at Ammonius death in 517, he was not yet 22.  His lifetime was extended to 575, which extends his tenure to 55 years. While he became dean after John Philoponus, his term in office is more reasonable at 22 years (553 - 575)

- Christian Egypt, Faith and Life, Otto F. A. Meinardus, AUC, Cairo, 1970, 513 pages.
- Christian Egypt, ancient and modern, by Otto Meinardus, AUC press, 1977, 708 p.
- Christ in Christian Tradition, Vol. 2, Part 4, The Church of Alexandria, with Nubia after 451, by Aloys Grillmeier, with Theresia Hainthaler, 1990, WJK, 431 pages

John Philoponus in the eyes of Contemporary Copts
https://bishoysblog.com/2012/04/23/john-philoponus-490-580/

Epilogue;
J philoponus was the Imperial Arbitrator, and wrote directly to Justinian. Prominent Philoponus experts, (and Edward Watts nice fable, that contains most of the logical proofs), and L. MacCoulle that J Philoponus, was Dioscorus of Aphrodito and Stephanos professor of philosophy.  After deconstructing the circumstantial events, a reconstruction of the historical facts will show that John was at the hem of the school, and presented the Emperor with the refutation of Proclus, enforcing his revision of Ammonius pagan tenets of Neoplatonic Philosophy, the Egyptian correction of Greek mythical philosophies was thus achieved.!

"From the banks of the Nile to the shores of the Mediterranean, it is in the land of Egypt where medicine probably started. This is the story of a great period in the history of medicine."-- Ismail Serageldin, Ancient Alexandria and the dawn of medical science


"The training of medical students reflects current medical trends and has grave repercussions on the future development of the medical art. This is as true today as it was in Antiquity. There was, however, one period and place at the crossroads of civilisations and cultures in which the educational trends were to have a particularly important influence on how medicine evolved. This was Alexandria in Late Antiquity. Teachers used formal philosophical concepts in order to organize medical knowledge."--Peter Pormann, Medical Education In Late Antiquity. From Alexandria To Montpellier

Amazing ancient Egyptian medical tradition was carried out for millennia, attested by the Edwin Smith and the Ebers papyri, which recorded in great detail the exquisite Egyptian knowledge and medicinal achievements. The Edwin Smith papyrus is the earliest known medical document, written around 1600 BCE, but is thought to be initiated as early as 3000 BCE. It describes anatomical observations and the examination, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of numerous injuries in exquisite detail. It is an astounding ancient textbook on trauma surgery, that even mentions trepanation, boring or making a burr hole. It gives the first descriptions of the cranial sutures, the meninges, the external surface of the brain, the cerebrospinal fluid, and the intracranial pulsations.

Other documents, like the Ebers Papyrus, give details showing an in-depth understanding of how the body works. It defines the heart as the center of the blood supply, with vessels attached for every member of the body. Mental disorders such as depression and dementia are covered, and the descriptions suggest that mental and physical diseases were considered in the same way. The document also has chapters on contraception, diagnosis of pregnancy and other gynecological matters, intestinal disease and parasites, eye and skin problems, and the surgical treatment of abscesses and tumors, bone-setting and burns. Dentistry is covered, and we have evidence of false teeth existing in Egypt ca. 4,000 years ago.


Alexandrian medicine and school
A famous medical school was established in ancient Alexandria during the third century BCE. it was heavily affected by the medical practices of ancient Egypt, but was initially Greek in essence, and followed the Hippocratic teachings, Anatomy was particularly advanced due to the possibility of dissecting the human body. The most important Alexandrian physicians were Herophilus and Erasistratus. Many graduates of this medical school traveled and practiced throughout the Mediterranean. Anatomy was particularly advanced due to the possibility of dissecting the human body. Galen, the famous Roman physician studied in Alexandria before practicing in Rome. The most important Alexandrian physicians were Herophilus and Erasistratus.

Herophilus (335-280 BC), considered the father of anatomy, laid down the scientific bases of medicine. He taught that the brain, not the liver or the heart, was the center of feelings and emotions. He also described and named the duodenum and the prostate, laying down the basics of gynecology and clarified that the menses was not a disease but a biological condition. He measured the pulse, and described the thick membranes (dura mater) that cover the brain, and gave a name to a part of it (torcular herophili). Herophilus described a part of the cerebellum calling it calamus scriptorius, since it looked like a pen. Erasistratus (276-195 BC), is known as the father of physiology, described the nervous system and the epiglottis. He also identified, described and named the tricuspid valve of the heart. (Jimmy Dunn)

Many graduates of this great medical school practiced throughout the Mediterranean. Galen, the famous physician, practicing in Rome, studied medicine in Alexandria. The medical school of Alexandria was still active until late in the seventh century CE. within the fameous Neoplatonic school, which survived the Arab conquest. Unfortunately, almost no work of Alexandrian medicine survived intact; thus the production of the Alexandrian doctors is largely lost in the gap between two great bodies of ancient medical writings: the Hippocratic Corpus and the writings of the Imperial period, particularly those of Galen. But Alexandria was the bridge between these two worlds, and Galen, was the last of the great medical specialists to have drunk from the Pierian Spring of Alexandria.

The best of that school's writings would be incorporated into his work, and it was his work that would represent the summation of the medicine of antiquity. Unfortunately, almost no work of Alexandrian medicine survived intact; thus the production of the Alexandrian doctors is largely lost in the gap between two great bodies of ancient medical writings: the Hippocratic Corpus and the writings of the Imperial period, particularly those of Galen. But Alexandria was the bridge between these two worlds, and Galen, was the last of the great medical specialists to have drunk from the Pierian Spring of Alexandria. The best of that school's writings would be incorporated into his work, and it was his work that would represent the summation of the medicine of antiquity.

The Auditoria on Kom el-Dikka: Late Antique Education in Alexandria, by Grzegorz Majcherek, published in 2010, is briefly summarized, after my recent visit of the site; The flourishing of rhetoric, as well as philosophical and medical studies in Alexandria of the 5th through the 7th century is well evidenced foremost in abundant historical sources. It has recently received unexpected archaeological confirmation.[1] The discovery of a large complex of auditoria on the Kom el-Dikka site,[2] in the very center of the ancient town, calls for a new look at the functioning of educational institutions in Alexandria and perhaps in the entire Late Antique world as well. The existence and activity of Late Antique institutions of higher education is recorded well enough in the historical sources; looking for direct comparanda with Alexandrian auditoria will almost certainly draw a blank.

The identification of school buildings or lecture halls in archaeological context is further hindered by their functional resemblance to other buildings used for varied assemblies, as much as by the variety of terms used to designate them. The most common terms are didaskaleion but akademia and mouseion occur with same frequency. The terminology is not always explicit and there are no set criteria for identifying a structure as a school building. Of particular significance for the interpretation of the Alexandrian (Kom elDikka)complex . . . Taking into consideration the scale of our complex as a whole and its location in urban space, we are entitled to assume that it was a municipal establishment that ensured in principle education in all the fundamental fields of ancient paideia, that is, rhetoric, law, philosophy and above all medicine. In the last one especially, Alexandria's position remained ever unchallenged.

This brief essay is presented to my dear friend prof. Dr. Ramzy Labib, Johns Hopkins University's medical School, for his unparalleled scholarship and unmatched support giving a vivid model of meek and sincere discipleship. 

http://www.crystalinks.com/egyptmedicine.html
http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3991212
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51115588_Teaching_surgery_in_late_Byzantine_Alexandria
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3APEbers_c41-bc.jpg.

Nota Bene
[All comments on this tentative article are welcomed]

“To the hard of hearing you shout, and for the almost-blind you have to draw large and startling figures.”-- Flannery O’Connor

Neuhaus' Kierkegaard
Fr Neuhaus praised Kierkegaard’s profound Christian faith and commitment to the renewal of the Church,  underpinning his repeated statements in 'Training', that renewal calls for "introducing Christianity to Christendom." Soren K. was recognized as an intellectual existentialist, when the most celebrated one was a French atheists J. P. Sartre. I still remember that in post WWII, Sartre was not welcomed for his liberal style of marriage. Meanwhile, Neuhaus is known for his blunt, piercing articles on the Church sexual abuse crisis.   

Late Fr Richard Neuhaus, "can only guess what Soren Kierkegaard would make of professors who lecture on his contempt for professors and lecturing, or of admirers who have made him, of all things he unremittingly despised, popular. Apart from the stolid academics and enthusiastic fans, reading Kierkegaard is for many people an 'experience', preferably to be indulged early in life before moving on to the ambiguities and compromises of adulthood that we resign ourselves to believing is the real world."  

This had been the traditional religious trend regarding Origen, Athanasius, Cyril, and John Philoponus, all of the learned insightful acclaimed a Contradictory position; Origen Contra Celcum, Athanasius Contra Mundum, Cyril Contra Nestorians, and Philoponus Contra Proclus. Recently, the Copts, Christian Egyptians Contra ISIL/ ISIS, and the Brotherhood of hate that sprang after the Arab Springless Winter. On the fall of their short lived autocratic rule in Egypt, rabid haters burned and destructed 88 Churches in upper Egypt and elsewhere.
Athanasius contra mundum,  An old Latin phrase, literally translated as "Athanasius against the world."

The Urban Dictionary states, "Athanasius of Alexandria was a Christian Bishop (of Alexandria) in the 4th Century who defended Christianity.  The 20th Pope of Alexandria, who is considered one of the doctors of the early Christian Church. He was called "Athanasius against the world" because he successfully and repeatedly defended church dogma against the Arian heresy, which at times would become very popular. A top sub-post adds, "often supposed as using techniques compared to the modern mafia, against the 'threat' of Arianism."

The True Word," was Celsus philosophical work, an anti-Christian attack entitled (Alethes logos). This work was lost, but we have Origen's account of it in his writings. It was during the reign of Philip the Arab that Origen received this work for rebuttal. Origen has been the most influential Greek speaking theologian of the 3rd century. Origen’s greatest vindication of Christianity against pagan attack, Contra Celsum, written (probably in 248) at Ambrose’s request, survives in its entirety in one Vatican manuscript, with fragments in the Philocalia and on papyri. 

Paragraph by paragraph it answers the Alethes logos, “The True Doctrine” of the 2nd century. His polemic against the Stoics is found in the treatise Contra Celsum, by in which he argued at some length against Stoic doctrines linking God to matter. The majority of Origen's explicit references to Plato are to be found in his work Against Celsus, a reply to a dead polemicist who is nowadays characterized as a middle Platonist, though Origen hints that he may have been an Epicurean (Against Celsus 1.8; see further Bergjan 2001). 

Origen undertakes to show that the simplest disciple of God's word knows him better than the philosophers who seek him by their own methods (Against Celsus 7.42), that Plato misrepresents the fall and diminishes the Creator, that if his myths are deep, the biblical allegories are deeper and less perverse, and that Numenius, the foremost Platonist of recent times, has spoken of both Moses and Jesus with esteem (Against Celsus 4.15 etc.). 

Philoponus 
John Philoponus  earliest appearance as an author was in his περὶ αϘδιότητος, a reply to Proclus Diadochus, one of the most interesting of all post-Aristotelian Greek philosophical texts, written at a crucial moment in the defeat of paganism by Christianity, AD 529, when the Emperor Justinian closed the pagan Neoplatonist school in Athens. Philoponus in Alexandria was a brilliant Christian philosopher, steeped in Neoplatonism, who turned the pagans' ideas against them. 

Here John attacks the most devout of the earlier Athenian pagan philosophers, Proclus, master of his own teacher, Ammonius, defending the distinctively Christian view that the universe had a beginning against Proclus' eighteen arguments to the contrary, It shows great dialectic ability and learning, the quotations in it covering the whole range of the literature of his own and previous times (652–654), and is said to have been a complete refutation of the great neo-Platonist and to have convicted him of gross ignorance (s. v. Πρόκλος). 

Philoponus Contra Proclus
This is one of the most interesting of all post-Aristotelian Greek philosophical texts, written at a crucial moment in the defeat of paganism by Christianity, when Justinian closed the pagan Neoplatonist school in Athens. Philoponus, a Christian has turned the pagans' ideas against them. The brilliant Copt, in his philosophical Opus Magnus, attacks Proclus, the most devout earlier Athenian pagan philosophers, defending the distinctive Christian view that the universe had a beginning against Proclus' eighteen arguments to the contrary, which are discussed in eighteen chapters. 

The different approaches to Theosis from Origen to Soloviev
By Theognostus, Vine Voice, October 2007

"I have ventured to say this out of my fatherly love for you. ... May you too be a partaker and ever increase the participation, there you may say not only, 'We have become partakers of Christ'(Heb 3:14), but also, 'We have become partakers of God'."-- Origen to, Gregory Thaumaturge, The Philokalia.

Christian Doctrine of Deification 
A well diversified collection, of importance to explorers of the Church doctrine. There are some which provoke contemplative thought and most promote further research, given the abundance of bibliography within the introduction. A reader friendly for new comers to the Alexandrian doctrine, a fact which is made clear by Norman Russell but was evidently unclear in the introduction and the mind of some of the essay writers, as advocates of the Alexandrian teaching and a promoter of Coptic mystical tradition.

No Theosis without Kenosis
"I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger from Satan to torment me and keep me from getting proud. ... I begged the Lord to take it away. Each time he said, 'My gracious favor is all you need. My power works best in your weakness.' So now I am glad to boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may work through me."--II Cor 12
"I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me." Galatians 2:20

Theosis, a Mystical union
"Albert Schweitzer devoted his Mysticism of Paul the Apostle explaining this mystical union with Christ, but on the whole Protestants have remained attached to justification by faith. More recently, E. P. Sanders and others have also raised the issue of the importance of participation in Paul's theology, but Sanders also humbly mentions that he and others really don't know what that means. It is the deeper meaning of Paul's participation statements that is our interest and not that of thinly veiled restatements of Paul's language. As such, I agree with Sanders' argument that Paul's letters speak of a reality that is not fully captured in categories or explanations given by scholars to date." Ben Blackwell, The union of believers with Christ in Paul

B. Maximus following Cyril
The quotation from 2 Peter was altogether more problematical. It was first used by Origen (thrice), then by Athanasius (six times), and subsequently by Cyril (more than forty times). It appears in the Macarian Homilies (ten times), but not in the Cappadocians and is not used again until Maximus the Confessor (twice). Thereafter it turns up very infrequently in Byzantine writers. Symeon the New Theologian appeals to it only once, so far as I am aware. Theophylact of Bulgaria passes over it rapidly in his commentary on 2 Peter. It re-emerges in the Palamite dispute when Akindynos uses 'partakers of the divine nature' to oppose the existence of the energies, forcing Palamas to give a detailed exegesis of the text. Why did this expression, 'partakers of the divine nature', present such difficulty? Why was it popular with Cyril but not with Maximus? Why was it practically ignored by the Byzantines in spite of the fact that the doctrine of deification was accepted without question? These are the problems to which we shall attempt to find solutions." Norman Russell, "Partakers of the Divine Nature" in the Byzantine Tradition

C. Origen on Divinization
Joseph Trigg wrote, "In his discussion of the inadequacy of human language, Origen addresses topics that were elaborated in the following century by the Cappadocians..." on Origen's commentary on John, illustrates Origen's interest in Christ's divine and human natures and multiple aspects as they relate to human transformation through participation in Christ." Trigg writes quoting (Book 32.339), "The mind that has been purified and has surpassed all material things, so as to be certain of the contemplation of God is divinized by those things that it contemplates.

Origen conceived salvation as a dynamic process of 'transformation into the image of God,' which eventually takes the believer into a gradual participation in God's own nature, given his human free will is in tact, amidst this transformation which necessitates God's grace, wherein human thought and will cooperate with the Spirit of God to partake of His nature.
________________________________________________________________
 
A Masterpiece of what Historical Exposition of Christian Doctrine should be
By Didaskalex, Vine Voice, June , 2007

"I say, “You are gods, children of the Most High, all of you;
nevertheless, you shall die like mortals, and fall like any prince.” "; Ps 82: 6,7

"Those who partake of the divine nature do so through the promises of Christ who is God. Although the expression is different from Paul's, the content is not: participation in Christ wins incorruption and immortality." -- N. Russell

Deification in Essence
Among the Eastern Church Fathers deification is expressed as filial adoption through baptism, and it is iterated that Abba Kyrillos VI (Coptic Patriarch, 1959 -71) identified 'the light of baptism,' spotting any non baptized who reported for Eucharistic communion! His mystical company of the Desert Fathers taught that attaining likeness to God comes through knowing God and kenosis (self emptying).

Catholic Mystics describe it as the ascent of the soul to God, the participation of the soul in the divine attributes of immortality the transformation of human nature by divine grace. Although the first mention of deification as a concept was in Irenaeus' infamous exchange formula (God became man that man might become god), it was in Alexandria that the doctrine of deification was fully elaborated and extensively utilized in the defense of its Orthodoxy.

Since J. Gross wrote his most comprehensive study of deification, in 1938, the discussions of deification often suffer from insufficient historical context and from an obscurity about what deification precisely means and what process does it involve. This attitude has been recently amended by the outstanding Patristic scholar who wrote books about the Desert Fathers, Theophilus and Cyril.

Deification, Divinization, and Theosis
Why did the terms, Deification, Divinization, and Theosis, based on the biblical expression 'partakers of the divine nature' present such difficulty, for most Protestants and Catholics? Why is the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of Theosis presently engaging the Coptic Orthodox Church, theologians and Clergy in a hot debate? Even when this Church, whose Alexandrine fathers Origen, Athanasius* and Cyril** respectively have initiated, developed and utilized it to defend Orthodoxy against heresies starting with Arianism, all the way to Nestorianism?

While Athanasius declares, "The Word became flesh in order, both, to offer this sacrifice and that we, participating in His Spirit, might be deified," Cyril made it the over-riding motif of his Christological defense against the Diophysites. The Alexandrian Church doctrine that by the incarnation, human nature is deified and become participant in the divine nature was Cyril's favorite theme, that he iterated over forty times. Why was Divinization avoided by Apophatic mystics and Diophysite Theologians?

Russell compellingly distinguishes two of the Divinization opponents, "two kinds of writers: those who distinguished in an apophatic way between the essence of God and his operations or energies, and those who employed a Logos-anthropos Christology, which did not depend upon the concept of participation. It is noteworthy that writers of the Antiochene school do not quote '2 Peter 1:4'." Conversely, adds Russell, "the text was used by those who operated with a Logos-sarx Christology (Alexandrine Fathers) and with a doctrine (deriving ultimately from Origen) of a dynamic participation in God.
----> Pl. continue reading in File 1

What about Soloviev?
"Russian thinkers (Vladimir Soloviev and Sergei Bulgakov) employed theosis to formulate a distinctively Christian, Church-centered response to contemporary political challenges; ho Vladimir Soloviev and Sergei Bulgakov. ever, motivated by a commitment to defending the freedom and dignity of the individual person in the context of late-imperial Russia, their reading of theosis “liberalized” traditional Orthodox political theology in ways that run contrary to the anti-liberal direction of Milbank’s political theology. Against Milbank, this dissertation argues that Soloviev and Bulgakov, point towards a more viable Christian “politics of theosis” that is broadly compatible with liberal democracy. Both Milbank and the Russians elevate ecclesial communion, conceptualized here in terms of the Russian doctrine of sobornost’, as the social ideal towards which Christian politics must strive."--Nathaniel Wood

"The daring of his genius must not blind us to the drives of his piety. The shortcomings of his doctrine-inevitable in a thinker of the third century who was the very first to build a theology-must not make us mistake the pure quality of his faith."-- H. De Lubac

"The history of Dogmatics does not go back to the time of the Apostles, but only to the beginning of the third century, when Origen wrote his Peri Archon." Louis Berkhoff


Origen's Creative Thought
Origen, "The greatest teacher of the Church after the apostles." Jerome, quoting Didymus the Blind, took the expression of Christian essence and thought to a higher level, finding in its message a key to the sanctification of the intellect (noia), a status that all souls existed in their initial form prior to their fall. Origen believed in the restoration of all souls to their initial intellectual existence. His basic systematic theology, expressed in Christian Neo-platonic philosophy, was based upon such a faith. A Christian Platonic Socrates, he brought a new conception into Christian philosophy, of the creative dynamic move of the soul, a culmination of which comes salvation, an 'eternal delving' into the deep mysteries of the loving God.

Origen was a genuine theologian ahead of his era; a speculative thinker, when for Christians faith was not a matter of intellectual exploration. Origen drew upon Neoplatonic philosophy in an effort to elucidate the Christian faith in a manner conceivable to the Greek minded intellectuals, and he succeeded in converting many pagan students of philosophy to Christian faith. Origen was a great humanist, who believed that all creatures will eventually be granted salvation, including Satan, the devil himself. Origen exposed and criticized the Gnostic dualism, and his theology surpassed the primitive expressions of the Christian faith, still being expressed in our present day.

Origen's Systematic Theology
Origen is unique among Platonists and the Christian Neo-Platonists of Alexandria, for introducing history, within his speculations on the metaphysical cosmology. He was a pioneer in his insistence on the free will of souls, denying the esoteric fatalism that found its way into the teachings of most philosophical systems and mystery religions of his day. His numerous biblical commentaries and sermons, and his enormous project on textual criticism (the Hexapla) cannot overshadow his importance to the establishment of theology as the Christian philosophy, resting mainly on two of his works, a systematic treatise, 'On First Principles,' and 'Contra Celsus', his defense of Christianity, in response to the attacks of the pagan philosopher.

But, On First Principles, is Origen's major systematic and philosophical work of all his numerous writings. In this work, Origen established his main doctrines, including that of the Holy Trinity, the preexistence and fall of souls, transmigration of souls, and the eventual restoration of them all, in proximity to the godhead, in a state of dynamic perfection (Theosis).

Louis Berkhoff wrote defining the History of Dogmatics, "origen was the first to construct something like a system of theology. his work was written about the year 218 AD. in it he attempts to transform the doctrine of the Church into a speculative science, acceptable to the cultural and philosophical classes of his day. His great ambition was to develop the contents of faith into a science that did not rest on its own inherent rational evidence. In this way he desired to raise pistis to the level of gnosis."

