Wait... are you saying that it is possible to take the words of our lord Jesus Christ too seriously, and that doing so is like Islamism, or something dangerous or bad to do?..... Instead let us read the words of jesus while we comfortably recline and sip our morning latte, in the midst of our plastic postmodern Secular Dystopia? Indeed Origin castrated himself to avoid casting himself into hell, what a dramatic and terrifying but noble and -christian- example, because hell is real.... Many christians over the centuries have chastised their flesh, and subdued their body, because better to suffer in the body, than to suffer in both the body and soul in Gehenna Hell is not something we can understand if our life is based around the plastic postmodern comforts of sipping our morning lattes
Are you suggesting that your hand or your scrotum can cause you to sin? Who is in control of yours to cause them to do anything? I would hope it would be a sound mind doing the causing. 2 Tim.1:7. .
Well... Origen actually did say it was possible to take the words of Jesus Christ too seriously. That's one of his common themes, in basically everything I've ever read of him. There's also no evidence Origen ever castrated himself. At the time there was a growing movement of radical young people who were misreading Matthew 19.12 and castrating themselves, because they thought it would help them get into heaven - "For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.". Many leaders of the Church were disturbed by this and would character assassinate any bishop who encouraged the practice. Demetrius either misunderstood Origen's writings on celibacy, or intentionally distorted it to serve his own interests in prosecuting Origen, and so mistakenly interpreted it as a promotion of castration, and therefore publically assumed Origen had also castrated himself. This was categorically not what Origen wrote. That single misunderstanding started a rumour 60 years after he died, when it was written in Eusebius's church history that Origen had castrated himself. There is no contemporary evidence suggesting he castrated himself, contrary to modern assertion there was no professional incentive to do so as it was not the norm for teachers of women at that time to be eunuch's, and Origen himself insults people that read the bible too literally frequently in his writings, including self-inflicted eunuch's. Sure, he could have changed his mind about his castration and also been admonishing himself, but if that were true, that he never used his own experiences for impact when telling others not to castrate themselves seems unlikely. But people in the 4th century didn't have access to the information we have now, and so read Origen was a eunuch and spread the word around. Origen's whole thing is that the Gospels are an allegory - he claims the events described in the Gospels may not have been entirely literal, and that people shouldn't waste their time arguing over literal applications of them otherwise they'll spend so much time being absorbed by each individual word they'll miss the actual message. It would be wholly inconsistent for a person who wrote those things to then mutilate themselves based on some literalist interpretation (or, taking the words of Jesus Christ too seriously, as has been put in this thread). I don't have time to search for the specific passages now, but if you're interested when I read Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew I left utterly convinced Origen would not have castrated himself, as I said before there are even sections in there that specifically admonish people who mutilate themselves. The two relevant commentaries would be Origen's comments on Matthew 19.12 (on eunuch's specifically) and his comments on Matthew 18.8-9 (The cutting off sinning hands and removing sinning eyes bit).
Opinions differ on this one. I don't think it is true, personally, and none of his writings say so. It is hearsay at best.
This is a very good point. For the higher among us, asking the priest his view is always an option. I did this once and was told in no uncertain terms NOT to cover because he didn't want me 'looking like a Moslem.' I haven't asked again since, although I left that church years ago. I am old enough to decide for myself now, and my decision is that modesty is a function of the heart, not of the wardrobe.
Is it not much more often that men are told by women not to speak out about things that relate to women simply because they are men?
Jewish is good, we are a Jewish religion, with a Jewish messiah and the Jewish God.. Plus we are taught these principles in the New Testament, isn't that so?
Next time when I attend the service at the local Synagogue I will tell them there. They will be surprised.
When ever St Paul visited a new town he went first to preach in the synagogue (church), and then to the (Christian) church if there was one. If there wasn't, he would start one. .
I am pretty sure Jewish people would not agree that Christianity is Jewish. Mainly because it isn't. We are at best a breakaway sect from Judaism by now, I would imagine, but you would have to ask them.
There were no Christian churches. Obvs. He went to the synagogue for Sabbath because he was a Jew, and then the next day the followers of the Way (what we now call Christians) would gather together at one or other's house for fellowship. Paul didn't 'start' churches. He had parties, the same as the Lord did.
There were 'churches', but not church buildings. The church is people who trust Jesus Christ, (The Hebrew's Messiah), for their salvation, and people who are learning to trust Jesus Christ, (The Hebrew's Messiah), for their salvation. Starting a 'church' is sharing in a banquet of truth, provided free by God. .