Talk:Origen

message: The inlne Citation to the Catholic Encyclopaedia (1913) had a text comment after it. I have commented out:
:""
I did this because the citation is cited inline a multiple locations and it is not clear to which of the text in those locations this comment is supposed to refer.
The original comment was added by user:Student7 in 
Revision as of 12:25, 27 July 2008 and that editor is probably the best to review my edit, because the original text was:
NB the volume 11 of the CE that Wikisource holds was published in 1911 not 1903.
-- PBS (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 1903 Catholic Encyclopedia does not report this 

message: Good morning , I am writing this topic about Your undid of 12 January 2019 (oldid 878080417).
Regarding the new guidelines "We only need to mention something if it happened. If it did not happen, we can just not mention it. ", we can generally agree about that. But a lacking canonization is like an eception to this general rule, since it explains the official concerning of the Church, that is, even if tolerated, no Christian Church believes the Origen's doctrine is part of the Christian orthodoxy and salvation. 
In a celebrative style, the article incipit ends with the following words: "Origen is a Church Father[13][14][15][16] and is widely regarded as one of the most important Christian theologians of all time. His teachings were especially influential in the east, with Athanasius of Alexandria and the three Cappadocian Fathers being among his most devoted followers."
This kind of emphatic style probably induces someone to compare Origen with St Augustin of Hippo or some other Doctor of the Church. And it is totally wrong.
Hence, the concerning about his lacking canonization seems to be relevant and making the article more NPOV. This can be done without repeating the concern of his posthomous condemnation, at least since it is well known when he and his doctrine has been claimed as heretic.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any RS to support those claims, ?--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 16:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

text: hi , about the lacking of any canonization i have inserted the following source:
* 
* This book of Henry De Lubac also seems to be a reliable source for the article.78.14.138.150 (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  ,  Olson doesn't mention any condemnation or lack of canonization, as far as I understand. De Lubac discusses some controversy surrounding Origen's name, but there is not detail with regard to the damnation or lack of canonization.your edit here isn't well supported by any of the two sources you mention, and is redundant with what is already in the article.--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 06:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

text:  Please also note that writing on a talk page with a registered account, and then continue writing with an anonymous ip address can be interpreted as a form of sockpuppeting. It is better to stay registered all the time. (This is of course presuming that Michele and 78.14.138.150 are the same user, if that is not the case, than ignore this.)--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 06:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good morning , I apologize for the questioned topic, that was mine, of course. I  am experiencing some Internet connection problems, maybe I didn't control if the reply was correctly signed. Normally, I sign all my contributions too. Overlooking this, there is a reference about Henry de Lubac that seems to be interesting for being integrated in the article.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  concerning about the canonization 

message: It's fairly standard to give a phonetic "spelling" of the names of people on their page. For example, /juːˈsiːbiəs/; Greek: Εὐσέβιος Eusebios. And these are contemporary pronunciations, not the way their peers knew them.
I never know whether to say 'rig' as in 'ridge' or as in plain 'rig', as in origin or Oregon.
I hate "Joe-see-fss" . . . but that's what everyone seems to call him, at least in the English-speaking world. What do Israeli and, say, Romance-language scholars call him, I wonder?
Nick Barnett (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: The following passage from the "Views" section, under "Cosmology and Eschatology," contains what strongly seems to me an unsubstantiated claim:
:"Jerome quotes Origen as having allegedly written that "after aeons and the one restoration of all things, the state of Gabriel will be the same as that of the Devil, Paul's as that of Caiaphas, that of virgins as that of prostitutes." Jerome, however, was not above deliberately altering quotations to make Origen seem more like a heretic, and Origen expressly states in his Letter to Friends in Alexandria that Satan and "those who are cast out of the kingdom of God" would be not included in the final salvation."
The source that is expressly listed for the second sentence, which is the one I take issue with, can be found here.
St. Jerome actually speaks about translation (and refutes accusations of mistranslation against him in another case) here. I really do not think we should be giving much credence to Dr. Chadwick (an evangelical Anglican, according to Wikipedia -- Origen is canonized in the Anglican communion) in regard to Jerome's moral aptitude. I think St. Jerome himself would answer more accurately in that regard: his letter indicates that any mistranslations are not willful and his translations, per classical norms, sought to render sense for sense. Ornithopolis (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with an "Contra Hieronymum?"