On First Principles
Origen was probably not more than thirty, when he wrote De principiis (On First Principles), perhaps his greatest work in systematic theology, to express Christian faith in Neoplatonic terms, Saccha's Christianized philosophy of Alexandria. Most of 'De principiis' is expressed in an orthodox Christian universal thought, and there is no evidence that he ever modified in any respect. The first book of De Principiis deals with God and creation; the second and third with Creation and Providence, with Man and Redemption; and the fourth with Holy Scripture.

Written for scholars, Origen affirms one God, creator and ruler of the universe, Jesus Christ begotten before all creation, divine in His incarnation, and the Holy Spirit in the glory of the Father. He expressed that humans depend in their existence on the Father, their rational nature from the Son, and their holiness from the Holy Spirit. In spite of his guiding principle; 'Nothing which is at variance with the tradition of the apostles and of the church is to be accepted as true,' Origen's genius speculative flights lead some early church leaders to question his orthodoxy.

Fall and Redemption
Origen concluded that there were two creations, as narrated in the two accounts in Genesis. The first creation was of spirits without bodies, possessing free will, but some strayed away from the purpose of their creation, doxology for the Lord, and fell. The second creation, of the material universe, thus followed. The souls who fell most remotely became demons, the others were made human. The reason we possess human bodies, and experience suffering is our sin during preexistence. Origen claims this notion is supported by the Bible, while it is influenced by Neo-Platonic philosophy.

Universalism presents Origen's other controversial issue of De Principiis; he deducted that since God is Love, everyone, even Satan, will be ultimately saved, and the entire creation will return to its original state of pure spirituality. Scholars confirm, "Origen denies metempsychosis and explicitly affirms the uniqueness of Christ's sacrifice, and, although the salvation of the devil must be left open as a possibility in a system emphasizing the divine pedagogy and human freedom of will to the degree that Origen's does, there are passages in which he rules it out."-- John C. Cavadini of Notre Dame, Encyclopedia of Catholicism

Origen clearly believed that all rational souls were able to be saved (Contra Cels.) and has described how, “For the destruction of the last enemy must be understood in this way, not that its substance which was made by God shall perish, but that the hostile purpose and will which proceeded, not from God but from itself, will come to an end. It will be destroyed, not in the sense of ceasing to exist, but of being no longer an enemy and no longer death. For to the Almighty nothing is impossible, nor is anything beyond the reach of cure by its maker.” --Origen, Peri Archon 3.6.5

Koetschau's Reconstruction
Rowan Greer, in 'Origen: An exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer, etc.' was more explicit, for more than ten times repeating, "there follows koetschau's conjectural attempt to fill a lacuna of 'x' lines in the manuscript."

Koetschau's work to recover the original, of De Principiis is a great work, of few peers in philosophy or Patristic literature. His edition of Origen's lost Greek original writings, is a reconstruction from fragments from Greek and Latin quotations. Koetschau reconstruction although helpful for text continuity had necessarily to fill lots of gaps, based on his best guess. Butterworth, complex statements trying to be precise may have caused confusion. He comments on a Koetschau's reconstruction as, "a composite passage from Gregory of Nyssa," or, "...Koetschau's arguments for including it in the text of Origen are given in his introduction.

Fate of Origenism
Origen's ideas, most notably those in the treatise; On First Principles, gave rise to a doctrine movement in the Christian Church, known as Origenism. From the third through the sixth centuries this movement was quite influential, especially among the learned and mystical monastics. It was given an articulate form, by Evagrius Ponticus, in the fourth century. Origen's spirit of philosophical inquiry was mostly absent from the movement bearing his name, but a far more creative use of Origen's concepts and themes was made by Gregory of Nyssa.

Gregory adopted Origen's doctrine of apokatastasis or 'restoration of all things,' articulating more clearly the notion that redeemed souls will remain in a state of 'dynamic intellectual activity.' In the seventh century, the last great Christian Neoplatonist: Maximus the Confessor, made a revised edition of Origen's doctrines, acceptable to the theological climate of his age. Maximus stressed a more personal struggle to attain the divine vision, through asceticism and prayer, replacing the ego by divine presence, the result being a total partaking of the nature of God.

In Origen's Defense
Origen's defenders, some of the most outstanding theologians, from Gregory of Nyssa and Rufinas in late antiquity to Bishop K. Ware who declared in 'The Inner Kingdom, "Origen's apocatastatis is not simply a deduction from some abstract system, it is a hope." The eminent Catholic theologian Hans Urs Von Balthasar defended Origen's salvation for all in his book, 'Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved?'

He dares to believe that the love of God will soften the heart of the most heinous of committed sinners. Existentialist Nicolai Berdyaev, echoed Origen's humanism, many centuries after. Berdyaev, a Russian Orthodox theologian, admits Origen's influence on his thought and insists that the doctrine of hell and the eternal suffering of sinners is not compatible with authentic Christianity.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/early-church-fathers/ante-nicene/vol-4-third-century/origen/origen-de-principiis.html

"The doctrine of the Trinity resolves the pious dilemma of any reader, Jew or Christian, who discovers that the same events are indifferently described in the oldest scriptures as angelic visitations or as epiphanies of ‘the Lord’ "--German Schultze, Origen against Plato


Prologue
Origen of Alexandria, one of the greatest Christian theologians,  is famous for composing the seminal work of Christian Neoplatonism, his treatise On First Principles. Origen lived through a turbulent period of the Christian Church, when persecution was wide-spread and little or no doctrinal consensus existed among the various regional churches. In this environment, Gnosticism flourished, and Origen was the first truly philosophical thinker to turn his hand not only to a refutation of Gnosticism, but to offer an alternative Christian system that was more rigorous and philosophically respectable than the mythological speculations of the various Gnostic sects.

Origen was also an astute critic of the pagan philosophy of his era, yet he also learned much from it, and adapted its most useful and edifying teachings to a grand elucidation of the Christian faith. Porphyry (the illustrious student of Plotinus), though a tenacious adversary of Christianity, nevertheless grudgingly admitted Origen's mastery of the Greek philosophical tradition. Although Origen did go on to compose numerous biblical commentaries and sermons, his importance for the history of philosophy rests mainly on two works, the systematic treatise On First Principles, and his response to the pagan philosopher Celsus' attack on Christianity, the treatise Against Celsus.

On First Principles, is the most systematic and philosophical of Origen's numerous writings, establishing his main doctrines, including that of the Holy Trinity (based upon Middle Platonic triadic emanation frame); the pre-existence and fall of souls; multiple ages and transmigration of souls; and the eventual restoration of all souls to a state of dynamic perfection in proximity to the godhead. He is unique among Platonists of his era for introducing history into his cosmological and metaphysical speculations, and his insistence on the absolute freedom of each and every soul, thereby denying the fatalism that so often found its way into the more esoteric teachings of the various philosophical and mystery schools of his day. [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Origen defended by Epiphanius!
It is clear that the expedient (to join the martyrs) was successful, yet no such fear of custom intervened when Origen read at Matthew 19.12 that ‘some have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’; the story of his castration has rendered him infamous in circles otherwise ignorant of theology, and we may note, as a striking instance of the vagaries of tradition, that Origen’s friend Eusebius feels compelled to lend his authority to this anecdote, while his enemy Epiphanius concedes that it may be false. The credit of all our witnesses could possibly be saved by the conjecture that Eusebius has mistaken circumcision for castration.

The tone of legislation against conversion to Judaism in the third century shows that this was a common error among the Gentiles, though it was not one to be made by the Palestinian Epiphanius in the fourth century, a time of fierce contention between the synagogue and the Church. No city of the Mediterranean world played host to such a large population of Jews as Alexandria in the time of Origen, and in his earliest works we meet allusions to a ‘Hebrew’ who instructed him in Biblical criticism. Notwithstanding his ancestry, this man confessed both Christ and the Holy Spirit,

and he must clearly be credited with no mean part in the formation of a pupil, who went on to become the first Christian to enjoy a reputation for Hebrew scholarship or to undertake a continuous exposition of the Old Testament. The influence of this teacher will be slighted only by scholars who continue to embrace a crude dichotomy between Hebraism and Hellenism – one that must now be entertained in the teeth of modern findings in philology, archaeology and comparative mythology, all of which conspire to prove that the Greek and the Jew have never been such strangers as we were once taught to imagine. [Origen against Pato]

Origen's Intellectual Heritage
Origen's debt to Holy Scripture is obvious; he quotes the bible at great length, often drawing together seemingly disparate passages to make a profound theological point. Yet his thought is all the while informed by his Greek philosophical education, specifically that of the Middle Platonic tradition, notably the works of the Jewish Platonist Philo of Alexandria and the Neo-pythagorean philosopher Numenius of Apamea (fl. 150-176 C.E.). Origen shares with Philo an insistence on the free will of the person, a freedom that is direct evidence of humanity's likeness to God - for, like God's Being, human existence is free from all necessity.

From Numenius, Origen likely adopted the conception of a "second god" proceeding from a first, ineffable being called the One, "First God," or Father. Numenius referred to this "second god" as Demiurge or craftsman, and taught that he created the cosmos by imitating the intellectual content of the "First God." Origen applied this basic notion to his doctrine of Christ, whom he also called Demiurge (Commentary on John 1.22).  Another extremely important part of Origen's intellectual heritage is the concept of apokatastasis or "restoration of all things." This term first appears, as a philosophical concept, in the writings of the Stoics. [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Allegations against Origen
In his lifetime he was often attacked, suspected of adulterating the Gospel with pagan philosophy. After his death, opposition steadily mounted, respectful in the Greek Christian Methodius of Olympus’ criticism of his spiritualizing doctrine of the Resurrection (c. 300), offensive in Epiphanius’ (375), a refuter of Christian heresies, violent in Jerome’s anti-Origenist quarrel with Rufinus (c. 393–402). Origen had his defenders, especially in the East (Eusebius of Caesarea; Didymus the Blind, the head of Catechetical School of Alexandria; Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, to some degree; and especially the Cappadocian Fathers.

The chief accusations against Origen’s teaching are the following: making the Son inferior to the Father and thus being a precursor of Arianism, a 4th-century heresy that denied that the Father and the Son were of the same substance; spiritualizing away the resurrection of the body; denying hell, a morally enervating universalism; speculating about preexistent souls and world cycles; and dissolving redemptive history into timeless myth by using allegorical interpretation. None of these charges is altogether groundless. At the same time there is much reason to justify Jerome’s first judgment that Origen was the greatest teacher of the early church after the Apostles. [Henry Chadwick, Encyclopaedia Britannica]


Origen's Christian Doctrines
Origen speaks not only for the Platonists but for all the Greek apologists of the church: the prevalent thought of his time (and perhaps of ours) required that if God is to be invisible, immutable, eternal, omnipresent, and irresistible in power he must not be confined to one place or composed of labile matter. The philosophical sympathies of Origen become evident when he goes on to equate this bodiless god with nous or intellect. In Plato, nous had been an occasional synonym for the Demiurge, while Numenius of Apamea, half a century before Origen, had subordinated the Demiurge, as a second nous, to the “first nous”, which is Plato's form of the Good. . . . (Doctrine of God)

It is clear at least that Origen's God creates the world from nothing and without toil or opposition (Princ.2.1.5). Because he asserts that such a world will inevitably be finite, as God himself cannot comprehend the infinite, Origen was later accused of slighting the omnipotence of the Creator. His meaning, however, is not that there are limits to the power of God, but that any particular exercise of it must logically have some limit. The infinite is by nature incomprehensible; hence it is no shortcoming in God that he cannot comprehend it, and he remains omnipotent in the sense that there is no finite enterprise that lies beyond his power.

To distinguish only two senses of scripture is to forget that Christ, the true Word, became incarnate in a threefold human nature. At First Principles 4.2.4, Origen asserts that the body, the soul and the spirit in the human reader find their respective analogues in the text of scripture. The body is the plain text, whether narrative or didactic, construed according to common grammatical or semantic norms. The spirit, which must generally be sought beneath the surface, acquaints us with the work of Christ and the mysteries of faith, and thus corresponds to the typological sense in mediaeval and modern exegesis.

Nevertheless, no Greek philosopher possessed for him the authority that he accorded to the scriptures; Plato was only the most prominent of the dead pagans who assisted him in the exegesis and harmonisation of this infallible text. The work in which Origen makes most frequent reference to Plato, his reply to Celsus is also the one in which he asserts that Christ takes flesh in the written word, disclosing mysteries that no human intellect has fathomed without revelation (Cels. 4.15), He was never troubled by a conflict between ecclesiastical dogma and the best thought of the ancients, because the Word who taught the ancients from afar is, for him, the daily shepherd of the Church.[ Mark J. Edwards, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

http://www.iep.utm.edu/origen-of-alexandria/
http://www.britannica.com/biography/Origen
https://www.scribd.com/doc/295684981/Origen-Against-Plato
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/origen/

"The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is two fold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed."-- Clement of Alexandria

"If the lamb is Christ and Christ is the Logos, what is the flesh of the divine words if not the divine Scriptures?" -- Origenes Adamantius, Treatise on the Passover



Clement of Alexandria added, ". . . , to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word."

Has language limited our capacity of thought? Language enlightens, it also enshrouds. If it clarifies, it also obscures. It is a tool of illusion as much as it is an agent of realization. If we have a heavily dichotomous language, we are more likely to fall prey to contradictory thinking, a type of cognitive distortion. That echoes something I don't have a word for, unless of course the count that we don't have a continuous stream of thoughts running through our minds. But, unless Origen experienced those thoughts too, of course, might they even expand our capacity for contemplation in the sense of his meant message.

The main body of Origen's work was made up of commentaries and homilies on books of the Bible, all of which generally expounded the biblical texts line by line. It was the exposition of the Scriptures that was, as one scholar put it, "the centre of his life." For Origen, every jot and tittle was important, since each word was the very word of God. In this sense, Origen had a very high view of Scripture. The Bible was indeed inspired, and, as Henri Crouzel pointed out, Origen thought of it as being rather like a dictation from the Holy Spirit. The Bible, comments Patrick Gray, "Could not be treated like any other human book."

There was nothing useless in Scripture, since the Holy Spirit, as the author of the Bible, would not give us anything useless. Therefore, everything in Scripture had meaning. The Scriptures, inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit, bring us to Christ, the very Word of God. In summary, then, we quote the Origen scholar Karen Torjesen: "Origen’s doctrine of Scripture would read as follows: Scripture is nothing other than the teachings of Christ; the divinity of Scripture is nothing other than the divine power and effectiveness of these teachings. The inspiration of Scripture is nothing other than the divine origin of these teachings."

We must surely refer to the teaching of Jesus; a deep mystic experience of God that spoke about it, lived it, in terms of the Kingdom of God. It meant for Jesus "the saving power of God made manifest in human history." Salvation was a matter of the community to which Jews belonged. To appreciate this communal aspect of salvation is almost impossible except in terms of global community. Any attempt to interpret Jesus’ teaching is destined to be a matter of personal perspective. Ancient or contemporary, mystical or scientific, every depiction of Jesus reveals convictions of some kind.

J.N.D. Kelly wrote that the Alexandrian theologians who followed Origen, from Dionysius to Cyril, were all to a greater or lesser extent influenced by their predilection for allegory;  the same can be said of Palestinian and Cappadocian fathers. Through their influence, the tradition of allegory passed down to the West, and is visible in the expository writings, of Hilary and Ambrose, as example. The greatest of Latin exegetes is Jerome, though in his later days he became suspicious of allegorism.

Indeed, Origen stressed the three senses of Scripture, deeming that recourse to the spiritual meaning was made necessary by the anthropo-morphisms, inconsistencies and incongruities which abound in the Bible. St. Augustine too employed allegory with the greatest freedom, delighting particularly in the mystical significance of names and numbers. As our salvation priority, with Origen's talents and persistence, we sit in humble silence, waiting on God to hear his teachings. Each word we hear, believe, and obey, imparts the Christ life into our hearts. With thoughtful endurance, Christ is then felt, bringing salvation and eternal life.

The Treatise on the Passover dates from around 245. Its central insight is that the passover is not a figure or type of the passion of Christ, but a figure of Christ himself, of Christ's passing over to the Father. The Dialogue with Heraclides probably comes from between the years 244 and 249. It seems to be the record of a synod-like meeting of bishops, in the presence of lay people, called to discuss matters of belief and worship. Both pieces seem to come from the last decade of Origen s activity, when he was at the height of his intellectual and exegetical powers.

Origen meditated, "Should, therefore, some cling just to the words themselves, they would eat the flesh of the Savior raw, and in partaking of this raw flesh would merit death and not life, since the Apostle teaches us that the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life (2 Cor.3.6). If the Spirit is given us from God and God is a devouring fire (Deut.4.24; Heb.12.29), the Spirit is also fire, which is what the Apostle is aware of in exhorting us to be aglow with the Spirit (Rom.12.11). Therefore the Holy Spirit is rightly called fire, which it is necessary for us to receive in order to have converse with the flesh of Christ, I mean the divine Scriptures?"

Their Eyes Were Opened by the Eucharist, by Marcelo Suza
"So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He acted as if he were going farther, but they urged him strongly, saying, “Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent.” So he went in to stay with them. When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them."And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves. For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.

”And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. (Luke 22:17-20)
Now, the kingdom of God has come. Now, heaven comes to earth, because the broken Lord is the risen Lord, and the risen Lord is broken in the bread and wine for us. Jesus takes the bread, blesses it, gives it to them; their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And he vanished from their sight."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL06Xq3NEd4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgdZUYmFCvI

"Most Jewish thinkers before Maimonides follow Philoponus without paying attention to sophisticated details between different kinds of infinite series."--George Kohl

"As finite human beings in space, time, and matter, our thinking and feeling about infinity have always been associated with religious awe, whether in terms of wondering, being frightened, or being inspired. In this sense, infinity has a very strong effective-emotional component. At the same time, infinity is a scientific concept, and it has a strong intellectual-rational component that is mostly intertwined with a kind of intuitive and even ecstatic grasp of the infinite God."--Wolfgang Achtner

God and infinity
Aristotle concluded in his Physics that, ". . the infinite has a potential existence.  . . . There will not be an actual infinite." He maintained that mathematics does not need it !  In choosing between a finite God and an infinite God, Origen argues for a finite God, defining in his first principles, that we probably shall not find a more enlightening reasoning than the following passage, "In the beginning, as we contemplate it, God created by an act of his will as large a number of intelligent beings as he could control. For we must maintain that even the power of God is finite, and we must not, under the pretext of praising him, lose sight of his limitations."-- F. Sontag
 
If we want to understand where Origen got the idea that God must be finite, we must turn not to scripture, says Fredrick Sontag, but to certain philosophical principles. Origen honest reason is, "For if the divine power were infinite, of necessity it could not even understand itself, since the infinite is by nature incomprehensible. He made therefore just as many as he could grasp and keep in hand and subject to his providence. In much the same way he prepared just as much matter as he could reduce to order." -- Origen, Di Principiis

Prior to Cantor’s time, ∞ was mainly a metaphor used by theologians.
Then, due to the history of inclusion and exclusion of the 'attribute of infinity', within the concept of the divine nature, Origen accepts unquestioningly the philosophical association of limitation and finiteness with rationality. It is evident that Aristotle had argued this way, but many philosophers admitted infinity to be quite  rational, but not without altering their concept of 'reason'. The main point to note is how to define infinity, being a function of basic metaphysics, and the theory of knowledge.

"Philoponus deduces that the conception of a temporally infinite universe, understood as a successive causal chain, is impossible. in pointing to numerous contradictions, inconsistencies, fallacies and improbable assumptions in Aristotle's philosophy of nature relating to these claims. Dissecting Aristotle's texts in an unprecedented way, he time and again turns the tables on Aristotle and so paves the way for demonstr-ative arguments for non-eternity. One such argument is reported by Simplicius (In Phys. Contra Aristotelem, Fr. 132). It relies on three premises: (1) If the existence of something requires the preexistence of something else, then the first thing will not come to be without the prior existence of the second. (2) An infinite number cannot exist in actuality, nor be traversed in counting, nor be increased. (3) Something cannot come into being if its existence requires the preexistence of an infinite number of other things, one arising out of the other."--C. Wildberg, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
_______________________________________________________
 
Hoping My Grandsons Enjoy the Delightful Exploration
By Cosmas Topographicos, Vine Voice, August  2007
   
"In plain words our result means: the most probable distance of our drunkard from the lamp post after a certain large number of irregular turns is equal to the average length of each straight track that he walks, times the square root of their number."-- George Gamow

Exploration of scientific puzzles
One book, which I read in 1960  when I graduated in Engineering was, "One, Two, Three... Infinity," a wonderful book by George Gamow who explored science and its speculations. George Gamow, a nuclear physicist wrote an entertaining book, describing the wonders of nature and, how we understand facts and perceive issues about the universe.

That book was selected as one of the top 1000 books ever written, translated to inform the younger generation of the New republic. The fascinating chapters of the readable book on contemporary science, takes you from playing with numbers to the microcosms on: number theory, relativity, fourth dimension, entropy, genes, atomic structure, the riddle of life and the days of creation.

Storytelling by a Renowned Physicist
In a storytelling style with which the author and great mathematics educator, George Gamow, approaches his subject and grabs the interest of the reader goes far beyond math, science, physics, and mere numbers placed in esoteric formulae. Continuing on through more exploration of mathematical randomness, and statistical approximation of probabilities, simple game theory and related problems.

Gamow leads the lay reader from mathematical complexity into a treatment of aspects of organic chemistry to genetic theory, and out to a cosmological mindwarp territory, taking you from the roots of the ancient Alexandrian world through early and later geometrical analysis and extrapolations from the phenomenon of parallax, to the spherical shape of earth by an early Alexandrian mathematician, Eratosthenes.

Gamow diligently coaches the novice through passing items such as supernova explosion, galactic clusters, a collection of diverse examples of stars and stages of their development, expanding of the Universe as the expanding of a balloon's surface, with points on the surface all retreating from all others at the same rate (fig 127). The volume contains over 120 delightful pen illustrations by the inspiring author, adding another dimension of good-natured charm to these wide-ranging explorations, a mind-expanding volume for the layman and the science-minded.

