OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book III/Chapter XLVI

Chapter XLVI.
And if you come to the books written after the time of Jesus, you will find that those multitudes of believers who hear the parables are, as it were, “without,” and worthy only of exoteric doctrines, while the disciples learn in private the explanation of the parables. For, privately, to His own disciples did Jesus open up all things, esteeming above the multitudes those who desired to know His wisdom. And He promises to those who believe upon Him to send them wise men and scribes, saying, “Behold, I will send unto you wise men and scribes, and some of them they shall kill and crucify.” And Paul also, in the catalogue of “charismata” bestowed by God, placed first “the word of wisdom,” and second, as being inferior to it, “the word of knowledge,” but third, and lower down, “faith.” And because he regarded “the word” as higher than miraculous powers, he for that reason places “workings of miracles” and “gifts of healings” in a lower place than the gifts of the word. And in the Acts of the Apostles Stephen bears witness to the great learning of Moses, which he had obtained wholly from ancient writings not accessible to the multitude. For he says: “And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.” And therefore, with respect to his miracles, it was suspected that he wrought them perhaps, not in virtue of his professing to come from God, but by means of his Egyptian knowledge, in which he was well versed. For the king, entertaining such a suspicion, summoned the Egyptian magicians, and wise men, and enchanters, who were found to be of no avail as against the wisdom of Moses, which proved superior to all the wisdom of the Egyptians.
* ↑ Cf. Matt. xxiii. 34.
* ↑ Cf. 1 Cor. xii. 8.
* ↑ Acts vii. 22.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book III/Chapter XLVIII

Chapter XLVIII.
And perhaps also from the words, “For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and the base things, and the things which are despised, hath God chosen, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are, that no flesh may glory in His presence;” some have been led to suppose that no one who is instructed, or wise, or prudent, embraces the Gospel. Now, in answer to such an one, we would say that it has not been stated that “no wise man according to the flesh,” but that “not many wise men according to the flesh,” are called. It is manifest, further, that amongst the characteristic qualifications of those who are termed “bishops,” Paul, in describing what kind of man the bishop ought to be, lays down as a qualification that he should also be a teacher, saying that he ought to be able to convince the gainsayers, that by the wisdom which is in him he may stop the mouths of foolish talkers and deceivers. And as he selects for the episcopate a man who has been once married rather than he who has twice entered the married state, and a man of blameless life rather than one who is liable to censure, and a sober man rather than one who is not such, and a prudent man rather than one who is not prudent, and a man whose behaviour is decorous rather than he who is open to the charge even of the slightest indecorum, so he desires that he who is to be chosen by preference for the office of a bishop should be apt to teach, and able to convince the gainsayers. How then can Celsus justly charge us with saying, “Let no one come to us who is ‘instructed,’ or ‘wise,’ or ‘prudent?’” Nay, let him who wills come to us “instructed,” and “wise,” and “prudent;” and none the less, if any one be ignorant and unintelligent, and uninstructed and foolish, let him also come:  for it is these whom the Gospel promises to cure, when they come, by rendering them all worthy of God.
* ↑ Cf. 1 Cor. i. 26–28.
* ↑ Cf. Tit. i. 9, 10.
* ↑ Μονόγαμον.  Cf. Can. Apost., c. xvii.: “ὁ δυσὶ γάμοις συμπλακεὶς μετὰ τὸ βάπτισμα, ἢ παλλακὴν κτησάμενος, οὐ δύναται εἶναι ἐπίσκοπος, ἢ πρεσβύτερος, ἢ διάκονος, ἢ ὅλως τοῦ καταλόγου τοῦ ἱερατικοῦ.”  Cf. note in Benedictine ed.
* ↑ [Origen agrees with Tertullian, passim, on this subject. Hippolytus makes Callistus, Bishop of Rome, the first to depart from this principle,—accepting “digamists and trigamists.”]
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book III/Chapter XLIV

Chapter XLIV.
After these points Celsus quotes some objections against the doctrine of Jesus, made by a very few individuals who are considered Christians, not of the more intelligent, as he supposes, but of the more ignorant class, and asserts that “the following are the rules laid down by them. Let no one come to us who has been instructed, or who is wise or prudent (for such qualifications are deemed evil by us); but if there be any ignorant, or unintelligent, or uninstructed, or foolish persons, let them come with confidence. By which words, acknowledging that such individuals are worthy of their God, they manifestly show that they desire and are able to gain over only the silly, and the mean, and the stupid, with women and children.” In reply to which, we say that, as if, while Jesus teaches continence, and says, “Whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart,” one were to behold a few of those who are deemed to be Christians living licentiously, he would most justly blame them for living contrary to the teaching of Jesus, but would act most unreasonably if he were to charge the Gospel with their censurable conduct; so, if he found nevertheless that the doctrine of the Christians invites men to wisdom, the blame then must remain with those who rest in their own ignorance, and who utter, not what Celsus relates (for although some of them are simple and ignorant, they do not speak so shamelessly as he alleges), but other things of much less serious import, which, however, serve to turn aside men from the practice of wisdom.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book III/Chapter XLVII

