Talk:Origen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Andrewa (talk | contribs) at 01:14, 9 October 2008 (→‎And the consensus is:). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Schaff-Herzog talk

Monetary value

4 obols (about twelve cents)??? What cents? US cents? Roman cents? 200 cents? 2006 cents? Inflation? PPP? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.102.71.16 (talk • contribs) 23:45, January 30, 2006 (UTC)

Origen and reincarnation

The following statement is biased and false : "The book Reincarnation in Christianity, by the theosophist Geddes MacGregor (1978) asserted that Origen believed in reincarnation. MacGregor is convinced that Origen believed in and taught about reincarnation but that his texts written about the subject have been destroyed. He admits that there is no extant proof for that position. The allegation was also repeated by Shirley MacLaine in her book Out On a Limb.

This cannot be confirmed from the existent writings of Origen. He was cognizant of the concept of reincarnation (metensomatosis "re-embodiment" in his words) from Greek philosophy, but he repeatedly states that this concept is no part of the Christian teaching or scripture."

See the letters of St. Jerome, especially "To Pammachius Against John of Jerusalem", and "Letter CXXIV. To Avitus."

In the former, point 16, Jerome says, "We want to know ...whether the doctrine of Origen is true, who said that all reasonable creatures, incorporeal and invisible, if they grow remiss, little by little sink to a lower level, and, according to the character of the places to which they descend, take to themselves bodies. (For instance, that they may be at first ethereal, afterward aërial.) And that when they reach the neighbourhood of earth they are invested with grossest bodies, and last of all are tied to human flesh; and that the demons themselves who, of their own choice, together with their leader the devil, have forsaken the service of God, if they begin to amend a little, are clothed with human flesh, so that, when they have undergone a process of repentance after the resurrection, and after passing through the same circuit by which they reached the flesh, they may return to proximity to God, being released even from aërial and ethereal bodies..."

More to the point, in the letter to Avitus, Jerome says :

"He maintains that after every end a fresh beginning springs forth and an end from each beginning, and that wholesale variation is possible; so that one who is now a human being may in another world become a demon, while one who by reason of his negligence is now a demon may hereafter be placed in a more material body and thus become a human being." (pt. 3)

"...and according to what they have done shall have special duties assigned to them in particular worlds.” Moreover, the very demons and rulers of darkness in any world or worlds, if they are willing to turn to better things, may become human beings and so come back to their first beginning. That is to say, after they have borne the discipline of punishment and torture for a longer or a shorter time in human bodies, they may again reach the angelic pinnacles from which they have fallen. Hence it may be shewn that we men may change into any other reasonable beings, and that not once only or on emergency but time after time; we and angels shall become demons if we neglect our duty; and demons, if they will take to themselves virtues, may attain to the rank of angels."" (pt. 3)

"...he has finally reasoned with much diffuseness that an angel, a human soul, and a demon—all according to him of one nature but of different wills—may in punishment for great negligence or folly be transformed into brutes. Moreover, to avoid the agony of punishment and the burning flame the more sensitive may choose to become low organisms, to dwell in water, to assume the shape of this or that animal; so that we have reason to fear a metamorphosis not only into four-footed things but even into fishes. Then, lest he should be held guilty of maintaining with Pythagoras the transmigration of souls, he winds up the wicked reasoning with which he has wounded his reader by saying: “I must not be taken to make dogmas of these things; they are only thrown out as conjectures to shew that they are not altogether overlooked.” " (pt 4)

These ideas are clearly in line with doctrines of reincarnation, and it is obvious why a reader would think Origen believed in, or at least took seriously the speculation of, reincarnation. The fact that Jerome says that Origen tries to distance himself from Pythagoras is only so that he will be taken seriously in a Christian context ; from what Jerome reports, the similarity is evident, and Jerome says so :

"In speaking thus he clearly pleads for the transmigration of souls as taught by Pythagoras and Plato." (pt. 7)