Recent Review
"Gamow did indeed 'strive' ... in One Two Three...Infinity - to 'emphasize' the importance of science and technology. ...In his original Preface, written in 1947 at the time the book was first published, ...he did not 'attempt to tell the whole story" of modern science; he also shows his ability to understand and be modest when he writes..." --Academon
_______________________________________________________
 
The Mathematics of Infinity, for those mathematically inclined individuals
By Didaskalex, Vine Voice,  August  2012

"Infinity has been the culprit in many paradoxes. Zeno's paradoxes of Achilles and the tortoise and the Dichotomy have perplexed readers for centuries. Galileo's paradoxes dealing with segments, points, and infinite sets should also be noted." -- The magic of mathematics

Infinity is an amazing concept, because it is mind-bending, and while the combination sounds paradoxical, that's what infinity is all about! Many of us might consider numbers the most sure-footed way to come within sight of infinity. The search for infinity, that barely comprehensible mystery, has engaged both theologians and mathematicians over centuries. Great scientists including Galileo, and Georg Cantor, brought their training to bear on the unimaginable infinitude of numbers and of space. Georg Cantor of modern set theory, 1845-1918, described the history of infinity of boundlessly large numbers, sequences and sets.

Few authors presented the possibility to permit different ideas and thoughts along the path, as John Barrow, who handles masterfully, from infinite set paradoxes to those of black holes. Such exciting rides displays plenty of exploitable venues of the most elusive of ideas clarifying how the greatest of them all remains the infinity. These are some of the thoughts I had and questions raised while getting through this book, when its subtitle is: A Guide to Great Ideas? The Gribbins' "From Atoms to Infinity," got 88; that tickle the Mathematics bone, whose sense is lacking in this "mathematically solemn" book.

Just another traditional textbook, that presents a classical treatment of the concept of infinity in rigorous mathematical terms, where algebraic derivations and proves, theorems and inductions seem to be the focus. Starting with Logic, sets and functions, to supplement undergraduate set theory math. The book takes you through infinite sets, Elements, inductions and numbers, recapping with Logic of theory and closed sets. The book, "also serves as a fascinating reference for mathematically inclined individuals interested in learning about the world of counter intuitive mathematics," back cover.

Dear mentor Wolfgang Achtner, one of the most modest articulate genius thinkers, left our mundane world to Eternity in eternal fellowship, he was just 60 years old.

"Theologians have at last begun to take Origen at his word as an interpreter of the scriptures; . . . "-- M. Edwards, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy


Mark Edwards underlines specifics of how Origen was the pioneering theologian laying the foundations of the early Church Doctrines, defining the core of the Christian faith. He claims that, "Origen was the first Christian to speak of three hypostases in the Trinity and to use the term homoousios of the relation between the second of these hypostases and the first. The Father, or first person, is nevertheless the only one who is autotheos, God in the fullest sense, whereas the Son is his dunamis or power and the Spirit a dependent being, operative only in the elect."

The Bible, consisting for Origen only of the New Testament and the Septuagint, is the matrix of every argument in this as in all his writings; while it would be naive, and a contradiction of his own practice, to deny that that his exegesis was conditioned by philosophical assumptions; the propaedeutic to biblical study in his school at Caesarea was not Platonism but a professedly unprejudiced survey of all the Greek schools. We learn this from his pupil Gregory Thaumaturgus (Panegyric 13), to whom he wrote a letter assigning to Greek thought an ancillary role in the elucidation of the scriptures.

The main body of Origen's work was made up of commentaries and homilies on books of the Bible, all of which generally expounded the biblical texts line by line. It was the exposition of the Scriptures that was, as one scholar put it, "the center of his life." For Origen, every jot and tittle was important, since each word was the very word of God. In this sense, Origen had a very high view of Scripture. The Bible was indeed inspired, and as H. Crouzel wrote, Origen thought of it as being rather like a dictation from the Holy Spirit. The Bible, "Could not be treated like any other human book."

There was nothing useless in Scripture, since the Holy Spirit, as the author of the Bible, would not give us anything useless. The Scriptures, inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit, bring us to Christ, the very Word of God.  Quoting Origen scholar, Karen Torjesen; "Origen’s doctrine of Scripture would read as follows: Scripture is nothing other than the teachings of Christ; the divinity of Scripture is nothing other than the divine power and effectiveness of these teachings. The inspiration of Scripture is nothing other than the divine origin of these teachings."--Patrick Gray, Quodlibet J.

"Henri de Lubac's History and Spirit is a landmark study of Origen's understanding of Scripture and his exegetical methods. In exploring Origen's efforts to interpret the four different senses of Scripture, de Lubac leads the reader to its center: Christ the Word. "The theory of the senses of Scripture is not a curiosity of the history of theology but an instrument for seeking out the most profound articulations of salvation history.... When exegesis is understood in this way, it includes all of theology, from its historical foundation to its most spiritual summits. In the center stands Christ, who is both exegete and exegesis; he interprets himself and does so primarily in deeds, which are incarnate words. Thus the letter is always being transformed into spirit, promise into fulfillment..." --Hans von Balthasar

Has language limited our capacity of thought? If it clarifies, it also obscures. It is a tool of illusion as much as it is an agent of realization. If we have a heavily dichotomous language, we are more likely to fall prey to contradictory thinking, a type of cognitive distortion. That echoes something . . . , that we don't have a continuous stream of thoughts running through our minds. But, unless Origen experienced those thoughts too, might they even expand our contemplative capacity in the sense of his meant message. "If the lamb is Christ and Christ is the Logos, what is the flesh of the divine words if not the divine Scriptures?" -- Origen, on the Passover

"Should, someone cling just to the words themselves, they would eat the flesh of the Savior raw, and in partaking of this raw flesh would merit death and not life, since the Apostle teaches us that the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life (2 Cor.3.6). If the Spirit is given us from God and God is a devouring fire (Heb.12.29), the Spirit is also fire, which is what the Apostle is aware of in exhorting us to be aglow with the Spirit (Rom.12.11). Therefore the Holy Spirit is rightly called fire, which it is necessary for us to receive in order to have converse with the flesh of Christ, I mean the divine Scriptures?"

Origen and Biblical Integrity
In an admirable essay "A Meaning Worthy of God:" Patrick Gray forewarns, "We must notice, however, that Origen’s idea of inspiration is quite different from what may be considered a modern fundamentalist approach to Scripture. For one thing, Origen did not believe that the inspiration of the Scriptures guaranteed the accuracy of the historical and scientific information in the Bible. In fact, even to produce certainty on almost certain events was extremely difficult. To Origen, there were obvious discrepancies, such as the difference in chronology and geography concerning the story of Jesus cleansing the temple.

Yet, since the Scriptures are inspired by the Spirit, they cannot contain errors, and at three different times in his commentaries Origen “explicitly states that inspiration implies freedom from error. But how can the Scriptures be free from error, even if inspired by the Holy Spirit, when they contain such obvious problems? For Origen, the apparent distortion of historical information is not necessarily the result of some scribal or other literary error, but purposefully put into the text by the Holy Spirit as a reminder that we must not depend on the purely historical reading.

Origen writes,"The divine wisdom has arranged for certain stumbling-blocks and interruptions of the historical sense to be found therein, by inserting in the midst a number of impossibilities and incongruities, in order that the very interruption of the narrative might as it were present a barrier to the reader and lead him to refuse to proceed along the pathway of the ordinary meaning: . . ., and might thereby bring us, to a higher and loftier road and lay open the immense breadth of the divine wisdom. What may appear as errors to us are intended by the Holy Spirit, to call the reader’s attention to “the impossibility of the literal sense”, and therefore signal the need for “an examination of the inner meaning.”

Porphyry, targets Origen’s method of interpretation in his treatise against the Christians. Porphyry writes, “In their eagerness to find, now a way to reject the depravity of the Jewish Scriptures, but a means of explaining it away, they resorted to interpretations which cannot be reconciled or harmonized with those scriptures, and which provide not so much a defence of the original authors as a fulsome advertisement for the interpreters. ...This absurd method must be attributed to a man whom I met while I was still quite young, who enjoyed a great reputation and thanks to the works he has left behind him, enjoys it still. I refer to Origen, whose fame among teachers of these theories is widespread.”

"If the lamb is Christ and Christ is the Logos, what is the flesh of the divine words if not the divine Scriptures? His flesh and blood are the divine Scriptures, eating which, we have Christ; the words becoming his bones, the flesh becoming the meaning from the text, . . .," --Origenes Adamantius, Peri Pascha 


Has language limited our capacity of thought? Language enlightens, it also enshrouds. If it clarifies, it also obscures. It is a tool of illusion as much as it is an agent of realization. If we have a heavily dichotomous language, we are more likely to fall prey to contradictory thinking, a type of cognitive distortion. That echoes something I don't have a word for, unless of course the count that we don't have a continuous stream of thoughts running through our minds. But, unless Origen experienced those thoughts too, of course, might they even expand our capacity for contemplation in the sense of his meant message.

The main body of Origen's work was made up of commentaries and homilies on books of the Bible, all of which generally expounded the biblical texts line by line. It was the exposition of the Scriptures that was, as one scholar put it, "the center of his life." For Origen, every jot and tittle was important, since each word was the very word of God. In this sense, Origen had a very high view of Scripture. The Bible was indeed inspired, and, as Henri Crouzel pointed out, Origen thought of it as being rather like a dictation from the Holy Spirit. The Bible, comments Patrick Gray, "Could not be treated like any other human book."

The Treatise on the Passover dates from around 245. The papyri discovered at Tura in 1941 contained the Greek text of two previously unknown works of Origen. Neither work can be dated precisely, though both were probably written after the persecution of Maximinus in 235. One is On the Pascha.  Next to his treatise On the Pascha, Origen's fullest treatment of the Pascha, is found in His Commentary on John 10:13-19, Homilies on Exodus 5:2; 7:4; Homilies on Numbers 23:6; Homilies on Jeremiah 19:13, and Against Celsus 8:22.

Its central insight is that the passover is not a figure or type of the passion of Christ, but a figure of Christ himself, of Christ's passing over to the Father. The Dialogue with Heraclides probably comes from between the years 244 and 249. It seems to be the record of a synod-like meeting of bishops, in the presence of lay people, called to discuss matters of belief and worship. Both pieces seem to come from the last decade of Origen¿s activity, when he was at the height of his powers.

Since the Holy Spirit, the author of the Bible, would not give us anything useless, there was nothing futile in Scripture. Therefore, everything in Scripture has meaning. The Scriptures, inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit, bring us to Christ, the very Word of God. In summary, then, we quote Origen scholar Karen Torjesen,"Origen’s doctrine of Scripture would read as follows: Scripture is nothing other than the teachings of Christ; the divinity of Scripture is nothing other than the divine power and effectiveness of these teachings. The inspiration of Scripture is nothing other than the divine origin of these teachings."

Origen meditated, "Should, therefore, some cling just to the words themselves, they would eat the flesh of the Savior raw, and in partaking of this raw flesh would merit death and not life, since the Apostle teaches us that the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life (2 Cor: 3.6). If the Spirit is given us from God and God is a devouring fire (Deut.4.24; Heb.12.29), the Spirit is also fire, which is what the Apostle is aware of in exhorting us to be aglow with the Spirit (Rom.12.11). Therefore the Holy Spirit is rightly called fire, which it is necessary for us to receive in order to have converse with the flesh of Christ, I mean the divine Scriptures?"

We must surely refer to the teaching of Jesus; a deep mystical experience of God that spoke about it, lived it, in terms of the Kingdom of God. It meant for Jesus "the saving power of God made manifest in human history." Salvation was a matter of the community to which Jews belonged. To appreciate this communal aspect of salvation is almost impossible except in terms of global community. Any attempt to interpret Jesus’ teaching is destined to be a matter of personal perspective.

Origen underlines that the spiritual nourishment is to be taken in the form that suits one's degree of advancement in spiritual life. As our salvation priority, with Origen's talents and persistence, we sit in humble silence, waiting on God to hear his teachings. Each word we hear, believe, and obey, imparts more of the life of Christ into our hearts; adding to the purification of our hearts. With our endurance in understanding, we see Christ bringing salvation and eternal life. Seek first God's kingdom and His righteousness: our goal in life. Mat 6:33. Seek him, "There is only one thing needed, hear his word."--Luke 10: 39-42

In his Commentary on John he finds the spiritual meaning of the Exodus and prescriptions of the Pascha. Eating the whole of the roasted lamb, means understanding the Scriptures under the influence of the Spirit, while the unleavened bread symbolizes the Christian's repentance and salutary trials. These exercises prepare one to receive the 'manna' he explains as the Word of God incarnate, immolated as our paschal victim.  The lamb, the unleavened bread, and the manna - the food courses of the Exodus -represent three phases of the spiritual life, not necesserily in that order.

Origen makes a fascinating connection with the lamb at Passover (Exodus 12: 8-9), the Scriptures, and Christ. He writes, "This is what is to be eaten neither raw nor cooked with water. Should, therefore, some cling just to the words themselves, they would eat the flesh of the Savior raw, and in partaking of this raw flesh would merit death and not life - it is after the manner of beasts and not humans that they are eating his flesh - since the Apostle teaches us that the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life (2 Cor: 3.6).

If the Spirit is given us from God and God is a devouring fire (Deut.4.24; Heb: 12.29), the Spirit is also fire, which is what the Apostle is aware of in exhorting us to be aglow with the Spirit (Rom.12.11). Therefore the Holy Spirit is rightly called fire, which it is necessary for us to receive in order to have converse with the flesh of Christ, I mean the divine Scriptures, so that, when we have roasted them with this divine fire, we may eat them roasted with fire. For the words are changed by such fire, and we will see that they are sweet and nourishing."

We come now to an examination of the text itself, knowing that the Passover (Pascha) means passage. Origen refers to three kind of Paschas
I. The historical Pascha of the Old Testament.
II. The Pascha as celebrated by the Church.
III. The heavenly Pascha: "Raising our minds to the third Pascha, which will be celebrated among myriads of angels in the most perfect festivity (cf. Heb. 12:22)

For the Christian Pasch is a yearly and daily feast; it is celebrated both at Easter time as a memorial of Christ’s death and resurrection, and at all times by feasting with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth and the bitter herbs of sorrow and repentance. For Origen, the Pasch means Christ, our Passover Lamb, the Eucharist, and study of the Divine Word, but for Philo, it represents the journey of the soul from the body and its passions.

Origen's treatise on the Passover was suppressed for some time because Melito bishop of Sardis, an authority in early Christianity) held the unpopular view that Easter was to be celebrated on the Jewish Passover. This is a great treatise very much worth reading. In this work, Melito expounds upon the nature of typology and demonstrates that Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, especially in relation to the Passover. Origen, in his Treatise on the Passover, makes a fascinating connection with the lamb at Passover mentioned in Exodus 12; 8-9, the Scriptures, and Christ.

"As the primordial Word of God, he is present in every word from God that the church has canonized under the direction of the Spirit; the many words of scripture, in fact, are one (Philokalia 5.4). When we are instructed to eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, it is clear that the words cannot be taken literally; while Origen does not deny the allusion to the Eucharist, he argues that the higher sense, of the saying is that believers must draw nourishment from the scriptures in which Christ “as it were, takes flesh and speaks with a literal voice." Cels. 4.15; On Prayer 27.10–14." M. Edwards, Stanford Encycl. of Philosophy.

" It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."John 6:63

https://www.amazon.com/Treatise-Passover-Dialogue-Heraclides-Christian/dp/0809104520
http://www.frame-poythress.org/divine-meaning-of-scripture/

A Theological Meditation On The Liturgy Of The Eucharist
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4179
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=587

"If orthodoxy were a matter of intention, no theologian could be more orthodox than Origen, . . . The influence of his biblical exegesis and ascetic ideals is hard to overestimate; his commentaries were freely plagiarized by later exegetes, both Eastern and Western, and he is a seminal mind for the beginnings of monasticism."-- Henry Chadwick

Theology shaped by philosophy
Origen, the Christian exegete and theologian, who wrote some 6,000 works, capitalized upon Philo's allegorical method in his commentaries on the Scriptures. Origen has consequently laid the foundations of Biblical theology for the church. "This was the task that he undertook in most of his extant writings, and the more systematic theology is founded on the ecclesiastical doctrines of the Trinity, the incarnation, salvation after death and the inerrancy of scripture." Origen  attempts to apply his version of Neoplatonic Christianity in a schematic sense.

Origen's Basic Christian Doctrines
"Origen was the first Christian to speak of three hypostases in the Trinity and to use the term homoousios of the relation between the second of these hypostases and the first. The Father, or first person, is nevertheless the only one who is autotheos, God in the fullest sense, whereas the Son is his dunamis or power and the Spirit a dependent being, operative only in the elect. All three are eternal and incorporeal, the Son being known as Wisdom in relation to the Father and Logos (reason, word) in relation to the world. In this capacity he is the shepherd of rational beings the logikoi, who, according to his later critics, were said in his lost writings to have been in origin incorporeal beings coeval with the world if not eternal, and currently imprisoned in material bodies only because of a cooling in their love."-- M. Edwards (Mar 2014)

Origen's Doctrine of God
According Edwards, "The opening chapter of Origen's First Principles is a paradigmatic instance of his application of philosophic reasoning to biblical exegesis. He assumes here what he asserts elsewhere, that the nature of God is known to us only by his own revelation in the sacred text. The scriptures tell us both that God is fire and that God is spirit, but Origen warns us not to deduce, from a literal construction of these terms, that he is a body (Princ. 1.1.1). It is possible but not certain, that he has in mind the Stoicizing theology of Tertullian: the Bible speaks more plainly on this matter than any Stoic, and few contemporaries of Origen would have doubted the corporeality of fire or spirit."

In urging the contrary position, that God is incorporeal, Origen speaks not only for the Platonists but for all the Greek apologists of the church: the prevalent thought of his time required that if God is to be invisible, immutable, eternal, omnipresent, and irresistible in power he must not be confined to one place or composed of labile matter.  "Origen's God cannot be known to us in his essence, nor is it by his ousia, or essence, but by his dunamis, or power, that he acts upon other beings (On Prayer 25.3). His dunamis, which is infinite and mediated by the second person of the Trinity, is the source of every dunamis that is exercised by his creatures, even by those who have fallen into apostasy and rebellion (Com. John 1.39.291)."

Theology from Origen to Florensky
Even when a theologian, exegete or commentator uses biblical sources, as Origen does, he brings flesh and blood to scriptures. Frederick Sontag in his classic tome, "How philosophy shapes theology, 1971," observed that even Origen, may not guarantee coming out with one position on major religious questions. Furthermore, P. Florensky declares, "I was first struck by this internal contradiction while reading Origen's 'On First Principles', written around 228/9. In expounding Christian dogmatics, Origen expresses the firm confidence that the idea of the Holy Spirit is strictly a Christian idea, the shibboleth of Christianity, as it were."-- Pavel Florensky, The pillar and ground of the truth, pp. 83

Origen on the Holy Spirit
"But whether or not Origen's conviction is essentially right, it is highly typical for the understanding of the history of spiritual knowledge. In fact, one might think that, having stated what we quoted above, Origen would occupy himself with deducing the idea of the Holy Spirit, as he had previously occupied himself with deducing the idea of the father and the Son. But "this task of giving a speculative foundation to the fact of the existence of the Holy Spirit, of indicating the logical necessity of precisely the trinitarian existence of Divinity, was not fulfilled by Origen." This is a judgement of a dispassionate historian and learned dogmatist,  concludes P. Florensky quoting Vasily Boltov's "Origen doctrine of the Holy Spirit."

Origen's pioneering use of philosophic concepts, as one of the earliest Church Fathers to employ philosophy, is insightful. Choosing between a finite and infinite conception for God, while the scriptures might allude to infinity, Origen argues for a finite attribute. Sontag proclaims, in his book," that if we can understand why Origen moves in this direction, it might be quite instructive to us. He quotes origen's own; "In the beginning, . . God created by an act of his will as large a number  of intelligent beings as He could control. For we must maintain that even the power of God is finite, and we must not, under the pretext of praising Him, lose sight of His limitations. For if the divine power were infinite, of necessity, it could not even understand itself, since the infinite is by nature incomprehensible."--Origen, De Principiis   

Authorial Intention of Scripture
The theological interpretation of Scripture has sought guidance from pre-critical exegesis; , medieval, or reformation hermeneutics that recognized differing levels of meaning in the text. Origen contends there are two main senses of Scripture – the literal or historical and the spiritual or allegorical. Origen's patristic exegetical works, teaching that God was the author of Scripture, defending God's authorial intention determining the nature, function, and unity of the Scriptures. However Origen's reading into the text is anything but literal or mechanistic; including consideration of passion, memory, and imagination, rather it can lead to his mystical layers of meaning.

Allegory, God, and the Human Soul
"The exposition of the historical sense seeks to clarify, rationalize and elaborate the historical situation referred to in the text. The allegorical or spiritual sense seeks to explain the meaning of the historical situation in terms of the soul, the spiritual life and the church."--Karen Torjesen. RPC. Hanson charged that Origen reduces history to a mere “charade for showing forth eternal truths about God.”  However, the reading proper to the text is anything but literalistic or mechanistic; rather it leads to layers of meaning. Origen comment on John 13:4 (Jesus 'put aside his garments' before washing his disciples’ feet), was, "that just as Jesus was clothed with fabric garments, so the eternal Word, or Logos, was clothed with flesh."

History in Origen’s interpretation
Critics of historical-critical interpretation recognize the many benefits these methods have yielded and recommend consulting them on an ad hoc basis. Such an account must be theological if the Bible is to function authoritatively for the church. Origen’s method denies the possibility that history is “the place where through tension and uncertainty and danger and faith [human beings] encounter God as active towards them.” However, the category of history as it figures in Origen’s interpretation of Scripture is neither neglected nor a mere cipher; rather it is recast in a broader theological context in light of the specific intention of the true author and of a plausible object of that author: the progress of the soul."--Jeremy Bergen

Origen framework for Scripture
Origen pioneered the development of a framework for  Scriptures interpretation. He proposes a threefold methodology for presenting the spiritual meaning of the sacred writing, according to its flesh, according to its soul, and according to the spiritual law. Sontag is concern is with a fundamental question, "does the framework for the interpretation is rooted in scripture, or influenced by his Alexandrine  intellectual milieu?" Faced with past and present difficulties that he posted earlier, Sontag, eminent expert on philosophy of religion problems, rejected any simple explanation, concluding, "Unless we can securely establish that scripture is only to be understood in the historical context of its original meaning and that it can be done definitively, then our question becomes "Is it true that Origen appears to think that scripture itself supports certain crucial questions- e.g. Free Will?