Chapter XLVII.
But it is probable that what is written by Paul in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, as being addressed to Greeks who prided themselves greatly on their Grecian wisdom, has moved some to believe that it was not the object of the Gospel to win wise men. Now, let him who is of this opinion understand that the Gospel, as censuring wicked men, says of them that they are wise not in things which relate to the understanding, and which are unseen and eternal; but that in busying themselves about things of sense alone, and regarding these as all-important, they are wise men of the world: for as there are in existence a multitude of opinions, some of them espousing the cause of matter and bodies, and asserting that everything is corporeal which has a substantial existence, and that besides these nothing else exists, whether it be called invisible or incorporeal, it says also that these constitute the wisdom of the world, which perishes and fades away, and belongs only to this age, while those opinions which raise the soul from things here to the blessedness which is with God, and to His kingdom, and which teach men to despise all sensible and visible things as existing only for a season, and to hasten on to things invisible, and to have regard to those things which are not seen,—these, it says, constitute the wisdom of God. But Paul, as a lover of truth, says of certain wise men among the Greeks, when their statements are true, that “although they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful.” And he bears witness that they knew God, and says, too, that this did not happen to them without divine permission, in these words:  “For God showed it unto them;” dimly alluding, I think, to those who ascend from things of sense to those of the understanding, when he adds, “For the invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful.”
* ↑ Cf. 1 Cor. i. 18, etc.
* ↑ τὰ μὲν συναγορεύοντα ὑγῇ καὶ σώμασι.
* ↑ τὰ προηγουμένως ὑφεστηκότα.
* ↑ Cf. Rom. i. 21.
* ↑ Rom. i. 19.
* ↑ Cf. Rom. i. 20–22.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book III/Chapter XVI

Chapter XVI.
“But what the legends are of every kind which we gather together, or the terrors which we invent,” as Celsus without proof asserts, he who likes may show. I know not, indeed, what he means by “inventing terrors,” unless it be our doctrine of God as Judge, and of the condemnation of men for their deeds, with the various proofs derived partly from Scripture, partly from probable reason. And yet—for truth is precious—Celsus says, at the close, “Forbid that either I, or these, or any other individual should ever reject the doctrine respecting the future punishment of the wicked and the reward of the good!” What terrors, then, if you except the doctrine of punishment, do we invent and impose upon mankind? And if he should reply that “we weave together erroneous opinions drawn from ancient sources, and trumpet them aloud, and sound them before men, as the priests of Cybele clash their cymbals in the ears of those who are being initiated in their mysteries;” we shall ask him in reply, “Erroneous opinions from what ancient sources?” For, whether he refers to Grecian accounts, which taught the existence of courts of justice under the earth, or Jewish, which, among other things, predicted the life that follows the present one; he will be unable to show that we who, striving to believe on grounds of reason, regulate our lives in conformity with such doctrines, have failed correctly to ascertain the truth.
* ↑ τὰ τοῦ παλαιοῦ λόγου παρακούσματα συμπλάττοντες, τούτοις προκαταυλοῦμεν καὶ προκατηχοῦμεν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, ὥς οἱ τους κορυβαντιζομένους περιβομβοῦντες .
* ↑ οὐκ ἄν ἔχοι παραστῆσαι, ὅτι ἡμεῖς μὲν ἐν παρακούσμασι γενόμενοι τῆς ἀληθείας, ὅσοι γε πειρώμεθα μετὰ λόγου πιστεύειν, πρὸς τὰ τοιαῦτα ζῶμεν δόγματα.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book III/Chapter XLIX

Chapter XLIX.
This statement also is untrue, that it is “only foolish and low individuals, and persons devoid of perception, and slaves, and women, and children, of whom the teachers of the divine word wish to make converts.” Such indeed does the Gospel invite, in order to make them better; but it invites also others who are very different from these, since Christ is the Saviour of all men, and especially of them that believe, whether they be intelligent or simple; and “He is the propitiation with the Father for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” After this it is superfluous for us to wish to offer a reply to such statements of Celsus as the following: “For why is it an evil to have been educated, and to have studied the best opinions, and to have both the reality and appearance of wisdom? What hindrance does this offer to the knowledge of God? Why should it not rather be an assistance, and a means by which one might be better able to arrive at the truth?” Truly it is no evil to have been educated, for education is the way to virtue; but to rank those amongst the number of the educated who hold erroneous opinions is what even the wise men among the Greeks would not do. On the other hand, who would not admit that to have studied the best opinions is a blessing? But what shall we call the best, save those which are true, and which incite men to virtue? Moreover, it is an excellent thing for a man to be wise, but not to seem so, as Celsus says.  And it is no hindrance to the knowledge of God, but an assistance, to have been educated, and to have studied the best opinions, and to be wise. And it becomes us rather than Celsus to say this, especially if it be shown that he is an Epicurean.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book III/Chapter XLIII