"In the third book the following faulty statements are contained. “If we once admit that, when one vessel is made to honour and another to dishonour,[1] this is due to antecedent causes; why may we not revert to the mystery of the soul and allow that it is loved in one and hated in another because of its past actions, before in Jacob it becomes a supplanter and before in Esau it is supplanted?”[1] And again: “the fact that souls are made some to honour and some to dishonour is to be explained by their previous history.” And in the same place: “on this hypothesis of mine a vessel made to honour which fails to fulfil its object will in another world become a vessel made to dishonour; and contrariwise a vessel which has from a previous fault been condemned to dishonour will, if it accepts correction in this present life, become in the new creation a vessel ‘sanctified and meet for the Master’s use and prepared unto every good work.’”[1] And he immediately goes on to say: “I believe that men who begin with small faults may become so hardened in wickedness that, if they do not repent and turn to better things, they must become inhuman energies;[1] and contrariwise that hostile and demonic beings may in course of time so far heal their wounds and check the current of their former sins that they may attain to the abode of the perfect. As I have often said, in those countless and unceasing worlds in which the soul lives and has its being some grow worse and worse until they reach the lowest depths of degradation; while others in those lowest depths grow better and better until they reach the perfection of virtue.” Thus he tries to shew that men, or rather their souls, may become demons; and that demons in turn may be restored to the rank of angels. In the same book he writes: “this too must be considered; why the human soul is diversely acted upon now by influences of one kind and now by influences of another.” And he surmises that this is due to conduct which has preceded birth." (pt. 8)

These letters of Jerome were based upon Origen's "First Principles", which Jerome had a copy of and could thus refer to. Obviously, he quotes Origen.

Origen speculates or postulates that the soul can pass into different kinds of bodies, from the most etherial to the lowest of beasts, and that this condition is due to conduct in past existences. Jerome himself summarizes that Origen's philosophy is Pythagorean in its doctrine of transmigration of souls.

Thus it is evident that not only is there strong evidence for Origen's ideas about reincarnation, but even Geddes MacGregor apparently did not do his homework. While Origen's originals on this topic may have been destroyed, summaries and long quotations from the work exist in Jerome's letters, just as Celsus' work, while destroyed, exists in large part in quotations and summaries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.105.86.26 (talk • contribs) 04:15, February 6, 2006 (UTC)

Even if Jerome quoted the On First Principles it is not to vindicate or support Origen but to discredit him. It is Origen's practice to cite and mention ideas in his On First Principles for discussion that he does not himself hold to be true. It lies within the didactic scope of the work to familiarize the reader with false ideas so as to provide an anti-dote as well as establishing the truth. When we see several texts of Origen where he denounces reincarnation as false, yet Jerome quotes from On First Principles in support of Origen teaching reincarnation the most obvious explanation is that Jerome has selected a portion that does not give Origen's own opinion but that of an opponent quoted or referred to by Origen. It is also possible that Jerome has distorted Origen's actual argument as we know he has in fact done (Mark. J. Edwards Origen against Plato). The evidence gleaned from Jerome concerning Origen is quite simply demonstrably unreliable. Reincarnation was never part of Origen's teaching - as Origen himself says (as the article under discussion correctly quoted).

--Gregorios 03:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two distinct viewpoints about the teachings of Origen: 1) as one in a line of Christian contributors, but with some ideas that were heretical and needed to be cleansed by the church 2) as one of the teachers/comforters that Jesus had promised to send (as in John14:26), who clarified the words of the Old and New Testaments and built bridges to Judaism and Platonism.

There are two undisputed facts about Origen that support the latter, but it has only been relatively recently that we have been able to study the full implications of his teachings with fear of severe repercussions from the church.

The research that he performed on the Hexapla is unparalleled in all of history and make him biblical scholar second to none (Remember, Jerome said in his own words that he should not read in his lifetime all that Origen had written.)
With unsurpassed knowledge of the texts, Origen critically and thoroughly analyzed all ideas associated with them to the point that not one single new idea has been introduced to Christianity since Origen.

We cannot forget to take into account the grave impact that the by the Emperor Justinian in 543 AD had on the people who held the beliefs taught by Origen and his vast writings on the subjects deemed heretical by the Emperor. It took the church 10 years to ratify this action by the Emperor, but they were not able to overturn Origen’s teachings with the same level of expertise with which they were written. Justinian destroyed the teachings cherished by free men and women, and replaced it replaced them with tyrannical teachings to control the mind and spiritual destiny of his subjects.

Origen brought to life the teachings that Jesus was persecuted for, and again, political power tried to destroy the message. What message is so dangerous that compels scribes, pharisees, and emperors to destroy it? Until we are able to face this question, Christianity will not be able to escape the chains that bind it.

