"Later interpreters throughout the centuries have had a difficult time knowing what to make or Origen's theology. The vast majority of his work conforms to what Irenaeus, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr had set down, but his illustrious career is clouded by elements of his theology that many have suggested stray from biblical orthodoxy. From the outset, Origen was not a Gnostic who believed in more than one divine being, or that there existed a secret tradition of Christian knowledge that only some believers could obtain. He believed in adhering to the tradition of the apostles, writing "Nothing which is at variance with the tradition of the apostles, and of the church is to be accepted as true." Origen also emphasized the necessity of interpreting Scripture literally and allegorically but, like Clement, might have read his own ideas too strong into the text (we might today accuse Origen today of "confirmation bias"—favoring information that confirms his own preconceived beliefs). Consequently, Origen developed two points of theology in particular that indicate a departure from what the church had traditionally taught. The first is his belief in the preexistence of souls, a point that may seem minor, but which contradicts the creation narrative told in the book of Genesis. The second was his speculative belief in an eternal cycle of spiritual rebellion and restoration, which culminated in an eternal universal salvation. This eternal cycle narrative had roots in the Platonic tradition, and later philosophers who rejected Christianity, but still respected the man as an intellectual power, attacked him for mixing Greek and Christian teachings: "in his life conducting himself as a Christian and contrary to the laws, but in his opinions of material things and of the Deity being like a Greek, and mingling Grecian teachings with foreign fables.""