Chapter XLIII.
He next says of us, that “we ridicule those who worship Jupiter, because his tomb is pointed out in the island of Crete; and yet we worship him who rose from the tomb, although ignorant of the grounds on which the Cretans observe such a custom.” Observe now that he thus undertakes the defence of the Cretans, and of Jupiter, and of his tomb, alluding obscurely to the allegorical notions, in conformity with which the myth regarding Jupiter is said to have been invented; while he assails us who acknowledge that our Jesus has been buried, indeed, but who maintain that He has also been raised from the tomb,—a statement which the Cretans have not yet made regarding Jupiter. But since he appears to admit that the tomb of Jupiter is in Crete, when he says that “we are ignorant of the grounds on which the Cretans observe such a custom,” we reply that Callimachus the Cyrenian, who had read innumerable poetic compositions, and nearly the whole of Greek history, was not acquainted with any allegorical meaning which was contained in the stories about Jupiter and his tomb; and accordingly he accuses the Cretans in his hymn addressed to Jupiter, in the words:—
“The Cretans are always liars: for thy tomb, O king,
The Cretans have reared; and yet thou didst not die,
For thou ever livest.”
Now he who said, “Thou didst not die, for thou ever livest,” in denying that Jupiter’s tomb was in Crete, records nevertheless that in Jupiter there was the beginning of death. But birth upon earth is the beginning of death. And his words run:—
“And Rhea bore thee among the Parrhasians; ”—
whereas he ought to have seen, after denying that the birth of Jupiter took place in Crete because of his tomb, that it was quite congruous with his birth in Arcadia that he who was born should also die. And the following is the manner in which Callimachus speaks of these things: “O Jupiter, some say that thou wert born on the mountains of Ida, others in Arcadia. Which of them, O father, have lied? The Cretans are always liars,” etc. Now it is Celsus who made us discuss these topics, by the unfair manner in which he deals with Jesus, in giving his assent to what is related about His death and burial, but regarding as an invention His resurrection from the dead, although this was not only foretold by innumerable prophets, but many proofs also were given of His having appeared after death.
* ↑ τόν ἀπὸ τοῦ τάφου.
* ↑ οὐκ εἰδότες πῶς καὶ καθό.
* ↑ Cf. Callimach., Hymn, i. Cf. also Tit. i. 12.
* ↑ τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ θανάτου γεγονέναι περὶ τὸν Δία.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book III/Chapter XV

Chapter XV.
But again, that it is not the fear of external enemies which strengthens our union, is plain from the fact that this cause, by God’s will, has already, for a considerable time, ceased to exist. And it is probable that the secure existence, so far as regards the world, enjoyed by believers at present, will come to an end, since those who calumniate Christianity in every way are again attributing the present frequency of rebellion to the multitude of believers, and to their not being persecuted by the authorities as in old times. For we have learned from the Gospel neither to relax our efforts in days of peace, and to give ourselves up to repose, nor, when the world makes war upon us, to become cowards, and apostatize from the love of the God of all things which is in Jesus Christ.  And we clearly manifest the illustrious nature of our origin, and do not (as Celsus imagines) conceal it, when we impress upon the minds of our first converts a contempt for idols, and images of all kinds, and, besides this, raise their thoughts from the worship of created things instead of God, and elevate them to the universal Creator; clearly showing Him to be the subject of prophecy, both from the predictions regarding Him—of which there are many—and from those traditions which have been carefully investigated by such as are able intelligently to understand the Gospels, and the declarations of the apostles.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book III/Chapter XLII

