Origen on attaining and naming God by reason and by revelation of the Logos

"It is true that God is derived from nothing. But when he [Celsus] says Neither is he attainable by reason, I draw a distinction in the meaning and say: If you mean the reason that is in us, whether conceived or expressed, we too would say that God is not attainable by reason. But if, because we have understood that 'in the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God', we affirm that God is attainable by this Logos, and is comprehended not by him alone, but also by any man to whom he reveals the Father, we would prove that Celsus' words were untrue when he says Neither is God attainable by reason. The assertion that he cannot be named also needs precise definition. If he means that none of the descriptions by words or expressions can show the attributes of Hod, the affirmation is true [...] But if you take the word to mean that it is possible by names to show something about His attributes in order to guide the hearer and to make him understand God's character in so far as some of His attributes are attainable by human nature, then it is not wrong at all to say that He can be named. In this way also we would make a distinction in the words For he has no experience which can be comprehended by a name. And it is also true that God is outside any emotional experience." (Con. Cel. VI,65)

"But to the Father of all, who is unbegotten there is no name given."

"But to the Father of all, who is unbegotten there is no name given. For by whatever name He be called, He has as His elder the person who gives Him the name. But these words Father, and God, and Creator, and Lord, and Master, are not names, but appellations derived from His good deeds and functions. And His Son, who alone is properly called Son, the Word who also was with Him and was begotten before the works, when at first He created and arranged all things by Him, is called Christ, in reference to His being anointed and God’s ordering all things through Him; this name itself also containing an unknown significance; as also the appellation “God” is not a name, but an opinion implanted in the nature of men of a thing that can hardly be explained. But “Jesus,” His name as man and Saviour, has also significance. For He was made man also, as we before said, having been conceived according to the will of God the Father, for the sake of believing men, and for the destruction of the demons." (Justin Martyr, Apologia secunda 6,1-5)

1. Ὄνομα δὲ τῷ πάντων πατρὶ θετόν, ἀγεννήτῳ ὄντι, οὐκ ἔστιν· ᾧ γὰρ ἂν καὶ ὄνομά τι προσαγορεύηται, πρεσβύτερον ἔχει τὸν θέμενον τὸ ὄνομα.

2. τὸ δὲ πατὴρ καὶ θεὸς καὶ κτίστης καὶ κύριος καὶ δεσπότης οὐκ ὀνόματά ἐστιν, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τῶν εὐποιϊῶν καὶ τῶν ἔργων προσρήσεις.

3. ὁ δὲ υἱὸς ἐκείνου, ὁ μόνος λεγόμενος κυρίως υἱός, ὁ λόγος πρὸ τῶν ποιημάτων καὶ συνὼν καὶ γεννώμενος, ὅτε τὴν ἀρχὴν δι’ αὐτοῦ πάντα ἔκτισε καὶ ἐκόσμησε, Χριστὸς μὲν κατὰ τὸ κεχρῖσθαι καὶ κοσμῆσαι τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ τὸν θεὸν λέγεται, ὄνομα καὶ αὐτὸ περιέχον ἄγνωστον σημασίαν, ὃν τρόπον καὶ τὸ θεὸς προσαγόρευμα οὐκ ὄνομά ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ πράγματος δυσεξηγήτου ἔμφυτος τῇ φύσει τῶν ἀνθρώπων δόξα.

4. Ἰησοῦς δὲ καὶ ἀνθρώπου καὶ σωτῆρος ὄνομα καὶ σημασίαν ἔχει.

5. καὶ γὰρ καὶ ἄνθρωπος, ὡς προέφημεν, γέγονε κατὰ τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς βουλὴν ἀποκυηθεὶς ὑπὲρ τῶν πιστευόντων ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἐπὶ καταλύσει τῶν δαιμόνων· καὶ νῦν ἐκ τῶν ὑπ’ ὄψιν γινομένων μαθεῖν δύνασθε.