Origen's mystical theology
"Origen was, above everything else, a man devoted to the things of the spirit."-- Cadiou
R. Cadiou who wrote in depth on the Spirituality of Origen says, while W. Volker, whose interest is in spirituality, regards Origen as a master of spiritual life and a great mystic. 
"Like John the Evangelist, Origen "reclined at the breast of Jesus." The one for whom he as a boy would have wished to meet, martyrdom had forever enraptured the depths of his soul." -- Henri de Lubac


Origen's doctrine of The Logos
"The activity of the Logos was conceived by Origen in Platonic fashion, as the world soul, wherein God manifested his omnipotence. His first creative act was the divine spirit, as an independent existence; and partial reflexes of the Logos were the created rational beings, who, as they had to revert to the perfect God as their background, must likewise be perfect; yet their perfection, unlike in kind with that of God, the Logos, and the divine spirit, had to be attained. The freedom of the will is an essential fact of the reason, notwithstanding the foreknowledge of God.

The Logos, eternally creative, forms an endless series of finite, comprehensible worlds, which are mutually alternative. Combining the Stoic doctrine of a universe without beginning with the biblical doctrine of the beginning and the end of the world, he conceived of the visible world as the stages of an eternal cosmic process, affording also an explanation of the diversity of human fortunes, rewards, and punishment. The material world, which at first had no place in this eternal spiritual progression, was due to the fall of the spirits from God, the first being the serpent, who was imprisoned in matter and body.
http://www.tlogical.net/bioorigen.htm]

The ultimate aim of God in the creation of matter (out of nothing) was the upraising of the fallen spirits. Man's accidental being is rooted in transitory matter, but his higher nature is formed in the image of the Creator. The soul is divided into the rational and the irrational, the latter being material and transitory, while the former, incorporeal and immaterial, possesses freedom of the will and the power to reascend to purer life. The strong ethical import of this cosmic process can not remain unnoticed. The return to original being through divine reason is the object of the entire cosmic process.

Through the worlds which follow each other in eternal succession, the spirits are able to return to Paradise. God so ordered the universe that all individual acts work together toward one cosmic end which culminates in himself. Likewise as to Origen's anthropology, man conceived in the image of God is able by imitating God in good works to become like God, if he first recognizes his own weakness and trusts all to the divine goodness."

Transfiguration and Theosis
Henri de Lubac's : Insights from Patristic Exegesis of the Transfiguration. explicates de Lubac's account of Scripture's literal sense as illumined by three patristic interpretations of the Transfiguration. Origen's exegesis highlights de Lubac's deployment of the Incarnational analogy in which history contains, veils, and discloses divine mystery. Similar to Jerome, de Lubac distinguishes the realities of biblical history (as revelatory loci) from their textual articulation. Augustine illustrates the hermeneutical influence of the interpreter's presupposed account of history, to which de Lubac.

Following Blondel, attributes great importance in approaching the biblical letter.
De Lubac's account of the literal sense is thoroughly theological and an under explored resource for this topic. Because of the heavy emphasis that our Alexandrine fathers put on salvation by partaking of divine nature, and Origen who was the first to explore attaining the transfiguration of Christ, which is not frequently cited by most Orthodox sources, with the exception of "The school of Alexandria" Coptic Network. Recently I encountered, to my joy, a Catholic blog by Brother André Marie who quoted links on" Transfiguration and Theosis"

Partaking of the Divine nature
Origen takes the petition of the Lord’s Prayer for daily bread to mean that those who were nourished by God the Logos would thereby be made divine. In many other places, too, he defined salvation as the attainment of the gift of divinity. Identification with Christ would lift the believer through the human nature of Christ to union with his divine nature and thus with God and thus to deification. It is evident, therefore, that the angels to whom the Most High entrusted the nations to be ruled are called either gods or lords; gods as if given by God and lords as those who have been allotted power from the Lord.

Whence also the Lord said to the angels who did not preserve their preeminence: "I said, `You are gods and are all sons of the Most High. But you shall die like men and shall fall like one of the princes'" (Ps. 81:5-7), imitating, of course, the devil who became the leader of all to ruin. Whence it is evident that violation of duty, not nature, made those accursed. You, therefore, O people of Israel, who are "the portion of God," who were made "the lot of his inheritance" (Cf. Deut. 32:9), "shall not have," the text says, "other gods besides me" (Exod. 20:3), because God is truly "one God" and the Lord is truly "one Lord." But on the others who have been created by him he bestowed that name not by nature but by grace.

Attaining the transfiguration of Christ                                                                                 
For when he has passed through the six days, as we have said, he will keep a new Sabbath, rejoicing in the lofty mountain, because he sees Jesus transfigured before him; for the Word had different forms, as He appears to each as is expedient for the beholder, and is manifested to no one beyond the capacity of the beholder. But when He is transfigured, His face also shines as the sun, that He may be manifested to the children of light, who have put off the works of the darkness, and put on the armor of light (Rom. 13:12), and are no longer the children of darkness or night, but have become the sons of day, and walk honestly as in the day (Rom. 13:13); and being manifested, he will shine unto them not simply as the sun, but as demonstrated to be the sun of righteousness.

The Shape-shifting Jesus
Some early Christians held the idea that Jesus could change His form at will, or probable that different people recognized Him differently. Origen, for instance believed  (Against Celsus 2.64), that Jesus appeared to individuals differently according to their need or ability to perceive Him.  It also explains why Judas used a kiss, specifically, to betray Jesus — because Jesus had the ability to change looks, according to the text — and it puts the day of the arrest of Jesus on Tuesday evening rather than Thursday evening, a case that contravenes the Easter timeline. Similarly when Mary Magdalene thought he was the gardener, or was a stranger to the Emmaus disciples, who recognized him only on the breaking of the bread.

"But you will ask if, when He was transfigured before those who were led up by Him into the lofty mountain, He appeared to them in the form of God, in which He formerly was, so that He had to those below the form of a servant, but to those who had followed Him after the six days to the lofty mountain, He had not that form, but the form of God."--Ps-cyril of Jerusalem

When seen He did not appear in like fashion to all those who saw Him, but according to their several abilities to receive Him. Although Jesus was only a single individual, He has nevertheless exhibited in more than one, according to the different standpoint from which He might be regarded; "nor was He seen in the same way by all who beheld Him."
Now, that He has more apparitions than one, according to the various point of view. Such concept may be clear from the statement, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life;" and from this, "I am the bread; and, I am the door," and innumerable others. He appealed to certain details in Scripture which he thought supported the idea that Jesus could not always be recognized.

Judas had to give a sign to those who came to arrest Jesus (Matthew 26:48); though Jesus had always been preaching in the Temple, no one had arrested Him then (Matthew 26:5); and finally, Jesus was transformed before Peter, James, and John (Matthew 17:2). This be clear to those who notice why, at the time when He was about to be transfigured on the high mountain, He did not admit all His apostles (to this sight), but only Peter, and James, and John, because they alone were capable of beholding His glory on that occasion, and of observing the glorified appearance of Moses and Elijah, and of listening to their conversation, and to the voice from the heavenly cloud.

"To reach the heart of a vigorous thought, nothing is as inadequate as a certain pretension to pure objectivity. If we want to have any chance of understanding it, even as a mere historian, it is necessary, whether we like it or not, to explain to ourselves what we read; it is necessary to translate, to interpret." -- History and Spirit


Origenes Adamantius
Origen (185 ca. -254), one of the most prolific and influential of the early Church Fathers, is the most distinguished of all the theologians of the ancient church, admired for his amazing Scripture exegesis. Of all the Church fathers, none has been more misunderstood than Origen. As the founding theologian, he is admired and attacked for composing his treatise On First Principles, the seminal work of Christian Neoplatonism. Origen lived through a turbulent period of the Christian Church, when persecution was wide-spread and little or no doctrinal consensus existed among the various regional churches.

Origen was an astute critic of pagan philosophy of his time, but he mastered it, adapting its most edifying issues to an elucidation of the Christian faith. Origen was the first philosophical master in the refutation of Gnosticism, who offered an alternative Christian system, more philosophically rigorous than the mythological speculations of the Gnostic sects. Although Origen did go on to compose numerous biblical commentaries and sermons, his importance for the history of Christian philosophy rests on two works, "On First Principles," and "Against Celsus," his response to the pagan philosopher Celsus' attack on Christianity.

De Lubac's History and Spirit
Henri de Lubac's Seminal Study, "History and Spirit," is a landmark study of Origen's understanding of Scripture and his exegetical methods. In exploring Origen's efforts to interpret the four different senses of Scripture, de Lubac leads the reader through an immense and varied work to its center: Christ the Word. De Lubac's fascinating view of the mind and spirit of Origen, the greatest teacher within the Fathers of the Church,guides the reader on this journey to a more profound understanding of the way in which Christ speaks to us through Scripture. As Hans Urs von Balthasar said in discussing this seminal work,"The theory of the senses of Scripture is not a curiosity of history of theology but an instrument for seeking out the most profound articulations of salvation history..." H.Urs von Balthasar, The Theology of Henri de Lubac.

Origen's Conception of Scripture
Origen's understanding of Scripture, was as means of God's salvific work by returning people to contemplation. Origen's theology and exegesis, in his own view, are not at all separated. Origen is quite indistinct in his delineation of the soulful meaning relative to the literal and the spiritual except to affirm that it is intermediately edifying. Maurice Wiles' gloss of these layers of meaning in "Origen as Biblical Scholar," as literal, moral and spiritual, Origen's employment of these three levels of meaning in exegetical practice may be more apparent.

Nevertheless, both in his practice as well as in his subsequent theory, Origen seems to undermine any rendering of the soulful meaning as distinct from the spiritual. While the spiritual meaning of the text is of foremost importance for Origen; he details his method for its determination. In practice, however, Origen does not limit himself in delving for the spiritual meaning of a text to those passages which seem to him to be literally unlikely. Rather, even those passages 'not only possible but true' are subject to such investigation. "For with regard to divine Scripture as a whole we are of the opinion that all of it has a spiritual sense" Homilies on Genesis 1.14,

Allegory in Origen's Exegesis
"Origen was not the mad 'allegorist' he is so often thought to be! The error is so deep-rooted, it has so many authorities for it, it concurs, ... with so many of our prejudices, that even today we find good historians reviving it without a closer look. Even those who every now and then rise to combat it make concession to it again in spite of themselves."-- H. De Lubac

The word allegory is instantly associated with Origenian exegesis, which is certainly not wrong, but is necessary to have a good understanding of its meaning. It is a historically developed exegesical method with a variety of meanings. Being more precise about its characteristics designated in Origen's case, the idea many think eludes any orderly discussion, goes earlier to Philo of Alexandria. Philo used allegory to harmonize Greek philosophy and Judaism. His method followed the practices of both Jewish exegesis and Stoic philosophy.

When pro-Antiochian literal scholars speak of an 'excess of symbolism' or 'exaggerated allegory', it is merely an allegation of a 'lack of sobriety' due to an extreme utilizatuion of symbolic typos. "On the other hand, is it a question of some corrosive principle that sound exegesis is obliged to reject? It has been my desire to try to clear up a question that has become so obscure by, first of all, forcing, so to speak, the accepted judgments to be more explicit. I have sought, not to 'defend' Origen, but simply to know what in fact he thought and said." Henri De Lubac, Introduction

Origen's Theological Exegesis
"A true Christian theologian is the one who is able to be silent until the Holy Spirit touches the strings of his soul. And it is only when the human word falls silent and the word of the Spirit emerges from his soul, that true theology is born. From this moment `a lover of words' is transformed into `a lover of wisdom', a rhetorician into a theologian." Bishop H. Alfeyev

The work of both Peter Brown, and Rowan Williams show the degree to which Origen has integrated his platonic and scriptural heritages, such that we no longer need to pit the one against the other. They both help us to see that Origen's particular combination of askesis, cosmology, and mystical progress all combine to explain his theology and exegesis of Scripture.


When comparing Origen's exegesis of the Song of Songs with Ellen Davis of Duke Divinity School, Jason Byassee wrote, "We are reminded here of several important animating principles to Origen's theology and practice of exegesis. First, Scripture is a kind of vast script for a drama, a play written down so that we may enter into it. The point of the play is to teach everyone "how to hear love's language in purity and with chaste ears."

Origen's Historical Event
"The central feature of Origen's spirituality is an absolute and passionate love for the Logos, which has taken on personal lineaments for us in Jesus Christ, suffusing the total cosmos of men and angels ... Origen finds him everywhere, and the entire Old Testament speaks of him only (Job 5,46f)"-- Hans Urs von Balthassar

Truly illuminating analysis is neither a photograph nor a material summary. It must bring out the essence, which is nearly always implicit. It must lay open hidden categories, determine lines of force. It must penetrate beneath the particularities of time and place to what is eternal. This is, without doubt, a task that is always incomplete, an interpretation necessarily partial. Every epoch, every historian, returning to the great works of the past, illuminates one aspect of them while leaving others in shadow.

In that sense, too, subjectivity is unavoidable. Yet the work is indispensable, all the more indispensable as the thought being studied is more actually thought. Thought is not rediscovered in the same way as a fact is reconstructed. Whether it be from today, yesterday, or long ago, whether it offers greater or fewer difficulties of approach to be overcome by the resources of historical science and its auxiliaries, it has an interior that historicism is obliged to disregard.

René Cadiou himself, in the course of a compelling essay, writes on Origen's youth symbolism, "The Alexandrians easily sacrificed history in their desire to impose symbolism, even though Christian revelation is, in the first place, a historical event." Nevertheless, as paradoxical as this might appear to a modern mind, was not one of the motives for this symbolism, in the Christian thinking of the first centuries, precisely to assure history a meaning that pagan antiquity had denied it? And did not Origen, perhaps better than any other, comment on this verse from the Letter to the Hebrews that, in its uniqueness, so well confirms the value of the 'historical event' in which we believe: [Christ] has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself?

https://www.academia.edu/1916256/Origen_and_Scripture_The_Contours_of_the_Exegetical_Life_Oxford_Oxford_University_Press_2012_._Paperback_2014
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2007/hdelubac_introhas_may07.asp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgTnc_JJXcw&feature=youtube_gdata

Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved?
With a Short Discourse on Hell, by Hans Urs von Balthasar

"We shall consider whether the Bible gives us to hope that there will be a final restoration of all things, in which all rational creatures will be saved, both angels and humans. Universalists maintain that we may hope that the scriptural passages concerning punishment are given as a corrective threat and that it shall finally become clear that the good God finally saves all. We shall see that God wants all to be saved and is able to save all."--Apokatastasis, according to the Bible

*Hell is not about what God is going to do, but about what we are capable of. "We are allowed to hope that no human is eternally damned. This is a founded theological hope, it is not a certitude. Indeed each person must existentially live with the real possibility that he or she might be doomed. The thesis itself is prompted, we believe, by mercy." Balthasar

Hell and Salvation
The Church's teaching on Hell has been generally avoided by Christian theologians, who believe that the Lord's own desire that everyone be saved 1Tim 2:4. Hans Urs Cardinal von Balthasar is a notable exception of this attitude, who amended Dare We Hope "That All Men Be Saved"? With a Short Discourse on Hell.
"On the one hand, hell is very real, though it is not about what God is going to do, but about what we are capable of. On the other hand, may hell be empty!, because the Crucified experienced the heart of human darkness and desolation. Passionate, beautiful stuff."-- Kim Fabricius, Blogger

Apokatastasis, Restoration of all things
Since the soul is essentially rational, argued Origen, it will eventually be restored to the divine truth, salvation will follow. The word Origen used to describe this process of universal salvation "restoration of all things," was Apokatastasis. Prompted by his idea of the pre-existence of souls, Origen may have come to view the mission of the temporal Church as "a gathering up of all lost, fallen souls into a unity resembling that which subsisted primordially."

Origen could not rationalize the later standard Calvinist idea that certain souls will inevitably fail to achieve salvation, and be plunged into eternal torment. Apokatastasis, may be viewed as restoration, the culmination of gathering souls in a unity of faith. "Origen held a firm conviction that not a single rational being will be lost to the darkness of ignorance and sin. Even the most recalcitrant sinner, he argued, will eventually attain salvation." -- Edward Moore.

A Historical Debate
Since Origen proposed his breaking through hope, some Church Fathers, including Gregory of Nyssa, and Didymus the Seer held for the universal restoration and salvation of all (apokatastasis). Ultimately Emperor Jusitanian who provoked the condemnations of Origen was motivated to respond to this teaching through a local Church council. This condemnation, directed at his Alexandrian 'Origenists', was edicted by a provincial Synod in Constantinople in 543, approved by Pope Vigilius during his detention in Constantinople (547-55).

Von Balthasar mentions as well theologians and other Christian writers who, he maintains, agree with what he is saying. In all cases these men speak of hell as being a "real possibility" but few ask the specific question about whether any humans are actually damned. Hans von Balthasar charges that when writing and speaking of hell "the great man, to whom posterity owes so much, did not do that within the limits laid down by the Gospel."

What about Augustine?
"Although Augustine’s doctrine of predestination has complete opposite consequences in comparison to Origen’s teaching about Apocatastasis, we believe that these teachings share a common ontological basis, which is the subject of this study. While Origen’s Soteriology is often called into question,  Augustine’s Christology is considered Pauline.

However, with both authors we find a certain marginalization of Christology in the field of ontological understanding of soteriology. Theological insights of these two authors influenced to a significant extent the development of theology of both East and West, making their works significant up until today, both from the aspect of Christian self-understanding and from the aspect of ecumenical dialogue."--Aleksandar Djakovac

Balthasar Contra Infernalists
The manner in which Balthasar describes the convictions opposed to his, unveil the pain he took writing these views reflects in the unusual amount of reactionary polemic the author targets those criticizing his views or are in contradiction of his own, characterizing them as 'infernalists.' He recognizes that some of the Church's historical teacher and theologians; from Augustine, Gregory the Great, Anselm, to Bonaventure, Aquinas, and recently John Newman, belong to this group.

von Balthasar finds Augustine's opinion "has cast an enormous shadow over the history of Western Theology," worthy of sharp criticism, while being praised for his ardent charity and as being the pioneering 'Father of the Western World,' " We might ask the great Augustine... whether he ever worried, after his conversion, about his eternal salvation."

Hans von Balthasar's Hell
"I claim nothing more than this: that give us a right to have hope for all men, which simultaneously implies that I see no need to take the step from the threats to the positing of a hell occupied by our brothers and sisters, through which our hopes would come to naught. I do not wish to contradict anyone who, as a Christian, cannot be happy without denying the universality of hope to us so that he can be certain of his full hell: that is, after all, the view of a large number of important theologians, especially among the followers of Augustine.

But, in return, I would like to request that one be permitted to hope that God's redemptive work for his creation might succeed. Certainty cannot be attained, but hope can be justified. ... If we take our faith seriously and respect the words of Scripture, we must resign ourselves to admitting such an ultimate possibility, our feelings or revulsion notwithstanding. We may not simply ignore such a threat; we may not easily dismiss it, neither for ourselves nor for any of our brothers and sisters in Christ."

*In memory of my beloved father, who believed in the merciful restoration of all creation. and initiated my faith in the 'All Loving Lord'.