Chapter XLII.
Celsus, then, does not speak as a good reasoner, when he compares the mortal flesh of Jesus to gold, and silver, and stone, asserting that the former is more liable to corruption than the latter.  For, to speak correctly, that which is incorruptible is not more free from corruption than another thing which is incorruptible, nor that which is corruptible more liable to corruption than another corruptible thing. But, admitting that there are degrees of corruptibility, we can say in answer, that if it is possible for the matter which underlies all qualities to exchange some of them, how should it be impossible for the flesh of Jesus also to exchange qualities, and to become such as it was proper for a body to be which had its abode in the ether and the regions above it, and possessing no longer the infirmities belonging to the flesh, and those properties which Celsus terms “impurities,” and in so terming them, speaks unlike a philosopher? For that which is properly impure, is so because of its wickedness. Now the nature of body is not impure; for in so far as it is bodily nature, it does not possess vice, which is the generative principle of impurity. But, as he had a suspicion of the answer which we would return, he says with respect to the change of the body of Jesus, “Well, after he has laid aside these qualities, he will be a God:” (and if so), why not rather Æsculapius, and Dionysus, and Hercules? To which we reply, “What great deed has Æsculapius, or Dionysus, or Hercules wrought?” And what individuals will they be able to point out as having been improved in character, and made better by their words and lives, so that they may make good their claim to be gods? For let us peruse the many narratives regarding them, and see whether they were free from licentiousness or injustice, or folly, or cowardice. And if nothing of that kind be found in them, the argument of Celsus might have force, which places the forenamed individuals upon an equality with Jesus. But if it is certain that, although some things are reported of them as reputable, they are recorded, nevertheless, to have done innumerable things which are contrary to right reason, how could you any longer say, with any show of reason, that these men, on putting aside their mortal body, became gods rather than Jesus?
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/verloben

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/verloben | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ verloben, vb. ‘to engage, affiance, betroth,’ from the equiv. MidHG. verloben; lit. ‘to promise,’ in which sense MidHG. geloben also occurs; see geloben and Lob. —
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/verläumden

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/verläumden | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ verläumden, vb., ‘to calumniate, slander,’ from MidHG. verliumden; see Leumund. —
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/vermählen

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/vermählen | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ vermählen, vb., ‘to marry, unite,’ from late MidHG. vermęhelen, usually męhelen, mahelen, lit. ‘to give in marriage to a man,’ also ‘to take to wife,’ whence generally ‘to affiance, betroth.’ The word is usually based on OHG. mahal, ‘hall of justice’ (see Mahl and Gemahl); it is better to proceed from the equiv. MidHG. gemahelen, OHG. gimahalen, which are derivatives of OHG. gimahala, ‘spouse.’ For other details concerning its early history see Gemahl. —
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/vernichten

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/vernichten | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ vernichten, vb. ‘to annihilate, annul,’ from MidHG. vernihten, ‘to annihilate, think lightly of’; allied to nicht. —
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/verquicken

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/verquicken | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ verquicken, vb., ‘to amalgamate (with),’ ModHG. only, lit. perhaps ‘to combine with quicksilver’; allied to Quecksilber (see also erquicken). —
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/verplämpern

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/verplämpern | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ verplämpern, vb., ‘to spill, waste foolishly,’ ModHG. only, properly a LG. word, of onomatopoetic origin. —
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/verpönen

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/verpönen | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ verpönen, vb., ‘to forbid (under penalties), proscribe,’ ModHG. only, from Lat. poena (whence also Pein).
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/verlieren

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/verlieren | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ verlieren, vb., ‘to lose,’ from the equiv. MidHG. verliesen, OHG. virliosan; a common Teut. str. vb., to which the equiv. Goth. fraliusan, AS. forleósan, Du. verliezen correspond. Gr. λύω, ‘to loosen’ (ἀλεύω, ‘to avoid, keep far away’?), Lat. solvo (partic. so-lû-tus), ‘to loosen’ (Sans. lû, ‘to tear to pieces’), and Goth. luns, ‘ransom,’ which point to an Aryan lū̆, are closely connected with the Teut. root lus, to which los and lösen are also related. —
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/vermessen

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/vermessen | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ vermessen, adj., ‘daring, presumptuous,’ from MidHG. vermëȥȥen, OHG. firmëȥȥan, ‘daring, bold’; a partic. of MidHG. veṛmëȥȥąn, OHG. firmëȥȥan, refl. ‘to estimate one's strength too high, have an overweening opinion of oneself.’ —
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/verquisten

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/verquisten | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ verquisten, vb., ‘to spend foolishly,’ ModHG. only, from Du. kwisten, verkwisten, ‘to squander, lavish’; comp. Goth. fraqistjan, ‘to destroy, annihilate’ (usqistjan, ‘to kill’). Early history obscure.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Fluch

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Fluch | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Fluch, from the equiv. MidHG. vluoch, m., OHG. fluoh, m., ‘curse, imprecation’; Du. vloek.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Flunder

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Flunder | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Flunder, m., ‘flounder,’ a LG. word derived from Scand.; comp. ODan. flundra, OSwed. flundrae, E. flounder. Akin also to OIc. flyðra, MidHG. vluoder, ‘flounder’?.