The command is not to murder (though it's often translated kill, but this is clarified by the context of executions). The contradiction is not in the intent but in falsely resolving the ambiguity in English. Killing in self-defense is specifically separated from murder in the case example of a night break-in (Ex. 22:2).

Fair enough, I agree about the distinction between killing and murder (unjustified killing). But it's not just in self-defense, because God commands Israel to attack and slaughter other nations too, so aggression is also justified.

I can give other examples where commands can contradict one another and where a person has to discern what the righteous action is.

So you reject Augustine, who I understand counts as Orthodox

Individual saints and Church fathers aren't infallible. St. Augustine held a host of problematic beliefs like filioque, inherent guilt, infants going to hell, predestination, abstracted essential Trinitarian model, lack of essence/energies distinction, emphasized institutionalization which led to papalism. He worked in Latin and didn't have access to the Greek fathers which led him to his errors. The Orthodox Church has canonized him but doesn't consider him an authoritative father and he's not part of the dogmatic consensus.

and affirm a doctrine I've traced only to Origen.

No, the position of pastoral flexibility and economic consideration is what St. John Chrysostom and other Eastern fathers held.

I agree there is a time not to tell the whole truth if deception isn't involved, but that time expires when one is asked to testify the whole truth. I don't agree there is ever a time to deceive or mislead and I asked you indirectly who says so.

Sure. Here's Chrysostom:

“For as physicians, though they know many remedies, yet do not employ them all indiscriminately, but according to the condition of the patient, sometimes even deceiving him for his benefit, so must we also act.”

• On the Priesthood, Book I

“It is not the same thing to speak falsely with intent to harm, and to do so to save another from danger.”

• Homilies on Genesis (Homily 44)

Basil:

“The truth is not to be told at all times, nor to all persons, nor in all circumstances.”

• Letter 8 (to Caesaria)

St. Gregory of Nazianzus:

“It is necessary sometimes to deceive in order to benefit, as physicians do with their patients.”

• Oration 40 (On Holy Baptism), §45

St. Ambrose:

“What of deception in war? Is it blameworthy when it brings about victory without bloodshed?”

• De Officiis Ministrorum, Book I, ch. 30

So in this case Origen is correct since he goes along with the consensus. Remember that just because someone was condemned, it doesn't mean everything he teaches is wrong and vice-versa - someone being canonized doesn't make him infallible. Origenism refers to his condemned heretical teachings and not to everything he ever wrote.

On OrthodoxWiki the only relevant topic I get is prelest.

I don't care about what OrthodoxWiki says as if it's some authoritative source. This has nothing to do with prelest.

The command is not to murder (though it's often translated kill, but this is clarified by the context of executions). The contradiction is not in the intent but in falsely resolving the ambiguity in English. Killing in self-defense is specifically separated from murder in the case example of a night break-in (Ex. 22:2).

Fair enough, I agree about the distinction between killing and murder (unjustified killing). But it's not just in self-defense, because God commands Israel to attack and slaughter other nations too, so aggression is also justified.

I can give other examples where commands can contradict one another and where a person has to discern what the righteous action is.

So you reject Augustine, who I understand counts as Orthodox

Individual saints and Church fathers aren't infallible. St. Augustine held a host of problematic beliefs like filioque, inherent guilt, infants going to hell, predestination, abstracted essential Trinitarian model, lack of essence/energies distinction, emphasized institutionalization which led to papalism. He worked in Latin and didn't have access to the Greek fathers which led him to his errors. The Orthodox Church has canonized him but doesn't consider him an authoritative father and he's not part of the dogmatic consensus.

and affirm a doctrine I've traced only to Origen.

No, the position of pastoral flexibility and economic consideration is what St. John Chrysostom and other Eastern fathers held.

I agree there is a time not to tell the whole truth if deception isn't involved, but that time expires when one is asked to testify the whole truth. I don't agree there is ever a time to deceive or mislead and I asked you indirectly who says so.

Sure. Here's Chrysostom:

“For as physicians, though they know many remedies, yet do not employ them all indiscriminately, but according to the condition of the patient, sometimes even deceiving him for his benefit, so must we also act.”

• On the Priesthood, Book I

“It is not the same thing to speak falsely with intent to harm, and to do so to save another from danger.”

• Homilies on Genesis (Homily 44)

Basil:

“The truth is not to be told at all times, nor to all persons, nor in all circumstances.”

• Letter 8 (to Caesaria)

St. Gregory of Nazianzus:

“It is necessary sometimes to deceive in order to benefit, as physicians do with their patients.”

• Oration 40 (On Holy Baptism), §45

St. Ambrose:

“What of deception in war? Is it blameworthy when it brings about victory without bloodshed?”

• De Officiis Ministrorum, Book I, ch. 30

So in this case Origen is correct since he goes along with the consensus. Remember that just because someone was condemned, it doesn't mean everything he teaches is wrong and vice-versa - someone being canonized doesn't make him infallible. Origenism refers to his condemned heretical teachings and not to everything he ever wrote.

On OrthodoxWiki the only relevant topic I get is prelest.

Again, stop citing OrthodoxWiki as if it's some authoritative source. This has nothing to do with prelest.

The command is not to murder (though it's often translated kill, but this is clarified by the context of executions). The contradiction is not in the intent but in falsely resolving the ambiguity in English. Killing in self-defense is specifically separated from murder in the case example of a night break-in (Ex. 22:2).

Fair enough, I agree about the distinction between killing and murder (unjustified killing). But it's not just in self-defense, because God commands Israel to attack and slaughter other nations too, so aggression is also justified.

I can give other examples where commands can contradict one another and where a person has to discern what the righteous action is.

So you reject Augustine, who I understand counts as Orthodox

Individual saints and Church fathers aren't infallible. St. Augustine held a host of problematic beliefs like filioque, inherent guilt, infants going to hell, predestination, abstracted essential Trinitarian model, lack of essence/energies distinction, emphasized institutionalization which led to papalism. He worked in Latin and didn't have access to the Greek fathers which led him to his errors. The Orthodox Church has canonized him but doesn't consider him an authoritative father and he's not part of the dogmatic consensus.

and affirm a doctrine I've traced only to Origen.

No, the position of pastoral flexibility and economic consideration is what St. John Chrysostom and other Eastern fathers held.

I don't agree there is ever a time to deceive or mislead and I asked you indirectly who says so.

Sure. Here's Chrysostom:

“For as physicians, though they know many remedies, yet do not employ them all indiscriminately, but according to the condition of the patient, sometimes even deceiving him for his benefit, so must we also act.”

• On the Priesthood, Book I

“It is not the same thing to speak falsely with intent to harm, and to do so to save another from danger.”

• Homilies on Genesis (Homily 44)

Basil:

“The truth is not to be told at all times, nor to all persons, nor in all circumstances.”

• Letter 8 (to Caesaria)

St. Gregory of Nazianzus:

“It is necessary sometimes to deceive in order to benefit, as physicians do with their patients.”

• Oration 40 (On Holy Baptism), §45

So in this case Origen is correct since he goes along with the consensus. Remember that just because someone was condemned, it doesn't mean everything he teaches is wrong and vice-versa - someone being canonized doesn't make him infallible. Origenism refers to his condemned heretical teachings and not to everything he ever wrote.

On OrthodoxWiki the only relevant topic I get is prelest.

Again, stop citing OrthodoxWiki as if it's some authoritative source. This has nothing to do with prelest.