Joseph Trigg's introduction explains the original context of Hanson's work on Origen's exegesis and how his work looks in the light of subsequent developments in Origen scholarship and in biblical interpretation

--------------------------------------------

Self-Interpretation of Scripture,
February 4th, 2021

NT interprets OT was what Martin Luther had in mind when he referred to Scripture as 'its own interpreter.' "For Origen this use of the Christian Bible as a whole is what distinguishes the Church from heresy;one Bible means one God. The organic unity of the Bible as a whole is guaranteed, and thus the ultimate compatibility of every passage with every other is grounded for Origen in his belief that the same Spirit inspired all the biblical authors and that the Bible as a whole is the embodiment of the divine Logos in human speech. Because the divine Logos embodied in Scripture is alsothe rational order of the cosmos as well as the rationality that enlightens our understanding, Origen's use of the Bible to interpret itself does not exclude the use as well of information not contained in the Bible. ...self-interpretation of Scripture, when it is not used as a pretext to ignore traditional readings or to avoid critical issues, still has a compelling appeal."--Joseph Trigg# Incisive entry 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  

A Newly Recovered Treasure of Christian Thought and Spirituality 
October 18th, 2019

This is a major find, even if some homilies are known to us in a Latin version. The note in the Clavis Patrum Graecorum (vol 1, pg 149), which assigns the reference # 1426 to this work of Origen’s on the Psalms, only lists the smallest of fragments and Catena excerpts previously extant. This may well be the earliest major Christian treatment of the Psalms now extant. The title says “Homilies on the Psalter, by an uncertain author, up to Psalm 81 as the end.” Joseph Trigg who,"displays a genius as an interpreter for bringing drama and imagery into direct engagement with the biblical text," provided the most stunning account on a biblical text I have ever encountered since I adored his consecrated life as a small kid. It is hard to be squeezed between J. Trigg and L. Perrone, even with Origen's Homily in hand, where Asaph renders Job 1:6; "the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, borrowing the Egyptian Pantheon. Avid contemplation is warranted in reading these pages
--------------------------------------------------------------

Being and Becoming God, in Origen's Homilies on the Psalms 
January 30th, 2020

"For someone made an acquaintance with Origen a while ago, reading the homilies is like meeting up again an old friend. He is still the same guy, impatient with stupidity, opening up conversations rather than closing them down, achieving remarkable consistency by unpredictable means. I find nothing in the homilies to modify the judgment of M. Harl that one finds the principal ideas of Peri Archon all the way through Origen's oeuvre, even to his last works."-J. Trigg#
Read: "You are the body of Christ"--when he prays and says "Protect me, lord", in praying for you is speaking of himself. For you are his body, you are a member of him, unless you want to be separated from him. The savior is composite for your sake. You are composite, have a body inferior in being to your soul and in nature to your spirit. But my Savior is composite for the sake of the church as his body, concerning which, when he prays, as for one needing protection, he says, "Protect me, Lord". Christ Nature is revealed?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
Origen Man of the Church 
October 20th, 2019

Strangely, some scholars had suggested that there is little ecclesiology visible in Origenes Adamanteus. Re-examining Origen’s ecclesiology, on the nature and life of the Christian congregation, the church is one major keys to Origen's thought system of Christian Theology, he masterfully crafted. "Visualising the Church as the pre-existent core of all creation, the heart of all redemption theology, his conception is universal in scope and life-affirming. The intellectual background of Origen’s ground-breaking attempt at systematic correlation of Christian doctrine with its biblical heritage is reviewed alongside his immediate milieu, another active context of thought." Origen emerged as par excellence a 'Salvation theologian of resistance', in a persecuted community church of Martyrs. While wrestling with the fundamental question of the One and the Many, of finding the one reality that lies behind all things in the universe. I'l not spoil the pristine article, as I must contemplate on
-----------------------------------------

God's Marvelous Oikonomia: Address Attributed to Gregory Thaumaturgus
Reflections of Origen's Understanding of Divine and Human Pedagogy
October 27th, 2019

Divine Pedagogy; the way God reveals himself to us. The process begins with God intervening in human history: he engages us in the midst of our lived experience. The Incarnation- the birth of Jesus-is the ultimate example of God engaging us in divine pedagogy; "In Sacred Scripture, ...the marvelous condescension of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far He has gone in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature." -- Dei Verbum. That Origen adopted Divine Pedagogy as his masterful contemplative guide. The way Origen is caught up in reaching Christ in his address to Gregory, "May you too be a partaker and ever increase the participation, there you may say not only, 'We have become partakers of Christ':Heb 3:14, but also,'We have become partakers of God," a statement of perichoretic participation? This reveals to us the Divine economy. Few adored Origen, rarely analysed as J. Trigg! 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

The Heritage of Origen,
Knowing God in the Theological Orations of Gregory of Nazianzus
December 15th, 2019

Trigg's analysis is penetrating like the two edged sword of Apollos' in Hebrews! "Ultimately, though, the Theological Orations are persuasive because in them Gregory himself exercised oikonomia in more than a rhetorical sense: he invites us into a dynamic process of spiritual transformation in which, little by little, we begin to perceive the ultimate mystery of God. In doing so he carries on and receives into the Christian tradition the heritage of Origen. Origen's heritage is not just this vision of continual change or the concept of human participation in the divine oikonomia, it is an open-ended way of thinking, a process of continual questioning and rational debate. Origen could thus have a profound effect on Gregory of Nazianzus even as Gregory differentiated himself fro Origen's cosmology. Origen's concern with the student who wrote the address was not to have him parrot his teacher, but to have him think for himself. that is why he deliberately hid his views at times." Amazing
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Introduction to R. P. C. Hanson's "Allegory and Event"
October 20th, 2019

In his splendid introduction, the eminent reviewer invited all the great Origen experts to portray they became in his intellectual brotherhood. "Origen, De Lubac argued, spiritualizes the whole Scripture for the use of the Christian soul, without taking away anything from history ..."an effort to seize the spirit in history" or to assure the passage from history to spirit. Such a spiritual exegesis depends on history: "Every symbolic construction, with its interiorizations, its spiritual digressions, does not evacuate the narrative. It is not even different to it, as Philo's allegorism could be.It is built, in principle, on its basis. Thus, far from distorting the Christian message, Origen's "extraordinary aptitude for spiritualizing every thing is even more evangelical than Alexandrian." Mesmerizing insight, that added to the great Patristic Bishop, a wealth of writings of the Novelle Theologie' three theologians. Tanks to (St.) H. Newman for his toil to expose the amazing allegory. 

Prologue
This is the n review (n= 3, or 4) of a work that uniquely established the philosophical basis for Alexandrian Christian Doctrines, as the intellectual Christian who anticipates Flammarion bird-eye view examining from a post far above mundane existence, where John 17:3 that, is the eternal human goal; "this is eternal life, that they may know you , the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." This became the aim of the Church of the martyrs, on how to subscribe to eternal life while still struggling within the mystical body of Christ, the Church.

Origen wrote this detailed Christian World's view when he was thirty years old, while he was engaged with Amon Sacca, in revising middle Platonism, and his version was Christian inspired, but he suffered because he dared to speculate. I heard about Origen, in a Sunday school lesson in Alexandria, when I was ten years old. I was fascinated with his great faith as a seventeen years old big brother of seven exhorting his father never to forsake Jesus Christ. But as one reads his writings, it is evident that he was Lord's gift to the faithful.   
____________________________________________

The pioneering foundational work in the development of Christian thought and doctrine
By Didaskalex, Vine Voice, February 6, 2015

"The history of Dogmatics does not go back to the time of the Apostles, but only to the beginning of the third century, when Origen wrote his Peri Archon." Louis Berkhoff

Origen's Systematic Theology
Berkhoff wrote defining the History of Dogmatics, "Origen was the first to construct something like a system of theology. His work was written about the year 218 AD., in it he attempts to transform the doctrine of the Church into a speculative science, acceptable to the cultural and philosophical classes of his day."

Origen theology, rests mainly on two of his works,'On First Principles,' and 'Contra Celsus', his defense of Christianity, in response to the attacks of the pagan philosopher. On First Principles, is Origen's major systematic and philosophical work where he established his main doctrines, including that of the Holy Trinity, the preexistence and fall of souls, transmigration of souls, and the eventual restoration of them, in proximity to the Godhead, in 'Theosis', a state of dynamic perfection. He was pioneer in his insistence on the free will of souls. He is unique, introducing history, within his speculations on metaphysical cosmology.

Origen's Creative Thought
Origen was a genuine theologian ahead of his era; a speculative thinker, when for Christians faith was not a matter of intellectual exploration. Origen drew upon Neoplatonic philosophy in an effort to elucidate the Christian faith in a manner conceivable to the Greek minded intellectuals, and he succeeded in converting many pagan students of philosophy to Christian faith. Origen was a great humanist, who believed that all creatures will eventually be granted salvation, including Satan, the devil himself. Origen exposed and criticized the Gnostic dualism, and his theology surpassed the pristine expressions of the Christian faith, still being expressed in our present day.

Origen's Thought, notably those in the treatise; On First Principles, gave rise to a doctrinal movement in the early Church, known as Origenism. From the third through the sixth centuries this movement was quite influential, especially among the learned and mystical monastics. It developed an articulate form, in the fourth century by Dedymus and Evagrius Ponticus. Origen's spirit of philosophical inquiry was mostly absent from the movement bearing his name, but use of Origen's far more creative concepts and themes was made by Gregory of Nyssa, who adopted Origen's doctrine of apokatastasis or 'restoration of all things,' articulating more clearly the notion that redeemed souls will remain in a state of 'dynamic intellectual activity.'

On First Principles
Origen was probably not more than thirty, when he wrote De principiis (On First Principles), perhaps his greatest work in systematic theology, to express Christian faith in Neoplatonic terms, Saccha's Christianized philosophy of Alexandria. Most of 'De principiis' is expressed in an orthodox Christian universal thought, and there is no evidence that he ever modified in any respect. The first book of De Principiis deals with God and creation; the second and third with Creation and Providence, with Man and Redemption; and the fourth with Holy Scripture. Written for scholars, Origen affirms one God, creator and ruler of the universe, Jesus Christ begotten before all creation, divine in His incarnation, and the Holy Spirit in the glory of the Father. He expressed that humans depend in their existence on the Father, their rational nature from the Son, and their holiness from the Holy Spirit. In spite of his guiding principle; 'Nothing which is at variance with the tradition of the apostles and of the church is to be accepted as true,' Origen's genius speculative flights lead some early church leaders to question his orthodoxy.

Fall & Redemption
Origen concluded that there were two creations, as narrated in the two accounts in Genesis. The first creation was of spirits without bodies, possessing free will, but some strayed away from the purpose of their creation, doxology for the Lord, and fell. The second creation, of the material universe, thus followed. The souls who fell most remotely became demons, the others were made human. The reason we possess human bodies, and experience suffering is our sin during preexistence. Origen claims this notion is supported by the Bible, while it is influenced by Neo-Platonic philosophy. Universalism presents Origen's other controversial issue of De Principiis; he deducted that since God is Love, everyone, even Satan, will be ultimately saved, and the entire creation will return to its original state of pure spirituality.Scholars confirm, "Origen denies metempsychosis and explicitly affirms the uniqueness of Christ's sacrifice, and, although the salvation of the devil must be left open as a possibility in a system emphasizing the divine pedagogy and human freedom of will to the degree that Origen's does, there are passages in which he rules it out." (Dr. John Cavadini of Notre Dame: Encyclopedia of Catholicism, Harper & Raw, 1995, p. 941)

In Origen's Defense
Origen's defenders, some of the most outstanding theologians, from Gregory of Nyssa and Rufinas in late antiquity to Bishop K. Ware who declared in 'The Inner Kingdom, pp. 201, "Origen's apocatastatis is not simply a deduction from some abstract system, it is a hope."The eminent Catholic theologian Hans Urs Von Balthasar defended Origen's salvation for all in his book, 'Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved?' He dares to believe that the love of God will soften the heart of the most heinous of committed sinners. Existentialist Nicolai Berdyaev, echoed Origen's humanism, many centuries after. Berdyaev, a Russian Orthodox theologian, admits Origen's influence on his thought and insists that the doctrine of hell and the eternal suffering of sinners is not compatible with authentic Christianity.

Koetschau's Reconstruction:
Koetschau's work to recover the original, of De Principiis is a great work, of few peers in philosophy or Patristic literature. His edition of Origen's lost Greek original writings, is a reconstruction from fragments from Greek and Latin quotations. Koetschau reconstruction although helpful for text continuity had necessarily to fill lots of gaps, based on his best guess. Butterworth, complex statements trying to be precise may have caused confusion. He comments on a Koetschau's reconstruction as, "a composite passage from Gregory of Nyssa, "or," Koetschau's arguments for including it in the text of Origen are given in his introduction, pp. 117-118," etc. Rowan Greer, in 'Origen: An exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer, etc.' was more explicit, for more than ten times repeating, "there follows Koetschau's conjectural attempt to fill a lacuna of 'x' lines in the manuscript."

De Lubac's Overview:"The shortcomings of his doctrine-inevitable in a thinker of the third century who was the very first to build a theology-must not make us mistake the pure quality of his faith." H. De Lubac, introduction.The concise introduction by de Lubac, one of Origen's leading experts is a masterpiece commentary on his works, piety and orthodoxy. Henri de Lubac, French Jesuit, and a great expert on Church Fathers, is one of the greatest theologians of the twentieth century, joined the Society of Jesus, was educated at the Jesuit Houses of study, and earned his doctorate in theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, and became a faculty member at Catholic Faculties of Theology of Lyons. His pupils included Jean Danielou and Hans Urs von Balthasar.. De Lubac died in 1991, after he was made cardinal in 1983.

Please continue reading in File 1

Preface to Contra Celsum
"The True Word," was Celsus philosophical work, an anti-Christian attack entitled (Alethes logos). This work was lost, but we have Origen's account of it in his writings. It was during the reign of Philip the Arab that Origen received this work for rebuttal. Origen has been the most influential Greek speaking theologian of the 3rd century. Origen’s greatest vindication of Christianity against pagan attack, Contra Celsum, written (probably in 248) at Ambrose’s request, survives in its entirety in one Vatican manuscript, with fragments in the Philocalia and on papyri. Paragraph by paragraph it answers the Alethes logos, “The True Doctrine” of the 2nd century. His polemic against the Stoics is found in the treatise Contra Celsum, by in which he argued at some length against Stoic doctrines linking God to matter.

The majority of Origen's explicit references to Plato are to be found in his work Against Celsus, a reply to a dead polemicist who is nowadays characterized as a middle Platonist, though Origen hints that he may have been an Epicurean (Against Celsus 1.8; see further Bergjan 2001). Origen undertakes to show that the simplest disciple of God's word knows him better than the philosophers who seek him by their own methods (Against Celsus 7.42), that Plato misrepresents the fall and diminishes the Creator, that if his myths are deep, the biblical allegories are deeper and less perverse, and that Numenius, the foremost Platonist of recent times, has spoken of both Moses and Jesus with esteem (Against Celsus 4.15 etc.).

Contra Celsus was composed in Origen's old age and may be considered as the final statement of his views. It is also that, in Contra Celsus, we find Origen abandoned his futurism, to be a Preterist. Written against a Greek Philosopher, Book IV opens with Origen stating that Celsus had arrayed himself against both Jews and Christians, dismissing the idea that God would come to earth, “Above all is it necessary to show, as against the assertions of Celsus which follow those he has already made, that the prophecies regarding Christ are true predictions. For, arraying himself at the same time against both parties – against the Jews on the one hand, who deny that the advent of Christ has taken place, but who expect it as future, and against Christians on the other, who acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ spoken of in prophecy."
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Celsus, with all his boasts of universal knowledge, has here fallen into the most vulgar of errors!
By Didaskalex, Vine Voice; on April 7, 2007

"Celsus, . . . , in supposing that in the law and the prophets there is not a meaning deeper than that afforded by a literal rendering of the words, "Thou shalt have dominion over many nations, and no one shall rule over thee,"-- Origen, Contra Celsum 7.18

Alexandrines in Gnostic Debates
The Gnostic devaluation of the created order was a depreciation of the Old Testament, greatly accentuated by a thorough exploitation of the Pauline antithesis of Law and Gospel. The Gnostics used to contrast the Hebrew Bible with the Gospel proclaimed by Jesus Christ. Implications of the designation 'Old Testament' frequently, by early Christians, was common enough to be suggestive. Titus Flavius Clemens, known better today as Clement of Alexandria. Although born to pagan parents, Clement realized that there must be a deeper meaning to life than the mundane pursuit. "To Know God Is To Love Others," was the Alexandrine motto of salvation which he developed with his disciple Origen, both defending against the dangerous Gnostic structure of beliefs that became a very fierce movement at Alexandria.

Biblical Catechist:
Origeneus Adamantius (AD 185-254), was a student of Amon Saccha and cofounder of neo-Platonic philosophy. A staunch Christian believer, the greatest by far among ante-Nicene writers, Origen was a prolific Biblical scholar, and the first great theologian. According to the Coptic Church Synexarium, Origen was born of Christian parents in Alexandria, studied and started his life there, at an early age, as a Grammarian and Catechist. Appointed by bishop Demetrius, to succeed Clement as head of the catechetical school in Alexandria, Origen fervently carried on his mission for a dozen of years, and with surging numbers of students, was helped by Dionysius and Heraclas, future bishops of Alexandria. Origen was invited to Antioch, Athens, Arabia, Ephesus, and Rome, to arbitrate and settle early Church doctrinal differences. In 215, as a result of Emperor Caracalla's furious attack upon the Alexandrians, Origen's work at the school was interrupted and he left to Caesaria, Palestine.

Celsus Origenal Treatise
Celsus' words--which seventy years earlier, added up to a full treatise are conveyed to us only through, 'Contra Celsum,' written by the genius Alexandrine thinker Origen. Hoffmann, cannot be sure whether the Christian teacher played 'fast and free' with the pagan thinker, so in reconstructing Celsus' diatribe we are dependent on seeing Origen as a man of virtue, temperance, and irrefragable rightness. Origen quotes Celsus freely, lengthily, and smugly. 'Freely,' in this case, means unsystematically--which accounts for the need, at times, to 'conjoin' snippets of Celsus that Origen has separated and to separate bits that Origen has joined. ... And like all priggish Oxford Movement-philes, Mr. Pearse quotes me quoting Origen quoting Celsus with equal zeal, if less impressive purpose, taking special exception to the following: "Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of agreement in their teachings... Like so many sirens they chatter away endlessly and beat their breasts. The world (they say to their shame) is crucified to me and I to the world." (Hoffmann pp. 91 re: Origen, Contra Celsum, 5.64)

Defending Celsus
Hoffmann defends Celsus with great enthusiasm, advocating that his 'intellectual duty here was to Celsus, not to Origen, and Celsus's valuable point is about Christian heterodoxy and sectarian rivalry--Gnostics, ascetics, 'orthodox' and others. He sarcastically debates that, "The ancient philosopher's anti-Christianism: Celsus was a pagan nettle in the emerging garden of sweetly planted Orthodoxy. Origen, the gardener, knew a thing or two about weeds, the proof of which is that it took nearly 2000 years for the nettles to reappear in the form of rationalist critiques of Christian dogma and Celsus-like harangues against the absurdity of Christian belief and believers."
Celsus was no atheist, claims Dr. Hoffmann who in spite confirms that, "The resonance between Celsus and modern secularism and atheism is significant, even startling. And despite Origen's efforts to minimize the damage Celsus's treatise had caused to the Church when it appeared -some 70 years or so before Origen penned his response - the main value of the Christian apologist's defense was an inadvertent one, noticed first by philosophers in the Enlightenment: Origen had preserved a large portion of the very critique of the Christian faith he had sought to eradicate."

Chadwick's Classic
Professor Henry Chadwick whose work is not only trusted, but greatly admired by scholars, was recently criticized by one of Celsus defenders, quoting a French saying that, ''translations, like women, are either beautiful or faithful but never both." Chadwick's literal translation, he protests, largely fails to convey the point that, "Celsus knew that Christian Orthodoxy was a result of episcopal intolerance, not an act of providence reported by the bishops. Here what is wanting in fidelity accurately displays the fact that Celsus knew that Christianity in the year 180 was not a garden but a barnyard full of squawking hens. And Origen was one of them."

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/247335/pdf
https://www.academia.edu/26728605/A_Jewish_Critique_of_Christianity_from_Second-Century_Alexandria_Revisiting_the_Jew_Mentioned_in_Contra_Celsum
http://www.amazon.com/On-True-Doctrine-Discourse-Christians/dp/0195041518?ie=UTF8&keywords=On%20the%20True%20Doctrine%3A%20A%20Discourse%20Against%20the%20Christians&qid=1459857289&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1


* This review is written in memorial of Late Dr. Rodolph Yanney, my friend and Origen's fan

Re-examining Origen’s ecclesiology, on the nature and life of the Christian congregation, the church is one major keys to Origen's thought system of Christian Theology, he insightfully crafted. "Visualising the Church as the pre-existent core of all creation, the heart of all theology of salvation, his conception is universal in scope and life-affirming. The intellectual background of Origen’s ground-breaking attempt at systematic correlation of Christian doctrine with its biblical heritage is reviewed alongside his immediate environment, another active context of thought." Origen emerged as par excellence a 'Salvation theologian of resistance', in a persecuted community church. While wrestling with the fundamental question of the One and the Many, of finding the one reality that lies behind all things in the universe. Searching in the fragmentation of world order for the providential touch of God upon history, coined a statement, "No theology without cosmology."

Amazingly, some scholars have, in times past, suggested that there is little ecclesiology visible in Origenes Adamanteus. On the contrary, argues McGuckin that  it can be seen as one of the keys to his entire system. Origen was an exponent of the tradition of mysticism as the ‘in depth meaning’ of scripture and an internal life of renewed salvation of the church, described by McGuckin as "a soteriology that influenced all patristic tradition, though his ideas of pre-existent lapsed souls were not widely accepted." Origen’s ecclesiology was an important alternative to the more anxious and rigid ecclesiology of North Africa. "We need not be too sad, however, . . . for when we begin to consider the thought world of this teeming ancient thinker we find more than enough elsewhere to lead us into wonder; and not least when we consider his doctrine of the Church, which he sees as the pre-existent core of all creation, and the heart of all theology of salvation."-- John McGuckin
_______________________________________________________

Images of the Church and its Members in Origen's Ecclesiastical Mystical Authority and the Hierarchy of Truths ?
By Didaskalex, Vine Voice, December 2006


This review is from: Mysterium Ecclesiae. Images of the Church and its Members in Origen

"The Church's fundamental function in every age and particularly ours is to direct man's gaze, to point the awareness and experience of the whole of humanity towards the mystery of God." Redemptor Hominis

Pre-existent Church Mystery
Origen's ecclesiology, is one of the keys to his systematic theology, describing the Church as the pre-existent essence of all creation, the core of salvific economy. Origen's concept is deeply inherent in a universal life-affirming belief. Origen's pioneering attempt at systematizing and correlating the basic aspects of Christian doctrine with its biblical tradition has to be viewed within his intellectual background, and immediate Alexandrine environment of various catechetical thought traditions. Origen emerged as preeminently a confessional theologian (of Christian resistance in a persecuted church), wrestling with the fundamental question of unity in diversity.

Searching in the fragmentation of world order for the providential touch of God upon history, in Fr. McGuckin words, Origen was an exponent of a mystical understanding of the `hidden meaning' of scripture, as texts and life. His soteriology that developed into Alexandrian Christology of Athanasius and Cyril has greatly influenced all patristic tradition that followed, though his controversial ideas of lapsed pre-existing souls were not widely approved. Origen's ecclesiology is an important alternative to the rather more hierarchal ecclesiology of Cyprian, Tertullian, (and later, Augustine) and suggests some creative possibilities for the modern reader interpretation and theological reconstruction.

Mysterium ecclesiae, Today
"Let the Mystery of the Church shine forth," is a succinct summary of the central theme of the Second Vatican Council's on the Church, Lumen Gentium, Light of the world. The first encyclical of Pope Paul VI, "Ecclesiam Suam," states that the Church "is a storehouse of God's hidden counsels which the Church must bring to light!" The first chapter of the document is entitled "The Mystery of the Church" and begins with the proclamation that Christ is the light of humanity," and continues to state: "The Church - that is the kingdom of Christ - already present in mystery, grows visibly through the power of God in the world.

All people are called to union with Christ, who is the light of the world, from whom we go forth, through whom we live and toward whom our whole life is directed!" Pope John Paul II also states in his first encyclical, "Redemptor Hominis," that "The Church's fundamental function in every age and particularly ours is to direct man's gaze, to point the awareness and experience of the whole of humanity towards the mystery of God." Many centuries ahead, it was Origen's creative theology, which established the doctrine of the Church, early in the third century, empowering that great pioneering defenders of Orthodoxy.

Dominus Iesus & Mysterium Ecclesiae
In Dominus Iesus (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae), one reads, "...there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the (Roman) Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which are not in perfect communion with the Roman Church, remain united to her, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches (Second Vatican Council) Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Roman Primacy dogma of exercises over the entire Church.