I, therefore, suggest that the contributors of this article preserve the distinct views of Origen for the reader to make up there own minds. To close the research on the Greatest Christian teacher before it gets started would be a disservice to humanity. Shawn Murphy (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reincarnation and Matthew

So much of what Origen wrote was destroyed, and much of what was left was “translated” to fit with the dogma of the time. (See the apology of Rufinus http://biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/...3/NPNF2046.HTM ) This is the case for book 8 of the Commentary on Matthew. It comes from a Latin translation out of the sixth century and it is clear that the translator only took what he wanted out of Origen’s work to suit his purposes. (See Hermann J. Vogt’s introduction to his German translation of the Commentary on Matthew.) Only books 10 to 17 are available to us in the original Greek, so we are unable to find Origen’s original teachings about the second coming of Elijah from this section.

The extent to which Rufinus' translations are doctored up doctrinally is relatively minimal as recent studies have shown (see the Origeniana convention publications and the works of R. E. Heine on the subject) and especially the recent finds (sixties if memory serves me right at Tura ? ) of Greek catena that we were able to compare to Rufinus' Latin translations. It is precarious to make an argument that Origen taught reincarnation but we just can't find it anymore - it lacks any strength to convince.

--Gregorios 03:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you look at what is missing from Origen’s commentary on John, you find that the discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus about reincarnation in John 3.2-21 is also missing. (Book 10 goes to John 2.25 and book 13 starts up again at John 4.13; books 11 and 12 are conveniently missing/destroyed.) Everything that directly supported his teaching of the Restoration of All Things was destroyed after the “The Anathematisms of the Emperor Justinian against Origen” in 543 AD. Shawn Murphy 22:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again one cannot establish an argument for the presence of something by noticing its absence. The lack of proof is not itself proof. An argument or assertion lacking proof is not considered proven by the absence of proof. Especially in the face of proof for a different opposing argument.

--Gregorios 03:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough modern and ancient evidence of reincarnation for us to keep the subject open for discussion. A conspiracy theory is hard to prove, you are right, but that does not mean that it should not be considered. If you consider the full body of Origen's work, as Edward Moore has done in his paper "Origen of Alexandria and apokatastasis: Some Notes on the Development of a Noble Notion", it become clear that the only way God can be seen as Good is for Him to to be infinitely patient with His children.

Please see additional comments above in the section “Origen and reincarnation”. The conspiracy theory is compelling when you we see how far the actions of the Roman Catholics strayed from the teachings of Jesus “Love thy neighbor as thyself”, after destroying a vast majority of Origen’s work to support their earthly power base. Shawn Murphy (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origen a church father

Please note that the article's claims that the Catholic Church does not consider Origen a Church Father are false. The Catholic Encyclopedia, found at www.newadvent.org, list's Origen as one of the Church Fathers. Unless there is proof otherwise, that claim should be removed from the article. -- John Tuturice —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 171.159.192.10 (talk • contribs) 13:49, July 12, 2006 (UTC)

Yep, he is on all the lists. Someone had downgraded him a few weeks ago, but now it's fixed. You are encouraged to make these kinds of corrections yourself if you like. --Blainster 21:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I can't speak for the Roman Catholic Church, in the Eastern Orthodox Church there is a distinction made between a "Church Father" (or, more commonly in Orthodox parlance, "Holy Father") and a "Christian Teacher." A person must be a saint to be considered a Holy Father; those who have not been glorified as saints, but nonetheless whose writings (at least in part) can be beneficial to the Christian reader, are referred to as “Christian Teachers.” Origen is considered to be one such Christian Teacher. The Church separates the wheat from the chaff, gathering in what is useful and discarding the rest. This is the reason for II Constantinople’s condemnation of Origen and the others mentioned in the Three Chapters in 553 AD. This is part of the reason why only a portion of Origin's works survive: in the days before the printing press, Chistians had no reason to expend the money and energy copying out material that was of no benefit to them spiritually. MishaPan 19:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this necessary?

"himself preserved from harm as if by a miracle". Surely this is not appropriate? I won't change it yet, but I'm pretty sure that it should be removed. Ste175 10:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Castration

"According to some traditions" . . . This sentence is using weasel words, isn't it? Why not just cite the source - Eusebius.

