Actually, ya'll show that someone says it goes back to the first century - says someone practiced it, then tell us that the person saying it is right on some things and wrong on others. And they are right on some things because 'no one attacked them for saying it.' Do we know that it was in circulation far enough back for someone knowledgeable to shoot it down? Books weren't a dime a dozen back then. One need only realize that a burial scroll in Egypt could cost anywhere from a month's wages to a year's. It's enough that the men aren't credible. If their word and testimony isn't inline with the bible, they're full of it.
Just because it may have happened in the first or second century doesn't mean it did. Just because someone says it was christians doing it, doesn't mean it's true. Just because it is credited to Origen, doesn't make it his work, nor does it make his statement credible - he could as easily be passing on what he heard. Etc.. Ya'll are a gullible bunch.
So, if you accept Origen as authoritative, are Boettner and Chick authoritative and correct? Just wondering. Ya'll seem to have tucked tail on that prior mention ROFL.