The Orthodox Churches remain true and particular Churches because they "maintain apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist." Assuming the authors of The Great Façade do not deny this, then it should be clear how it is that the Church of Christ is "present and operative" in these Orthodox Churches. Wherever Christ is, there is His Church and His Body. With a valid Eucharist it can quite literally be said that the Mystical Body of Christ resides in Orthodox Churches. Thus Christ's Church, His Body, is "present and operative" in these Churches. Of course this Mystical Body is marred. due to lack of full communion with the Roman Church.

Drawn Conclusions
Verlyn Verbrugge, after an anlytical evaluation of Origen's Ecclesiology, in a paper for the Origen Colloquy held at UND, Indiana, April 1986, came to the qualified conclusion that in the Church, as body of Christ, Origen employs rich and variegated ways in this image, from a philosophical emphasis on unity to amoral exhortationto holy living. On the other hand, in asserting the mystical union between Christ and the Church, Origen sees this union so intimate to ascribe similitude (through theosis).
The faithful believers, members of the Church, maintain a mystical union with one another.

This sense of strong intraunion inspires Origen, drawing many ethical obligations on believers conduct in their living, every Christian to love, support, and help one another. In sum, Origen's teaching on the body of Christ is living and dynamic. His explanation flows with the biblical data. I hereby translate Gustave Bardy endorsed conclusion, in Frensh: "Origen's universal faith (Catholicisme) is not that of an intellectual who insists to think that the assignments of the Church be expressed in scholastic terms, those of a religious goal which does not stop searching for God to unite with more intimately, always.'

Origen's doctrine of the Church
Ledegang believes that mystery lies at the heart of all religious thought of Origen, including knowledge of the Church. Origen does not set forth a definition of the Church as such but attempts to expound its essence through a series of images, due to this starting point. Origen's doctrine of the Church, Ledegang asserts, has been neglected in dogmatic history, patrology, and Origenist studies on. What did Origen then have to say about the Church? Surely a good deal, says Ronald Heine, commenting on the size of this book as an indication. Ledegang's work, which appeared first in Dutch in 1992, 'is definitely a book intended for scholars,' in his right judgement. There have been few monographs or essays on the subject; Vogt's earlier study, represents the only major work devoted to the subject, even though Ledegang thinks it was methodologically flawed.

Canon of Scripture as systematic reviews*
If the Canon of Christian scripture had developed due to Marcion, who enhanced the Bible Canon, likewise did Celcus and Proclus challenged Origen and Philoponus. "Although Marcion's ideas were completely rejected by the Apostolic Fathers of the church, the very need to reject them forced the second-century church to consider, clarify, and consolidate its beliefs about important issues: the contents of the Christian Bible, the relationship between Christianity and Judaism, and finally, the source of the church's knowledge of Jesus. In many ways, Marcion caused the Orthodox Church to be more moderate."-- Chris Price

Contra Celsus was composed in Origen's old age and can be his final statement of his views, abandoning his futurism. Written against a Greek Philosopher, Book IV opens with Origen stating that Celsus had arrayed himself against both Jews and Christians, dismissing the idea that God would come to earth, “Above all is it necessary to show, as against the assertions of Celsus which follow those he has already made, that the prophecies regarding Christ are true predictions. For, arraying himself at the same time against both parties – against the Jews on the one hand, who deny that the advent of Christ has taken place, but who expect it as future, and against Christians on the other, who acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ spoken of in prophecy."

The object aimed at by the two friends is thus set forth by Origen, writing to Ambrose:
Today, under the pretext of gnosis, the heretics set themselves up against the holy Church of Christ, and multiply the volumes of their commentaries in which they pretend to interpret the evangelical and apostolic writings. If we ourselves keep silence, if we do not oppose them with true and sound doctrines, they will attract famished souls who, in the absence of healthy nourishment, will seize upon these forbidden foods which are indeed impure and abominable... In your own case, it was because you could not find masters capable of teaching you a higher doctrine, and because your love for Jesus could not abide an unreasoned and common faith, hence you formerly gave yourself up to those doctrines which subsequently you condemned and rejected, as was right.

This passage reveals to us the fundamental motive of Origen's thought: in the city of Alexandria where Greeks, Jews, Gnostics and Christians are greedy for religious knowledge, and all claim to possess its secret, one cannot be satisfied with an "unreasoned and common faith;" the pride of a Christian will not suffer this, nor his "love for Jesus." But from whom is this high religious knowledge to be sought, if not from the master of the Alexandrian School? St. Clement had realized the indispensable necessity of such instruction; he had managed to give an outline of it. But it deserved to be expounded fully, and to this work Origen devoted his life.

*Systematic reviews differ from traditional narrative reviews, which tend to be mainly descriptive, do not involve a systematic search of the literature, and thereby often focus on a subset of studies in an area chosen based on doctrine or author.
____________________________________________________________________________

Celcus inspiring Origen
"The True Word," was Celsus philosophical work, an anti-Christian attack entitled (Alethes logos). This work was lost, but we have Origen's account of it in his writings. It was during the reign of Philip the Arab that Origen received this work for rebuttal. Origen has been the most influential Greek speaking theologian of the 3rd century. Origen’s greatest vindication of Christianity against pagan attack, Contra Celsum, written (probably in 248) at Ambrose’s request, survives in its entirety in one Vatican manuscript, with fragments in the Philocalia and on papyri.

Paragraph by paragraph it answers the Alethes logos, “The True Doctrine” of the 2nd century. His polemic against the Stoics is found in the treatise Contra Celsum, by in which he argued at some length against Stoic doctrines linking God to matter. The majority of Origen's explicit references to Plato are to be found in his work Against Celsus, a reply to a dead polemicist who is nowadays characterized as a middle Platonist, though Origen hints that he may have been an Epicurean (Against Celsus 1.8; see further Bergjan 2001).

Origen undertakes to show that the simplest disciple of God's word knows him better than the philosophers who seek him by their own methods (Against Celsus 7.42), that Plato misrepresents the fall and diminishes the Creator, that if his myths are deep, the biblical allegories are deeper and less perverse, and that Numenius, the foremost Platonist of recent times, has spoken of both Moses and Jesus with esteem (Against Celsus 4.15 etc.).

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/247335/pdf
http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0185-0254,_Origenes,_Contra_Celsus,_EN.pdf

Simplicius emboldens Johannes Grammaticus
Some of Philoponus  commentaries profess to be based on Ammonius' lectures, but others give more room to Philoponus' own ideas. Eventually, he transformed the usual format of apologetic commentary into a discourse of open criticism, in the course of which he examined and repudiated fundamental Aristotelian-Neoplatonic tenets, most prominently the doctrine of the eternity of the world. This independent-minded or even disrespectful approach to philosophical commentary, as well as the conclusions he drew, antagonized Philoponus' pagan colleagues; their opposition may have compelled him to abandon his philosophical career in the 530's.

"Simplicius and John Philoponus both began their philosophical studies at Alexandria under Ammonius, who taught there between 475 and 526 AD. But while Simplicius soon left for Athens, Philoponus remained at Alexandria, first writing fairly standard commentaries on Aristotle, based on the notes he took at Ammonius' classes. It was precisely in 529, however, the year of Justinian's edict, that Philoponus suddenly began to publish treatises in which he defended a Christian viewpoint, criticizing the doctrines of pagan philosophers. He began with a work entitled; "On the Eternity of the World" against Proclus, in which he refuted the arguments in favor of the world's eternity by Proclus, the great Athens-based teacher of Ammonius."-- Michael case

Proclus text  provokes Philoponus
Philoponus  earliest appearance as an author was in his περὶ αϘδιότητος, a reply to Proclus Diadochus, one of the most interesting of all post-Aristotelian Greek philosophical texts, written at a crucial moment in the defeat of paganism by Christianity, AD 529, when the Emperor Justinian closed the pagan Neoplatonist school in Athens. Philoponus in Alexandria was a brilliant Christian philosopher, steeped in Neoplatonism, who turned the pagans' ideas against them.

Here he attacks the most devout of the earlier Athenian pagan philosophers, Proclus, defending the distinctively Christian view that the universe had a beginning against Proclus' eighteen arguments to the contrary, It shows great dialectic ability and learning, the quotations in it covering the whole range of the literature of his own and previous times (652–654), and is said to have been a complete refutation of the great neo-Platonist and to have convicted him of gross ignorance (s. v. Πρόκλος).

This is one of the most interesting of all post-Aristotelian Greek philosophical texts, written at a crucial moment in the defeat of paganism by Christianity,  when Justinian closed the pagan Neoplatonist school in Athens. Philoponus, a Christian has turned the pagans' ideas against them. The brilliant Copt, in his philosophical Opus Magnus, attacks Proclus, the most devout earlier Athenian pagan philosophers, defending the distinctive Christian view that the universe had a beginning against Proclus' eighteen arguments to the contrary, which are discussed in eighteen chapters.

John Philoponus, the great sixth-century thinker, writing just when the Athenian schools were closing down, is perhaps a paradigm case of the kind of accommodation between pagan (Aristotelian) philosophy and the tenets of Christianity. While defending the creation of the world against both Proclus and Aristotle, Philoponus is clearly well versed in pagan thought.
His arguments in defense of creation and against eternity are subtle and give every indication of a cultural commitment in Christian circles to a close reading of, and in this sense respect for, "ancient" authors.

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2006/2006-01-31.html
http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/philoponus-against-proclus-on-the-eternity-of-the-world-6-8-9781472557711/
http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/philoponus-against-proclus-on-the-eternity-of-the-world-12-18-9781472557704/

In his native Christian Alexandria, Origen learnt the Psalms in Hebrew and studied Greek and the Bible. Of his commentaries to almost every book of the Bible, substantial remnants are extant for those on the Psalms, Song of Solomon, John, Matthew, and Romans. Some 279 homilies, mostly on the Hebrew Bible, have survived. Origen occasionally rebukes Jewish literalism but also defends Jews against abuse. His distinction of three senses of scripture anticipated the Jewish distinction of four senses; in this regard, Jews borrowed from Christians rather than the reverse.

Origen is considered as the founder of the allegorical interpretation of scripture in biblical exegesis. His numerous works, which have survived only in fragmentary transmission or in Latin translations, are counted among the foundations of Christian thought. Origen has had a profound influence on the history of ideas in the fields of theology, philology and preaching from late antique times to the present. Until today, his homilies on and interpretations of the Psalms were known only in fragmentary transmission or in Latin translations.

Particularly serious was the loss of the whole of his great work of the interpretation of the Psalms — in the form of both homilies and commentaries — with the exception of a few homilies, translated into Latin, since in his time the above-mentioned interpretation of the Psalms was considered the great exegete's opus maxim, both due to the volume of his writings and the excellence of his interpretation. The manuscript into which the newly discovered texts were copied is an unconspicuous, bulky volume dating from the 12thcentury.

While cataloguing a 12th-century manuscript, philologist Marina Pradel was able to identify numerous passages from the original Greek version of the homilies on the Psalms by Origen (185-253/4 A.D.), which were previously lost. Origen Adamantius of Alexandria is considered the most important exegete of the early Church and the founding father of Alexandrine Christian theology. The ongoing cataloguing project of the BSB’s Greek manuscripts (from the collection donated by J. J. Fugger), made a most spectacular discovery that has been made yet in the field.

The importance of this discovery for research and the academic world cannot be overestimated. The attribution of the texts to Origen has been confirmed by Lorenzo Perrone of Bologna University, an internationally renowned specialist for the works of this author, "with the utmost probability." The cataloguing project for the Greek manuscripts can celebrate its 20th anniversary this year, but it will take at least another fifteen years to complete these new academic descriptions of all Greek manuscripts owned by the BSB.

According to the Director of the BSB, “This discovery is extremely important – both for its antiquity and forthe sheer number of texts concerned. It will stimulate lively discussion in the academic world and it will even give us new insights into the textual tradition of the Greek Bible. Origen’s works were read by all church fathers and had a profound influence on them. This find will permit scholars to study the previously unknown original Greek text”.

In update 2 to the first post, which also includes an image of the splendid first folio of the manuscript), the contents of the manuscript include the homilies which are arranged into two books (tomos).

The first book (foll. 1-273 according to a modern foliation) contains Origen’s homilies on the following Psalms:
Psalm 15: 2 homilies.
Psalm 31: 4 homilies.
Psalm 66: 2 homilies (although the modern note in Latin which opens the manuscript mentions 3 homilies on this Psalm).
Psalm 73: 3 homilies.
Psalm 74: 1 homily.
Psalm 75: 1 homily.
Psalm 76: 4 homilies.
The volume ends with the first 5 homilies on Psalm 77.

The second book starts on the verso of fol. 273. It contains:
Psalm 77: homilies 6-9.
Psalm 80: 2 homilies
Psalm 81: 1 homily.

This is a major find, even if some homilies are known to us in a Latin version. The note in the Clavis Patrum Graecorum (vol 1, pg 149), which assigns the reference # 1426 to this work of Origen’s on the Psalms, only lists the smallest of fragments and catena excerpts previously extant. This may well be the earliest major Christian treatment of the Psalms now extant. The title says “Homilies on the Psalter, by an uncertain author, up to Psalm 81 as the end.” …The commentaries on Ambrose and Augustine on the Psalms have been translated into English and have gained hearings in various scholarly settings.

The list of neglected works for the fourth century alone includes those by Eusebius of Caesarea (CPG 3467), Athanasius (CPG 2140), Evagrius Ponticus (2455), Didymus of Alexandria (CPG 2550-2551), Basil of Caesarea (CPG 2836), Diodore of Tarsus (CPG 3818), Theodore of Mopsuestia (CPG 3833), and Asterius Ignotus (so renamed by Wolfram Kinzig; CPG 2815-2816). Perhaps this major find will bring about a renewed interest in Origen’s other works on the Psalms (CPG 1425, 1427-1429, 1503.9), as well as the many, many other Greek commentaries still awaiting translation, analysis, and broader circulation.

Origen Philosophical System
Origen's The First Principles is a proto-Systematic Theology, and in Book III, Origen discusses Election with more scrutiny than in previous chapters. The Latin translation by Rufinus is a paraphrase and often softens the text to favor the later and more widely accepted views on Free Will and Justification and seem to contradict a literal translation Origen's Greek fragments. The original Greek text,De Principiis, has only survived in fragments, and the complete extent text only exists from Rufinus's translation into Latin, De principiis, (see Rufinus' prologue).

Unfortunately, the Latin text is not a literal word-for-word translation, and uses about twice as many words as the underlying Greek original; this is most unfortunately, because certain words and phrases in the original Greek has significant meaning such as kosmos, pysche, and other words that are lost by the looseness of the Latin translation. Side-by-side, the Greek Translation by Rev. Frederick Crombie, D.D. is far superior thought-for-thought translation of the Latin  (Post Barthian)

De Principiis 
Origen was the first systematic theologian and philosopher of the Christian Church. Earlier Christian intellectuals had confined themselves to apologetic and moralizing works; notable among such writers is Clement of Alexandria (d. 215 C.E.), who, like Origen, found much of value in Hellenic philosophy. Before proceeding with an examination of Origen's system, it must be noted that scholars are divided over the question of whether or not his On First Principles contains a system.

Henri Crouzel - 1989,  has argued that the presence of contradictory statements in certain portions of the treatise, as well as in other texts, is proof against the claim that Origen was presenting a system. Hans Jonas (1974), on the other hand, recognized a clear system in On First Principles and gave a convincing elucidation of such. The reason for this scholarly divide is mostly due to the lack of a precise definition of 'system' and 'systematic'. If one approaches Origen's text expecting a carefully worked-out system of philosophy in the manner of a Kant or a Hegel, one will be disappointed.

However, if one reads the text with an eye for prominent themes and inner consistency of such themes with one another, a system does emerge. As John Dillon has pointed out, Origen succeeded in luring away several students of the renowned Platonic teacher Ammonius Saccas to study with him, and, Dillon convincingly observes, this would not have been possible if Origen did not have some system to offer (Dillon, in Kannengiesser, Petersen, ed. 1988, p. 216, and footnote). It must also be pointed out that the text of On First Principles that we possess is not complete.

Origen's original Greek is preserved only in fragments, the remainder of the text is extant only in a Latin translation by Rufinus, who was a defender of Origen against posthumous charges of heresy. While Rufinus' translation is, as far as we can tell, faithful in most respects, there is ample evidence that he softened certain potentially troublesome passages in an ill-guided attempt to redeem his beloved teacher. When reading Origen's treatise, then, one would do well to keep this in mind should one stumble across seemingly contradictory passages, for one has no way of knowing what the original Greek might have said. (Internet E. P.)

Origen's Christian Theology
Origen was the first Christian to speak of three hypostases in the Trinity and to use the term homoousios (though only by analogy) of the relation between the second of these hypostases and the first. The Father, or first person, is nevertheless the only one who is autotheos, God in the fullest sense, whereas the Son is his dunamis or power and the Spirit a dependent being, operative only in the elect. All three are eternal and incorporeal, the Son being known as Wisdom in relation to the Father and Logos (reason, word) in relation to the world. In this capacity he is the shepherd of rational beings the logikoi, who, according to his later critics, were said in his lost writings to have been in origin incorporeal beings coeval with the world if not eternal, and currently imprisoned in material bodies only because of a cooling in their love. It is not so easy to demonstrate from his extant works that he held the material world in such contempt, though he certainly holds it to be created out of nothing and suspects that the concept of matter is philosophically redundant. Souls, in his view, are sent down into bodies (perhaps never more than once, though again some critics impute to him a doctrine of transmigration or chronic falling away from bliss). The soul remains indefeasibly free in its choices, and the misuse of this freedom is the cause of its captivity to the devil. (Stanford E. P.)
___________________________________________________________________________________

The Great Alexandrian sets the dawn of Christian theology, in neoplatonic language  that formed "On First Principles"
By Didaskalex, Vine Voice, Jan 2014

"The history of Dogmatics does not go back to the time of the Apostles, but only to the beginning of the third century, when Origen wrote his Peri Archon."-- Louis Berkhoff


Origen theological thought is exposed in; 'On First Principles,' and 'Contra Celsum', his defense of Christianity, against attacks of an earlier pagan philosopher. On First Principles, is Origen's major systematic and philosophical work where he established the main doctrines of the Church of Alexandria, including those of the Holy Trinity, and the restoration of souls, in proximity to the Godhead. 'Theosis', a state of gradual  metamorphism into perfection of believers. He pioneered defense of humns free will. His speculations on the transmigration, fall and the souls, underline the fundamental role of cosmology, in the development of theology.

"On First Principles" sets the foundations for Christian theology as doctrine. Based on Christian Neoplatonism, a first attempt to compose a systematic Christian theology. Origen was probably n an faith in neo platonic terms, an expression of Alexandrian Orthodox doctrines. The first book of De Principiis deals with God and creation; the second and third with Creation and Providence  and redemption; and the fourth with the Holy Scriptures.There is no evidence that he had ever modified it in any respect.

Written for Church members, Origen affirms one God, creator and ruler of the universe, Jesus Christ begotten before all creation, divine in His incarnation, and the Holy Spirit in the glory of the Father. He declared that humans depend in their existence on the Father, their rational nature from the Son, and their holiness from the Holy Spirit. In spite of his guiding principle; "Nothing which is at variance with the tradition of the apostles and of the Church is to be accepted as true." Origen's  speculative flights lead some early church leaders to question his orthodoxy.

"Origen was the first to construct something like a system of theology. His work was written about the year 218 AD., in which he attempts to transform the doctrine of the Church into a speculative science, acceptable to the cultural and philosophical classes of his day." Alan Scott states, most scholars have concluded that Rufinus' work, though not a strict translation by modern standards, has suppressed little for doctrinal reasons, and is generally a more reliable guide for Origen's cosmology than the fragments in the Koetschau edition. It could appear that Rufinus has changed some of Origen's language on the Trinity, but there was no major changes to cosmology.

Fall and Redemption
Origen expounded a thesis that there were two creations, as in the two narrative accounts in Genesis. The first creation was of spirits without bodies, possessing free will, but some strayed away from the purpose of their creation, doxology for the Lord, and fell. The second creation, of the material universe, thus followed. The souls who fell most remotely became demons, the others were made human. The reason we possess human bodies, and experience suffering is our sin during preexistence. Origen claims this notion is supported by the Bible, while it is influenced by Neo-Platonic philosophy.

Universalism presents Origen's other controversial issue of De Principiis; he deducted that since God is Love, everyone, even Satan, could be ultimately saved, and the entire creation will return to its original state of pure spirituality. Scholars confirm, "Origen denies metempsychosis and explicitly affirms the uniqueness and sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice, and, although the salvation of the devil must be left open as a possibility in a system emphasizing the divine pedagogy and human freedom of will to the degree that Origen's does, there are passages in which he rules it out." -- John Cavadini, Ency. of Catholicism,  p. 941

Preface to Origen's Exhaurtations
The collected works in this volume represent the heart of Origen's spiritual vision.

"Indeed, the soul is led by a heavenly love and desire when once the beauty and glory of the Word of God has been perceived; he falls in love with His splendor and by this receives from Him some dart and wound of love."-- Origen

Origen on Martyrdom
Maximinus Cæsar, began a persecution, commanding that only the rulers of the churches should be put to death, as responsible for the Gospel teaching. Thereupon Origen composed his work On Martyrdom, and dedicated it to Ambrose and Protoctetus, a presbyter of the parish of Cæsarea, because in the persecution there had come upon them both unusual hardships, in which it is reported that they were eminent in confession during the reign of Maximinus, which lasted about three years. Origen has noted this as the time of the persecution in the twenty-second book of his Commentaries on John.

