And therefore His glory consists in this very thing, that He possesses all things, and this is the purest and most limpid glory of omnipotence, that by reason and wisdom, not by force and necessity, all things are subject. Now the purest and most limpid glory of wisdom is a convenient expression to distinguish it from that glory which cannot be called pure and sincere. But every nature which is convertible and changeable, although glorified in the works of righteousness or wisdom, yet by the fact that righteousness or wisdom are accidental qualities, and because that which is accidental may also fall away, its glory cannot be called sincere and pure. But the Wisdom of God, which is His only-begotten Son, being in all respects incapable of change or alteration, and every good quality in Him being essential, and such as cannot be changed and converted, His glory is therefore declared to be pure and sincere. (Book I, Chapter 2, Part 10)

What we perceive of God - our immediate impression of God - is glory. But Origen is doing something a bit radical here with his treatment of glory.

For Plato and Plotinus glory or δόξα (doxa)is opinion in contrast to knowledge, appearance in contrast with substance, accidental rather than purposeful, derived rather than original.

For Origen what we perceive of God through Christ - divine doxa in contrast to other forms of doxa - is an accurate source of true knowledge, essential, unchangeable, pure, and sincere.

I wonder - but that is all - if Origen is preparing to offer his own approach to Plato's sense of aletheia, a revealing of hidden truth.

How can we perceive God in a manner that will distinguish what we project from what is actual? Plato suggested it involved fusing doxa with logos.