People lying

What is those naked people laying before Origen in Image:Origen2.jpg? Are they dead? Sleeping? Tired of taking dictation? --84.20.17.84 16:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunbathing? (I like the dictation one better, though!). They'd have to be dead or acolytes/disciples of some sort, wouldn't they? Be nice if we could locate the picture originator. It may need to be replaced if we can't. It looks too peculiar to go uncommented. Must be online somewhere else. Student7 19:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The alt attribute says: "Origen initiating neophytes into the death and re-birth experience". It seems suspect. Why would medieval people paint Origen preaching such a doctrine? Anyway the image is cropped and colorshifted. --84.20.17.84 08:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Origen's influence on the later Church

There is an "ibid" in this section which doesn't, to me, have a clear antecedent. In the normal process of footnoting, "ibids" shouldn't appear anyway. Can someone help?

Also, "Shirley Maclaine" is quoted. Does she really have the theological credentials to be quoted in here? I think mine are equal to hers and I'm not quoted! If mention of her beliefs is allowed, I would like equal space!  :) Student7 13:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this opinion stated? "Reluctantly he remains a father of the church", Should this not be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.37.83.222 (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don’t see any relevance in that statement. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance of the use of “reluctance” is explained in the section “Origen and reincarnation” above. Christianity cannot deny the unparalleled contributions of Origen, yet it cannot embrace all of his teachings.

Also, I have added references to Origen scholars who show that he did teach reincarnation; namely Robert Sträuli and Edward Moore so the Shirley Maclaine reference can be deleted. Shawn Murphy (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

This concerns POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. This is a drive-by tag, which is discouraged in WP, and it shall be removed. Future tags should have discussion posted as to why the tag was placed, and how the topic might be improved. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transmigration, et al

Okay, I can see where this is going now. The material that was footnoted explaining about Celsus, needs a better sub-footnote than Dodds. This is an internal link to Wikipedia which cannot substitute here as a sub-footnote. The Dodds article anyway, is totally unfootnoted, so no help there! (Otherwise you could just copy one of their footnotes here). So it needs a scholarly footnote from somewhere. Student7 (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Student7 I do not understand you. Would you please fix it for me. I do the best I can. I took it for granite (no spell checker) the reader would know "Contra Celsus" by Origen presented Celsus' charges. I think people should know what Celsus said. The Dodds thing was an attempt to show how "magically irrational" the Greeks were. So you could understand Celsus. You can see this again (my last entries) when I brought up the Christian persecution as the blame for the Antonine Plague. [After the plague books were destroyed and higher learning became suspect. Books were dangerous they contained magic and sorcery.(And most likely some of them did). But to those frightened uneducated people, Christian and Pagan alike, you just destroyed books and those who read them. People who read and studied books were not to be trusted]. (This still goes on today) If you "can see where this is going" you are doing a lot better than I am. Kazuba (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC Dodds, a genuine and reliable scholar, whose major work is cited, ends his work pretty much with the fourth century BC. Does he even mention Celsus? This is during the Antonine enlightment; we need a source which makes this claim about this period, and applies to this author. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same teacher?

no section`

So is it unimportant that origen and plotinus had the same teacher? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.126.214 (talk) 05:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that you are thinking of the other Origen? Origen the Pagan?Student7 (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move

I did not notice the proposal to move. I thought that there was one main Origen, just like their are many "Aristotles" yet I suspect that if I reference "Aristotle" I will get the one from Athens even though I did not specify. He kind of predominates, as I think Origen does. Student7 (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He does predominate, as you say. However, I believe that we should go after consistency in the pagenames – compare Augustine of Hippo, Irenaeus of Lyons, and more – and therefore I keep thinking the move was right. --Dampinograaf (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We "consistently" refrain from disambiguating in article title when there is no reason to. WP:MOS is fairly consistent, I think. Ford MF (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The actual article is and should be at Irenaeus; I'm not convinced that we shouldn't call Augustine Augustine, and disambiguate the Archbishop. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus reached at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Origen was that that page should either be moved to Origen (disambiguation) or deleted, and in either case Origen of Alexandria be moved to Origen. Neither approach received the consensus, but what was rejected was the current status quo. I therfore propose that we simply choose the move option as the least dramatic. All in favour... — Gareth Hughes (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Origen of Alexandria → Origen — To return article name to primary topic. See preceding section of this page. — Deor (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support, especially since Alexandrian citizenship is open to question; this is the primary meaning of Origen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Is there a primary topic?. Origen is obviously and by far the primary topic. Ford MF (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The disambiguation as cleaned up is only three-way, between someone who is truly famous, versus a contemporary of his about whom we know little apart from his name and that he was a philosopher, and a marginally notable band. No contest. Andrewa (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clean-up was hastily done; several links were removed that in effect point to different topics. --Dampinograaf (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See discussion below. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this is clearly the primary topic. --Rogerb67 (talk) 10:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I remain convinced that, when talking about a person, the pagename should -as much as possible- be the full name. Consider what disambiguation pages are for: to lead those who are not sure. --Dampinograaf (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The relevant policy pages contradict your conviction unambiguously: WP:NAME says "Titles should be brief without being ambiguous", WP:NCCN says "...use the most common name of a person or thing...", WP:NCP echoes WP:NCCN. This does not prove that your page move was wrong; interpretation and judgment is required. However the discussion will go better and your arguments are more likely to be accepted if you make them in reference to accepted policy, including if necessary WP:IAR. --Rogerb67 (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the old Catholic Encyclopedia, which uses full titles when necessary, calls him only Origen. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral – the disambiguation page's AfD was closed as "no consensus," and the primary reason to get rid of the disambiguation page was that it was a spamlink-farm. Spam is no longer present; therefore, reason to remove the disambiguation page is moot. On the other hand, I doubt that "Origen of Alexandria" was his full name. Bwrs (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