Origen on Prayer
Origen essay on prayer remains to be an influential text for believers on the practice, and mindset of prayer. Origen writes that prayer is the way in which humans can know and have discourse with God. He surveys the ways prayer is depicted in the Bible. He portrays the purposes of prayer in requests, praise,  intercessions, and thanksgivings. Origen writes an exegesis of the Lord's Prayer, with an in-depth look at each phrase of the prayer, rendering a valuable resource for Christians. He ends with comments on the forms of prayer, the  common posture and describes the needed state of mind for praying. Origen refers to biblical verses, and describes the bible's prayerful characters.
____________________________________________________________________________________

With Origen on Prayer and Martyrdom
By Didaskalex, vine voice, on December 10, 2005

"Let us, therefore, not think that it is words we are taught to say in appointed seasons of prayer. On the contrary, if we understand our former consideration of prayer without ceasing, let our whole life be a life of unceasing prayer." Origen

Origen's Early life
I encountered Origen, as a young kid in a Sunday lesson on the Alexandrine Didaskaleon, for the first time. A devout Christian, biblical scholar, catechist, and head of the Alexandrian Catechetical school. His father Leonides, was a teacher of Greek literature, and a presbyter deacon, who educated his brilliant son in both Hellenistic and Biblical studies. In 202, Leonides was martyred during Severus persecution. Origen sought to share the fate of his father, and was only prevented by his mother's hiding his clothes to prevent him going outside. Origen satisfied himself with writing an earnest letter to his father exhorting him to face death if necessary and cautioning him "not to change your mind because of us." Leonides fortunes were confiscated by the empire.

Origen's Career
Origen took shelter for a time in the household of a wealthy Christian lady while he continued his studies. Within a year or so, he had begun work as a teacher of Greek literature in order to support himself and his newly impoverished family. In the meantime, Origen continued his own education.
Persecution under Severus had left the catechetical school of Alexandria without leadership. To meet the needs of those who desired to learn about the Christian faith, Demetrius, Bishop of Alexandria, appointed Origen to take over the catechist instruction. He continued his grammarian instructions as well, but when his brothers became old enough to support the family, he was able to focus on his religious mission.

Exhortatio ad Martyrium
Origen is probably the most voluminous writer the Church has ever had and that even antiquity ever knew. Origen left two ascetical works,"On Prayer" and "an Exhortation to Martyrdom." The Exhortation to Martyrdom, written around 235, early days of Maximinus' persecution. Addressed to Ambrose and to Protoctetus, a presbyter of Caesarea, whom Origen exhorts to confess their faith up to death, if necessary. A forceful and earnest address, which expresses the author's own attitude towards martyrdom. The exaltation of martyrdom was a corner stone of Origen's training in the Christian life, and a major topic in his teaching. throughout his life, Origen's thoughts were linked to Martyrdom, as professing true faith. He was a martyr by race; yearned in his youth to be martyred with his father Leonides.

Origen on Martyrdom
Martyrdom was a continuation of the work of redemption for who Origen risked his life in encouraging martyrs, starting with his own father when he was only seventeen. He was himself tortured as an elder man and died in Caesarea, a short time later. But the Alexandrian, who had spent much of his life exhorting others to martyrdom if necessary and encouraging the persecuted, shown no signs of betraying the faith. Much of Origen's life in Alexandria was devoted to support of believers in the midst of persecution. Several of his own students were martyred, while Origen was himself spared, though so often present at prisons and executions. His life was endangered many times, but he survived, and continued his instruction of new believers in the Christian faith. Origen himself, was put in prison and tortured, in his late sixties, and died a confessor due to his sufferings. Origen shares with St. Ignatius of Antioch his desire for martyrdom, and with Clement of Alexandria, on teaching that martyrdom was the perfection of love. Martyrdom, for him was an attestation to the truth of Christianity, not merely that Christians were capable of dying for their faith, but because martyrdom shows Christian contempt for death, and proves the defeat of the powers of evil (I Cor. 15:55).

A Life of Prayer
On prayer is divided into two parts: prayer, its necessity and efficacy; and a commentary on the Lord's Prayer. This little book is one of Origen's most spiritual, written probably in his mature manhood years. Origen begins his treatise 'On Prayer' by acknowledging that even to begin to speak of prayer is to draw a contour for a great mystery; "The discussion of prayer is so great a task that it requires the Father to reveal it, his First-born Word to teach it, and the Spirit to enable us to think and speak rightly of so great a subject." To speak of prayer, then, is to be on holy ground. Origen ends his treatise on prayer saying, "I have struggled through my treatment of the subject of prayer and of the prayer in the Gospels together with its preface in Matthew. But if you press on to the things in front and forget those behind and pray for me in my undertaking, I do not despair of being enabled to receive from God the Giver a fuller and more divine capacity for all these matters,..."

Comments on Prayer
Evagrius, one of Origen's best students, writes on prayer, "eventually give way to 'prayerful' existence,the fulfillment of contemplation, as theologia." Andrew Louth describes the progression to this state as, " In this state of natural contemplation,... This is the realm of prayer, which Evagrius regards as a state rather than an activity, not so much something you do as something you are. In this state the soul recovers its true nature: 'the state of prayer is an impassible habit which snatches up the soul that loves wisdom to the intellectual heights by a most sublime love'.
A liturgical scholars like Schmemann declared that, "The real danger, in Evagrius' interpretation of Origen, resided in the replacement of a salvific contemplation with a state of prayer in which the soul is essentially static. The human spirit - at least in the West - naturally rebels against such doctrines."

Preface
Written by Hans Urs von Balthasar, the late eminent Swiss theologian, one of the greatest Catholic theologians of the 20th century. Born in Lucerne, Switzerland, Balthasar studied philosophy and German literature at the universities of Zurich, Vienna, and Berlin, joined the Society of Jesus and studied under Henri de Lubac, who inspired him on the love of the Fathers of the Church, resulting in his important studies of Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and Maximus the Confessor (Cosmic Liturgy). This period was marked by his long commitment to translation, that started with selections from Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and Augustine.

Translator
Rowan Greer, who wrote the exhaustive introduction, a key to enjoying Origen's spiritual books, is Professor of Anglican Studies, Yale University Divinity School. An expert on early church life and thought, he wrote many books on the subject, including: Broken Lights and Mended Lives: Theology and Common Life in the Early Church, The Captain of Our Salvation: A Patristic Exegesis of Hebrews; The Sermon on the Mount.

"Origen viewed both biblical revelation and spiritual life of the believer as progressive processes. The church is the great “school of souls” in which erring pupils are disciplined; elementary education in this life, higher education in the world to come, where the atoning and sanctifying process will continue in a purging baptism of fire."--Ency. Britannica

For Origen the object of religious knowledge is a mystery. Therefore he shrinks from using 'definitions', by which in his opinion the mystery is literally 'restricted'. applies to the Church. About her can only be spoken 'in a manner of speaking' and by means of images. The Bible itself leads the way in this respect. Therefore one must not stick to the literal meaning of the text, but one must try to understand it spiritually. the biblical images of the Church. Sometimes he elaborates them or puts them in a new context. But he also creates new images to describe the Church and already detects in the Old Testament all kinds of types of the Church ecclesiology, Editorial review

*Book contents; The Body of Christ, The Bride of Christ, Familia Christi
House and Sanctuary, People of God, Cosmos, Sketch of an Ecclesiology
____________________________________________________________________________________

"Mysterium Ecclesiae. Images of the Church and its Members in Origen," 2001, by F. Ledegang

Origen's Ecclesiastical Mystical Authority and the Hierarchy of Truths
Reviewed by Didaskalex, Vine Voice, December 9, 2006

"The Church's fundamental function in every age and particularly ours is to direct man's gaze, to point the awareness and experience of the whole of humanity towards the mystery of God." Redemptor Hominis


Pre-existent Church Mystery
Origen's ecclesiology, is one of the keys to his systematic theology, describing the Church as the pre-existent essence of all creation, the core of salvific economy. Origen's concept is deeply inherent in a universal life-affirming belief. Origen's pioneering attempt at systematizing and correlating the basic aspects of Christian doctrine with its biblical tradition has to be viewed within his intellectual background, and immediate Alexandrine environment of various catechetical thought traditions. Origen emerged as preeminently a confessional theologian (of Christian resistance in a persecuted church), wrestling with the fundamental question of unity in diversity.

Fr. McGuckin deduces that Origen searched in the fragmentation of world order for the providential touch of God upon history. He was an exponent of a mystical understanding of the `hidden meaning' of scripture, as texts and life. His soteriology that developed into Alexandrian Christology of Athanasius and Cyril has greatly influenced all patristic tradition that followed, though his controversial ideas of lapsed pre-existing souls were not widely approved. Origen's ecclesiology is an important alternative to the rather more hierarchal ecclesiology of Cyprian, Tertullian, (and later, Augustine) and suggests some creative possibilities for the modern reader interpretation and theological reconstruction.

Mysterium ecclesiae, Today
"Let the Mystery of the Church shine forth," is a succinct summary of the central theme of the Second Vatican Council's on the Church, Lumen Gentium, Light of the world. The first encyclical of Pope Paul VI, "Ecclesiam Suam," states that the Church "is a storehouse of God's hidden counsels which the Church must bring to light!" The first chapter of the document is entitled "The Mystery of the Church" and begins with the proclamation that Christ is the light of humanity," and continues to state: "The Church - that is the kingdom of Christ - already present in mystery, grows visibly through the power of God in the world.

All people are called to union with Christ, who is the light of the world, from whom we go forth, through whom we live and toward whom our whole life is directed!" Pope John Paul II also states in his first encyclical, "Redemptor Hominis," that "The Church's fundamental function in every age and particularly ours is to direct man's gaze, to point the awareness and experience of the whole of humanity towards the mystery of God." Many centuries ahead, it was Origen's creative theology, which established the doctrine of the Church, early in the third century, empowering that great pioneering defenders of Orthodoxy.

Dominus Iesus and Mysterium Ecclesiae
In the Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae), of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, one reads, "...there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the (Roman) Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which are not in perfect communion with the Roman Church, remain united to her, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches (Second Vatican Council) Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Roman Primacy dogma of exercises over the entire Church.

The Orthodox Churches, in particular, with few others, claim to remain true because they "maintain apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist." Assuming the authors of "The Great Façade" do not deny this, then it should be clear how it is that the Church of Christ is "present and operative" in these Orthodox Churches. Wherever Christ is, there is His Church and His Body united to the Holy Spirit. With a valid Eucharist it can quite literally be said that the Mystical Body of Christ resides in Orthodox Churches. Of course, this Mystical Body is marred, due to lack of full communion with the Roman Church !?

Drawn Conclusions
Verlyn Verbrugge, after an anlytical evaluation of Origen's Ecclesiology, in a paper for the Origen Colloquy held at UND, Indiana, April 1986, came to the qualified conclusion that in the Church, as body of Christ, Origen employs rich and variegated ways in this image, from a philosophical emphasis on unity to amoral exhortationto holy living. On the other hand, in asserting the mystical union between Christ and the Church, Origen sees this union so intimate to ascribe similitude (through theosis).

The faithful believers, members of the Church, maintain a mystical union with one another. This sense of strong intra-union inspires Origen, drawing many ethical obligations on believers conduct in their living, every Christian to love, support, and help one another. In sum, Origen's teaching on the body of Christ is living and dynamic. His explanation flows with the biblical data. I hereby translate Gustave Bardy endorsed conclusion, in French: "Origen's universal faith (Catholicism) is not that of an intellectual who insists to think that the assignments of the Church be expressed in scholastic terms, those of a religious goal which does not stop searching for God to unite with more intimately, always.'

Origen's doctrine of the Church
Ledegang believes that mystery lies at the heart of all religious thought of Origen, including knowledge of the Church. Origen does not set forth a definition of the Church as such but attempts to expound its essence through a series of images, due to this starting point. Origen's doctrine of the Church, Ledegang asserts, has been neglected in dogmatic history, patrology, and Origenist studies on. What did Origen then have to say about the Church? Surely a good deal, says Ronald Heine, commenting on the size of this book as an indication. Ledegang's work, which appeared first in Dutch in 1992, 'is definitely a book intended for scholars,' in his right judgement. There have been few monographs or essays on the subject; Vogt's earlier study, represents the only major work devoted to the subject, even though Ledegang thinks it was methodologically flawed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZBUXy8qZ0g
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/earl/summary/v011/11.3heine.html
http://www.martagon.org/lts/teaching/CH400/Origen/Origen-mysteryChurch.pdf

History and Spirit: The Understanding of Scripture According to Origen,
by Henri De Lubac
Review by Didaskalex, Vine Voice, Apr 2007

"The central feature of Origen's spirituality is an absolute and passionate love for the Logos, which has taken on personal lineaments for us in Jesus Christ, suffuring the total cosmos of men and angels... Origen finds him everywhere, and the entire Old Testament speaks of him only (Job 5, 46f)" Hans Urs von Balthassar

Origen (185-ca. 254), one of the most prolific and influential of the early Church Fathers, is best known to us for his Scripture exegesis. Henri de Lubac's History and Spirit is a landmark study of Origen's understanding of Scripture and his exegetical methods. In exploring Origen's efforts to interpret the four different senses of Scripture, de Lubac leads the reader through an immense and varied work to its center: Christ the Word.

As Hans Urs von Balthasar said in discussing this seminal work: "The theory of the senses of Scripture is not a curiosity of the history of theology but an instrument for seeking out the most profound articulations of salvation history..." (From the book The Theology of Henri de Lubac.)

What the reader finds on this journey is not only, then, a fascinating view of the mind and spirit of an important Father of the Church, but an essential key to a more profound understanding of the way in which Christ speaks to us through Scripture.

De Lubac's Seminal Study
Henri de Lubac's History and Spirit is a landmark study of Origen's understanding of Scripture and his exegetical methods. In exploring Origen's efforts to interpret the four different senses of Scripture, de Lubac leads the reader through an immense and varied work to its center: Christ the Word. De Lubac's fascinating view of the mind and spirit of Origen, the greatest teacher within the Fathers of the Church, guides the reader on this journey to a more profound understanding of the way in which Christ speaks to us through Scripture. "The theory of the senses of Scripture is not a curiosity of the history of theology but an instrument for seeking out the most profound articulations of salvation history..." Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Theology of Henri de Lubac.

Origen's Conception of Scripture
Origen's understanding of Scripture, was as means of God's salvific work by returning people to contemplation. Origen's theology and exegesis, in his own view, are not at all separated. Origen is quite indistinct in his delineation of the soulful meaning relative to the literal and the spiritual except to affirm that it is intermediately edifying. Maurice Wiles' gloss of these layers of meaning in "Origen as Biblical Scholar," as literal, moral and spiritual, Origen's employment of these three levels of meaning in exegetical practice may be more apparent. Nevertheless, both in his practice as well as in his subsequent theory, Origen seems to undermine any rendering of the soulful meaning as distinct from the spiritual.

In any case, the spiritual meaning of the text is of foremost importance for Origen; he does not neglect to detail his method for its determination. In practice, however, Origen does not limit himself in delving for the spiritual meaning of a text to those passages which seem to him to be literally unlikely. Rather, even those passages 'not only possible but true' are subject to such investigation. "For with regard to divine Scripture as a whole we are of the opinion that all of it has a spiritual sense" (Homilies on Genesis 1.14).
"The theory of the senses of Scripture is not a curiosity of the history of theology but an instrument for seeking out the most profound articulations of salvation history..." Hans Urs von Balthasar

Allegory in Origen's Exegesis
The word allegory is instantly associated with Origenian exegesis, which is certainly not wrong, but is necessary to have a good understanding of its meaning. It is a historically developed exegesical method with a variety of meanings. Being more precise about its characteristics designated in Origen's case, the idea many think eludes any orderly discussion, goes earlier to Philo of Alexandria. His method followed the practices of both Philo and Stoic philosophy. His work was not widely accepted by Jews of his time but was later enthusiastically received by the early Christian catechists. ..., it is merely an allegation of a 'lack of sobriety' due to an extreme utilizatuion of symbolic typos." Henri De Lubac, Introduction

Origen's scriptural heritages
The work of both Peter Brown, and Rowan Williams shows the degree to which Origen has integrated his platonic and scriptural heritages, such that we no longer need to pit the one against the other. They both help us to see that Origen's particular combination of askesis, cosmology, and mystical progress all combine to explain his theology and exegesis of Scripture. "We are reminded here of several important animating principles to Origen's theology and practice of exegesis. First, Scripture is a kind of vast script for a drama, a play written down so that we may enter into it. The point of the play is to teach everyone "how to hear love's language in purity and with chaste ears."

Compelling Book Review
"Henri de Lubac's History and Spirit is a landmark study of Origen's understanding of Scripture and his exegetical methods. In exploring Origen's efforts to interpret the four different senses of Scripture, de Lubac leads the reader through an immense and varied work to its center: Christ the Word. What the reader finds on this journey is not only, then, a fascinating view of the mind and spirit of an important Father of the Church, but an essential key to a more profound understanding of the way in which Christ speaks to us through Scripture."
______________________________________

Henri De Lubac, S.J., was considered as one of the most important theologians of the twentieth century. Together with other towering modern theologians (and his close friends) like Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) and Hans Urs Von Balthasar, the writings of Henri De Lubac stand out as crucial theological works of 20th century Catholicism. Among his most famous works include Catholicism: Christ & The Common Destiny Of Man, The Splendor Of The Church, The Christian Faith, The Drama Of Atheist Humanism and Motherhood Of The Church.

VATICAN CITY, APR 25, 2007 (VIS) - In today's general audience Benedict XVI dedicated his catechesis to Origen of Alexandria, a third century historian and "one of the greatest writers" of Church history. Origen, said the Pope, "took up the legacy of Clement and carried it towards the future in such an innovative way as to effect an irreversible turn in the development of Christian thought. He was a true master ... and an exemplary witness of the doctrine he transmitted." The "irreversible turn" effected by Origen, said the Pope, substantially involved "grounding theology in the explanation of Scripture, in other words, the perfect symbiosis between theology and exegesis. Indeed, the characteristic of Origen's doctrine seems to lie in the constant invitation to pass from the reading to the spirit of Scripture in order to progress in knowledge of God.

further reading
https://www.academia.edu/7784358/History_and_Spirit_Henri_de_Lubac_on_Spiritual_Interpretation

* Presented to Origen's Advocate, Late Dr. Rodolph Yanney, Editor of Coptic Church Review, and my learned amazon friend Dr. John Uebersax

Invitation to eternity
The Christ is one with the Father, He is the Monogenis whose name Emmanuel is the most wonderful. Jesus Christ stated that He will never returns away any sincerely repenting soul. And since hell is by the biblical definition "staying away of the Loving Triad," Christ may have visited the abode of the dead, but not Hell, if there exists a temporal locality where eternal love does not prevail. Eternal life is described by John 17:3 as Knowing the Heavenly Father, and the New Covenant by Jeremiah 31:31-34.

Defining the terms 
Jesus did not go to a place of torment after His death, but He did go to hades. Sheol/hades was a realm with two divisions—a place of blessing and a place of judgment (Matthew 11:23; 16:18; Luke 10:15; 16:23; Acts 2:27–31). 
https://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-go-to-hell.html

Hell was divided into two areas before Christ made the jail break : 
Gehenna (Greek): is the lake of fire. Eternal damnation (Mt:18:9) The faithful went to the Abode of the Just (Abraham's Bosom), the bad guys when to Gehenna  (Gehenna; the valley of the shadow of death, named after the sons of Hannum ). There was a great chasm between the two places and there was no way to get to one side from the other. (Mt:18:9). Both abodes, of the saved and the lost, are generally called “hades” in the Bible, similar to a place of waiting.  
______________________________________


Preface
Hades is the unseen under world, as defined by the ancient Egyptians, who described their firm dogmatic belief with its fine details in their Book of the Dead, or the Book of Going forth by day. Sheol (Hebrew) or Hades (Greek), as read in  Luke 16:25; defines  the place (the state) of souls. Since Sheol is the place of departed souls, the only way to get there is to die. (Job.38:17: gates of death, and Ps. 9:13) Those who died went to either Abraham's bosom (the faithful) or Gehenna (Mark 9:47) to be cast into hell fire: 

In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word used to describe the realm of the dead is sheol. It simply means “the place of the dead” or “the place of departed souls/spirits.” The New Testament Greek equivalent of Sheol is hades, which also refers to “the place of the dead.” Other Scriptures in the New Testament indicate that Sheol/ hades is a temporary place, where souls are kept waiting the final resurrection and judgment.
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/he-descended-into-hell
 
Historical Geography hint
In the grotto ( the cave), outside Caesarea Philippi, according to Josephus, there was a very deep pool (whose depth had never been measured), fed by a powerful flowing stream of water. The cave was believed to be the gates to Hades. In Jesus' time a temple stood in front of the cave, and several other shrines and temples stood around, including one dedicated to Caesar. The niches in the rocky walls held images of the Greek gods Echo, Hermes, and Pan the goat god.

Pan was the son of Hermes, the messenger of all the gods, his  Roman Name was Faunus. He was born with two horns coming out of his forehead, and got the legs of a goat, with a crooked nose and pointed ears. Hermes wrapped the little guy in a blanket carrying him to Mount Olympus. Pan was a merry little fellow, and became the delight of many of the gods and goddesses.  Even Ares liked him a bit. With Zeus' permission, Hermes gave his son a perfect job of watching over shepherds and huntsmen.
http://www.generationword.com/Israel/caesarea_philippi.htm
______________________________________________________

The Gates of Hades will not prevail against the Church                                                         "Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live.”-- John 5:25. At Lazarus tomb, Jesus said to Martha, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live.” John 11:25

Following his abolition of sin, Jesus made a journey to Hades, to the City of Death, and rips its gates off the hinges. He liberates Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, John the Baptist, and the rest of the Old Testament faithful, ransoming them from the power of Sheol (Psalm 49:15; 86:13; 89:48). They had waited there for so long, not having received what was promised, so that their spirits would be made perfect along with the saints of the new covenant (Hebrews 11:39–40; 12:23).

In its basic sense, not prevail (katischuo); to overpower: prevail (against). This means that though the faithful have to die they will be resurrected again later. All believers have the hope in being raised in the likeness of Jesus’ resurrection, since Jesus Christ, trampled death, and in His death and resurrection, we became victorious, by the gift of eternal life. So death does not have a victory, the gates of Hades (not hell) the place where those unbelievers go) does not have a victory on those who believe.

Apokatastasis : Origen's Universalism
Repent therefore, and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah appointed for you, that is, Jesus, who must remain in heaven until the time of universal restoration (αποκαταστασις) that God announced long ago through his holy prophets. Acts 3:19-21 (NRSV)

Origen has produced the largest body of extant works that touch on the subject of universal reconciliation and his name has gained notoriety in debates over eschatology and the final state of humanity. He lived in a crucial period when Gnostic theologians were actively involved in debates shaping Christianity (Moore 34). It was against this backdrop that Origen began his work On First Principles as an answer to the systems that the Gnostics proposed.