From the survey above:

Clean-up was hastily done; several links were removed that in effect point to different topics. --Dampinograaf (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three links you've added, I agree that two should be there, but neither Adamantius (Pseudo-Origen) nor Penitence of Origen have any more chance then the existing links of challenging the primary usage, and Adamantius (journal) probably shouldn't be there. Are you really claiming that it's ever referred to as Origen rather than as Adamantius? Andrewa (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be a See also, here. If anyone searches for "Origen", they will eventually find it that way.
Agree. It's not a meaning of Origen which we need to disambiguate, and therefore not relevant to this discussion. But it is helpful to have it mentioned on the DAB page, if we need to have the DAB page for other reasons, as is the case here. Andrewa (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also from the survey:

I remain convinced that, when talking about a person, the pagename should -as much as possible- be the full name. Consider what disambiguation pages are for: to lead those who are not sure. --Dampinograaf (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As has been noted above, this is a very big departure from current policy. I suggest you spell out your reasons, and also the scope of the proposal. Would we also move Paul McCartney, for example? Andrewa (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you play it blindly by the book, then you'll have a lot of moving to do! Just a few examples: Eusebius of Caesarea >Eusebius (how many Eusebiusii does the average Wikipedian know) – Hippolytus of Rome to Hippolytus (same question).

I should stress that I'm talking about persons only. --Dampinograaf (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Each case is necessarily unique and needs to be taken on its merits; the examples you mention are possible. It will indeed be a lot of work to make every article comply with every policy, but there are many contributors, and the deadlines are long. --Rogerb67 (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe Hippolytus of Rome is the primary meaning of Hippolytus; if there is one, it's Theseus' son, not the doubtful martyr who happened, by pure coincidence, to be also dragged to death by horses. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that the consensus is for the main article to be at Origen and the little-know at Origen (disambiguation). One editor moved the article without discsussion, and is the only one opposing it. Everyone else here felt it to be wrong, and the more important issue was to remove the spam. The AfD was more a distraction as we couldn't agree whether to delete the disambiguation page or not. I think it's fairly harmless in its present position. Whereas it had been moved to a more prominent position than the article all readers would be looking for. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting we play it blindly by the book. But ignoring the book is no wiser. Andrewa (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the consensus is:

inexistent.

Thanks to all who intervened in the brief discussion

  • initiated 8 October, 03:15:24
  • closed 8 October, 19:31:54

Sometimes the deadlines are very short indeed.

Good luck to the editor(s) who are – following the precedent set so quickly, and the excellent arguments used in the discussion – going to move Paul the Apostle to Paul, possibly after adjusting Paul (disambiguation). Paul "is obviously and by far the primary topic", is it not?

--Dampinograaf (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's still listed at WP:RM. I guess we could invoke the snowball clause but I'd prefer to see the normal period of discussion expire, owing to the strong feelings expressed and the slightly involved history with the AfD and all.

Disagree that Paul should be moved. Strongly suggest reading WP:POINT and perhaps also the Wikipedia creed if you're even considering making it a formal proposal. Andrewa (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media junk

In the meantime, we seem to have gotten rid of all the games, media, etc. that were supposedly named after Origen! Right! And a tip of the hat to whoever did it! Can we keep the article clean of them in the future? What likelihood is it that anything popular and secular would be deliberately named after him? Student7 (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origen&oldid=244037995"