Origen’s thought was influenced by a Greek philosophical education in the Platonic tradition. In this way his idea of a universal restoration of the ideal first state of Creation resembles models from Stoic philosophy and its doctrine of eternal recurrence (Moore 63). We find Origen’s own formulation in On First PrinciplesI.VI.2:

http://www.brycerich.net/seminary-papers/ch/apokatastasis-origen-gregory-nyssa.html

"... the abundance of sources, the detail of narrative, and particularly the range of social milieux that we know for these parts of late antiquity make ... of much broader interest. Elizabeth Clark has re-excavated and re-told the story with economy and vigor, but with an eye for the wider social implications and the longer-range doctrinal ones." James O'Donnell


Prologue to the controversy
If the Origenist controversy could be traced back to the writings of any one, other than Origen himself, then, there is much evidence that leads to his greatest student, Evagrius Ponticus. During 381 Evagrius studied under Gregory Nazianzen, Origen closest pupil, until forced to leave Constantinople joining Rufinas of Aquileia in a monastery near Jerusalem, before moving to Nitria south-east of lake Mariotis, where he lived with the wise men in the desert of Nitria and Kellia, west of the Nile delta. Although the teachings of Origen were attacked by Epiphanius of Salamis, earlier in 374, the controversy itself did not fully develop until the 390's when Evagrius published works began to be read by the Egyptian monks of Scetes.

Many of Evagrius' themes would soon become the center of the Anthropomorphic controversy: God cannot be defined or spoken of with human words, "Let what is inexplicable be worshipped in silence." The image of God is no longer accessible by man, the Divine is free from qualifying, even thoughts are inherently sinful (imaginations or visualization of God are heretical), the physical ceremony of the Eucharist is defective,and so on. There is much evidence that the Origenism which Epiphanius, Theophilus of Alexandria, and Jerome fought against at the turn of the fifth century was an extreme version iterated by Evagrius.

Historical Background
Theophilus, the Archbishop of the Great city of Alexandria, wrote in 399, a letter defending the Origenist position, to be read among the Egyptian monks. Theophilus' paschal letter objected to those who taught that God was corporal, "No, our feebleness is not God's image." At hearing this, the simple monks flocked to Alexandria, rioting in the streets, even threatening to kill Theophilus.The Patriarch quickly reversed himself, telling the monks that, "In seeing you, I behold the face of God." Theophilus' sudden switch was the catalyst for a series of events that led to the condemnation of Origen writings. The intellectual Origenist monks of the Egyptian desert did not accept Bishop Theophilus' condemnations. John Cassian and Germanus fled the controversy provoked by Theophilus, with about 300 other Origenist monks, who continued to practice their beliefs in Palestine and Syria into the sixth century when a series of events drove Origenism underground for good.

The Origenist Controversy
In her book The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate Elizabeth Clark notes the interconnection of some leading church figures during the late fourth century. She describes the direct influence the radical teachings of Evagrius to those of Pelagius and Juliun of Eclenum. This group of Origenist clergymen whose connection was not limited to reading the same books, but rather a close intellectual group made up of like minded thinkers living within a few days journey of one another. Unfortunately John Chrysostom, the great orator of Constantinople, found himself within this net with the Tall brothers, becoming guilty by association - rather than thought, to later justify his brutal dismissal from his see, going himself in exile before the whole controversy ended.

Restoration of all things
The idea, usually attributed, perhaps erroneously, to Origen. Since the soul is essentially rational, argued Origen, it will eventually be restored to the divine truth, salvation will follow. The word Origen used to describe this process of universal salvation "restoration of all things," was apokatastasis. Prompted by his idea of the pre-existence of souls, Origen may have come to view the mission of the temporal Church as "a gathering up of all lost, fallen souls into a unity resembling that which subsisted primordially." Apokatastasis, may be viewed as restoration, the culmination of gathering souls in a unity of faith.

Mystics in the Church still seeking union with God, followed Origen continued to pursue divinization, notwithstanding Church councils. But the Christian mystics were continually dogged by charges of heresy. At the same time while rejecting Apokatastasis, the Latin Church was accepting original sin, a doctrine that made it even more difficult for mystics to practice. Since Origen proposed his breaking through hope, some of the Church Fathers, including Gregory of Nyssa, and Didymus the Blind held for apokatastasis, universal restoration and salvation of all.

Controversy's Aftermath
Ultimately Emperor Justinian who provoked the condemnations of Origen was compelled to respond to this teaching through a Church council. "If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of the devils and of evil men is for a time and that there will be an end of it at some time, or that there will be a restoration [apokatastasis] of the devils and evil men, anathema sit." This condemnation, directed at those labeled "Origenists" and moved at the initiation of the Emperor Justinian, was adopted in 543 a provincial Synod in Constantinople. Hans von Balthasar charges that when writing and speaking of hell, "the great man, to whom posterity owes so much, did not do that within the limits laid down by the Gospel." Not only has the great saint (Origen) left with "the boulder of the Augustinian hell"

A Compelling review
James O'Donnell, U. of Pennsylvania, fine review stressed the importance of Professor Clark's work, "The 'Origenist controversy' is at heart the story over a very few years of a broken friendship, between Jerome and Rufinus, over the Latin translation and censorship of the writings of the abundantly learned Alexandrian theologian of the third century -- already a long-dead worthy in their time. Origen became a touchstone for questions surrounding both doctrine and the management of doctrine through texts. In the late fourth century, Latin Christianity was just acquiring for the first time a library, a collection of venerable writings beyond The Writings of scripture, that needed to be coped with somehow. Origen was too powerful to be ignored, and too dangerous to be swallowed whole.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           
Some Thoughts on the Anthropomorphite Controversy, 
The Form of God and Vision of the Glory: 

Cassian tells us that in three of the four churches at Scete the priests refused to read the patriarch's letter aloud, while Socrates and Sozomen report a mob of angry ascetics converging on the patriarchal residence bent on lynching the offending prelate. Although both historians leave the reader with the impression that they would have quite liked to see Theophilus dangling from the nearest lamp-post, neither evinces any sympathy for the views of the protesting monks. The latter are portrayed rather as ignoramuses whose naivte regarding both biblical interpretation and ecclesiastical politics allows the cunning patriarch to use their anger against his enemies in the Egyptian church, notably the Origenist "Tall Brothers" and their associates. According to the historians, Theophilus redeems the situation, and possibly his life, with a single remark: "In seeing you", he tells the mob, "I behold the face of God." The answering demand that he prove his bonafides by condemning Origen provides him with the opportunity he is seeking to begin a purge of his "Origenist" opposition.

Other scholars, most notably Elizabeth Clarke, have dealt at length with Theophilus and the other players in this, the first Origenist controversy. I would like to inquire into the thinking of the protesting monks. Were they, I wonder, the simpletons our sources make them out to be? What did it mean for them to believe, as it seems they did, that God has a "human form"? What or whom did they mean by "God"? Which tradition, or traditions, might they have been drawing upon, other than, or in addition to, the obvious anthropomorphism of the scriptures? I believe that this controversy had to do with two issues: first, that the monks thought the question important because they believed that it touched on the very goal of their lives as Christian renunciates, the vision of God; and, second, that their "anthropomorphism" represented in fact a Christology of very ancient provenance, with roots in the vision tradition of pre-Christian apocalyptic and with possible parallels in the interests some rabbinic circles maintained in mystical speculation on the chariot, or merkabah, of Ezekiel 1.

[Published in Romanian, translation by I. Ica Jr., Orthodoxie (Sibiu: Deisis, 1998, 184-267.]

Origen and Origenism
Origen of Alexandria (c. 185-254), is arguably the most accomplished apologist and exegete, called by Didymus the Blind fittingly "the Church teacher after the Apostles." He single handedly inaugurated the project of Christian Theology, composing an alleged 6 thousands works that expounded and defended the faith. He laid the base of Christian apologetics in Contra Celsum, and his extensive Biblical commentaries were the first to compare Greek and Hebrew textual variants, while his allegorical method of interpretation resolved many exegetical difficulties.

On the other hand, some works of Origen have fallen under ecclesiastical censure on several occasions. In his own lifetime, he had to desert Alexandria, and after his death, several of his theological concepts were criticized as heretical. Finally, in the sixth century his writings were  condemned by a synod of Greek bishops, ratified later by an ecumenical council. Although some of Origen's writings were censored, his influence on Christian theology persisted even among his denouncers.

It is tragic that a man to whom Christendom owes so much is maliced with such rumors in the ancient churches. In response to such injustice, many outstanding Christians have recently sought to rehabilitate Origen, arguing his writings were not duly censored by the Imperial Church. This sentiment is agreable, considering the Alexandrian doctor's many merits, yet the facts tell us to admit that this greatest father of the Church was bold to examine  tradition on several important points into  theological speculations, and that he was duly anathematized by the Church. 

While closely examining the nature of such anathema and its motivation, with the role played by Epiphanius and Jerome in the early controversies; Justinians fifteen anathemas against Origen issued by a synod of Greek bishops in 543, that was confirmed by the Sixth Ecumenical Council in 553. Finally, the extent to which Origen himself is likely to hold any heterodox opinions, and whether his real views reflecting a consensus Patristic trend in his time.

http://comparativereligion.com/anathemas.html 
_______________________________________________________

Dare we Hope like Origen's for Universal Restoration and Salvation of All ?
By Didaskalex, Vine Voice, February 2009


“If anyone asserts the fabulous preexistence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema." --Justinian, Emperor 

". . . the abundance of sources, the detail of narrative, and particularly the range of social milieu that we know for these parts of late antiquity make ... of much broader interest. Elizabeth Clark has re-excavated and re-told the story with economy and vigor, but with an eye for the wider social implications and the longer-range doctrinal ones." James O'Donnell


Prologue:
If the Origenist controversy could be traced back to the writings of any one, other than Origen himself, then, there is much evidence that leads to his greatest student, Evagrius Ponticus. During 381 Evagrius studied under Gregory Nazianzen, Origen closest pupil, until forced to leave Constantinople joining Rufinas of Aquileia in a monastery near Jerusalem, before moving to Nitria south-east of lake Mariotis.

Although the teachings of Origen were attacked by Epiphanius of Salamis, earlier in 374, the controversy itself did not fully developed until the 390's when Evagrius published works began to be read by the Egyptian monks of Scetis. The intellectual Origenist monks of the Egyptian desert did not accept Bishop Theophilus' condemnations. John Cassian and Germanus fled the controversy provoked by Theophilus, with hundreds of Origenist monks, who continued to practice their faith in Palestine and Syria into the sixth century.

Many of Evagrian themes would soon become the center of the Anthropomorphic controversy: God cannot be defined with human words. The image of God is no longer accessible by man, even thoughts are inherently sinful, and the physical Eucharist liturgy  is defective,  so on. There is much evidence that the Origenism which Bp Theophilus of Alexandria, Epiphanius, and Jerome fought later against was an extreme version by Evagrius.

Historical Background
In 399, Theophilus, the Archbishop of the Great city of Alexandria, wrote a letter defending the Origenist position, between the Egyptian monks. Theophilus' paschal letter objected to those who taught that God was corporal, "No, our feebleness is not God's image." On hearing this, the simple monks flocked to Alexandria, rioting in the streets, even threatening to kill Theophilus. The Patriarch quickly reversed himself, telling the monks that, "In seeing you, I behold the face of God. Theophilus' sudden switch was the catalyst for a series of events that led to e condemnation of Origen writings.

Origenist Controversy
In her book The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate, Elizabeth Clark notes the inter-relation of leading church figures during the late fourth century. She describes the direct influence the radical teachings of Evagrius to those of Pelagius and Juliun of Eclenum. This group of Origenist clergy whose connection was not limited to reading the same books, but rather a close intellectual group made up of like minded thinkers living within a few days journey of one another. John Chrysostom, found himself  with the Tall brothers,  guilty by association - rather than thought, to later justify his brutal dismissal from his see, going himself in exile before the whole controversy ended.

Restoration of all things
The idea, usually attributed, perhaps erroneously, to Origen. Since the soul is essentially rational, argued Origen, it will eventually be restored to the divine truth, salvation will follow in persuit. The word Origen used to describe this process of universal salvation "restoration of all things," was apokatastasis. Prompted by his idea of the pre-existence of souls, Origen may have come to view the mission of the temporal Church as "a gathering up of all lost, fallen souls into a unity resembling that which subsisted primordially."

Apokatastasis, may be viewed as restoration, the culmination of gathering souls in a unity of faith. Mystics in the Church still seeking union with God, followed Origen continued to pursue divinization, notwithstanding Church councils. But the Christian mystics were continually dogged by charges of heresy. At the same time while rejecting Apokatastasis, the Latin Church was accepting original sin, more difficult for mystics to practice. Since Origen proposed his amazing hope, some Church Fathers, as Gregory of Nyssa, and Didymus the Blind held for apokatastasis, universal restoration and salvation of all.

Controversy's Aftermath
Ultimately Emperor Justinian who provoked the condemnations of Origen was compelled to respond to this teaching through a Church council. "If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of the devils and of evil men is for a time and that there will be an end of it at some time, or that there will be a restoration (apokatastasis of the devils and evil men, anathema sit."This condemnation, directed at those labeled "Origenists" and moved at the initiation of the Emperor Justinian, was adopted in 543 a provincial Synod in Constantinople. Hans von Balthasar charges that when writing and speaking of hell, "the great man, to whom posterity owes so much, did not do that within the limits laid down by the Gospel." Not only has the great saint (Origen) left with "the boulder of the Augustinian hell"

Compelling review
James O'Donnell, U. of Pennsylvania, review stressed the importance of Professor Clark's work, "The 'Origenist controversy' is at heart the story over a very few years of a broken friendship, between Jerome and Rufinus, over the Latin translation and censorship of the writings of the 'abundantly learned' Alexandrian theologian of the third century -- already a long-dead worthy in their time. 
Origen became a touchstone for questions surrounding both doctrine and the management of doctrine through texts. In the late fourth century, Latin Christianity was just acquiring for the first time a library, a collection of venerable writings beyond The Writings of scripture, that needed to be coped with somehow. "

In conclusion
The Fifth Ecumenical Council (553 CE) passed a list of 15 anathemas against what they perceived as Origen’s heresies and ordered that his writings destroyed.
Origen was an icon for Alexandrine pride. He was too powerful to be ignored, and too dangerous to be swallowed whole ! And so, "If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (apokatastasis) will take place of demons and of evildoers, let him be anathema"-- Emperor Justinian

Dare We Hope Hell's Population is Redeemed?
ByTheoGnostus "Encycoptic"VIine Voice on February 10, 2008

"... God may inflict suffering upon us, both in this life and after our death; but always He does this out of tender love and with a positive purpose, as to cleanse us from our sins, to purge and heal us. 'The fury of God's vengeance avails to the purging of our souls.'" Origen, De Principiis, as narrated by Bishop. K. Ware

The Doctrine of Universalism, that has been prevailing in the Church led by Alexandrine theologians is nothing new. Apocatastasis is as original as Origen first taught the daring Christian hope in a loving and redeeming Father. Orthodox scholars acknowledge that the Church of Alexandria did not primarily believe in an apocalyptic Hell, but only in a Cosmic salvation of all mankind. Their belief, termed in in Greek 'apocatastasis,' the restoration of all things back to God, as initiated and defended by Origen. Early church leaders who followed suit, taught universalism through Jesus Christ the redeemer. All contemporary Christian factions have strong Universalists like Karl Rahner and John Macquarie. Most Universalists have studied the early church, and vindicated their beliefs by Origen's.

They appeal to the statement that God "desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4). Equally unavailing, are appeals to verses that God's plan is to reconcile all things in Christ (Eph 1:10; Col 1:19-20). Although this is surely God's intent, says Cardinal Dulles, "He does not override the freedom that enables men and women to resist His holy will. Paul is apparently seeking to stimulate the apostolic zeal of missionaries who will bring the saving truth of Christ to all who do not yet believe. The absolute necessity of faith for salvation is a constant theme in the writings of Paul. I see no reason, then, for ranking Paul among the universalists."

An Empty Hell ?
Because of texts such as "Many are called, but few are chosen" (Mt. 22:14), high Churches never accepted the proposition of an empty Hell, although a vacant Hell seems to have been upheld by virtually few Church fathers. Hell being in the Church's sense, meant an eternal state of condemnation. Origen who proposed it, is said to be speaking tentatively, or hypothetically. Possibly few of the Fathers followed him; the exact number is disputed. Emperor Justinian wrote his "Liber adversus Origenem", containing the reasons for condemning it with texts taken from the "De principiis", and lastly ten propositions to be anathematized. Justinian's new edict, which is not extant, resulted in the assembling of the fifth ecumenical council, in which the three chapters were condemned (553). Were Origen and Origenism anathematized? Many learned writers deny that they were condemned; most modern authorities are either undecided or reply with reservations.

Universalism Revived
Of the Roman Catholic Universalists stands tall Hans von Balthasar, the late renowned Swiss theologian, who wrote: Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved. "Will it really be all men who allow themselves to be reconciled? No theology or prophecy can answer this question. But love hopes all things (I Cor. 13:7). It cannot do otherwise than to hope for the reconciliation of all men in Christ. Such unlimited hope is, from the Christian standpoint, not only permitted but commanded." Earlier in the same Church, the great medieval mystic Julian of Norwich appeared to be a hopeful universalist. Karl Barth, the great pro Alexandrine Neo-Orthodox, has expressed strong universalistic hopes. Recently Bishop Kaistos Ware, the eminent scholar, and Greek Bishop is challenging a discussion of Origen and his supporters Gregory of Nyssa, Evagrius Ponticus, and Issac the Syrian and in conversation with them he asks the most daring question, for a Greek Clergy, "Dare we hope for the salvation of all?"

It is sad that in Origen's Church of Alexandria, (the Coptic Church) with Old Calendar Greeks are in this blissful ignorance of mere hate alliance with pre-Vatican II Catholic and Protestant fundamentalists, alike. They quote Peter's question in his First Letter, "If the righteous is scarcely to be saved, where will the impious and sinner appear?" (1 Peter 4:18). The Book of Revelation, not read by any Orthodox, teaches that in the fiery pit, Satan and his followers will be eternally tormented, "their lot shall be the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death" (Rev 21:8).

The Population of Hell
In his essay, the Population of Hell, Cardinal Dulles says, "Sometimes the complaint is heard that no one preaches about hell any longer. The subject of hell, if not attractive, is at least fascinating, as any reader of Dante's Inferno or Milton's Paradise Lost can testify. Equally fascinating, and decidedly more pressing, is the question of how many of us may be expected to go there when we die. In his All told, it is good that God has left us without exact information. If we knew that virtually everybody would be damned, we would be tempted to despair. If we knew that all, or nearly all, are saved, we might become presumptuous. If we knew that some fixed percent, say fifty, would be saved, we would be caught in an unholy rivalry. We would rejoice in every sign that others were among the lost, since our own chances of election would thereby be increased. Such a competitive spirit would hardly be compatible with the gospel.


Hell is not about what God is going to do, but about what we are capable of
By Didaskalex Vine Voice on November 25, 2007

"We are allowed to hope that no human is eternally damned. This is a founded theological hope, it is not a certitude. Indeed each person must existentially live with the real possibility that he or she might be doomed. The thesis itself is prompted, we believe, by mercy." Balthasar

The Church's teaching on Hell has been generally avoided by Christian theologians, who believe that the Lord's own desire that everyone be saved 1Tim 2:4. Hans Urs Cardinal von Balthasar is a notable exception of this attitude, who amended Dare We Hope "That All Men Be Saved"? With a Short Discourse on Hell (1988).

Since the soul is essentially rational, argued Origen, it will eventually be restored to the divine truth, salvation will follow. The word Origen used to describe this process of universal salvation "restoration of all things," was apokatastasis. Prompted by his idea of the pre-existence of souls, Origen may have come to view the mission of the temporal Church as "a gathering up of all lost, fallen souls into a unity resembling that which subsisted primordially." Apokatastasis, may be viewed as restoration, the culmination of gathering souls in a unity of faith. "Origen held a firm conviction that not a single rational being will be lost to the darkness of ignorance and sin. Even the most recalcitrant sinner, he argued, will eventually attain salvation." Edward Moore.

A Historical Debate
Since Origen proposed his breaking through hope, some of the Church Fathers, including Gregory of Nyssa, and Didymus the Blind held for the universal restoration and salvation of all (apokatastasis). Ultimately Emperor Justinian who provoked the condemnations of Origen was compelled to respond to this teaching through a Church council. This condemnation, directed at those labeled 'Origenists', was adopted by a provincial Synod in Constantinople in 543, approved by Pope Vigilius during his detention in Constantinople (547-55).

von Balthasar's Hell
In all cases these men speak of hell as being a "real possibility" but few ask the specific question about whether any humans are actually damned. von Balthasar charges that when writing and speaking of hell "the man, to whom posterity owes so much,  did not do that within the limits laid down by the Gospel."
"I claim nothing more than this: that give us a right to have hope for all men, which simultaneously implies that I see no need to take the step from the threats to the positing of a hell occupied by our brothers and sisters, through which our hopes would come to naught. I do not wish to contradict anyone who, as a Christian, cannot be happy without denying the universality of hope to us so that he can be certain of his full hell: that is, after all, the view of a large number of important theologians, especially among the followers of Augustine. But, in return, I would like to request that one be permitted to hope that God's redemptive work for his creation might succeed. Certainty cannot be attained, but hope can be justified.

Contra Infernalists
The manner in which Balthasar describes convictions opposed to his, unveil the pain he took writing these views reflects in the unusual amount of reactionary polemic the author targets those criticising his views or are in contradiction of his own, characterizing them as 'infernalists.' He recognizes that some of the Church's historical teacher and theologians; from Augustine, Gregory the Great, Anselm, to Bonaventure, Aquinas, and recently John Newman, belong to this group. von Balthasar finds Augustine's opinion "has cast an enormous shadow over the history of Western Theology," worthy of sharp criticism as being the pioneering 'Father of the Western World,'

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/save-all.html
http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/savior-of-the-world/all-saved.htm
https://www.academia.edu/4958853/Origen_of_Alexandria_and_Apokatastasis
http://www.gty.org/resources/bible-qna/BQ021513/if-god-desires-all-men-to-be-saved-why-arent-the