[Script Info]
Title: Merged Subtitles
ScriptType: v4.00+
WrapStyle: 0
ScaledBorderAndShadow: yes
Collisions: Normal
PlayResX: 384
PlayResY: 288

[V4+ Styles]
Format: Name, Fontname, Fontsize, PrimaryColour, SecondaryColour, OutlineColour, BackColour, Bold, Italic, Underline, StrikeOut, ScaleX, ScaleY, Spacing, Angle, BorderStyle, Outline, Shadow, Alignment, MarginL, MarginR, MarginV, Encoding
Style: Default, Sarasa UI SC, 14, &H00FFFFFF, &H000000FF, &H00000000, &H80000000, 0, 0, 0, 0, 100, 100, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 10, 10, 10, 1

[Events]
Format: Layer, Start, End, Style, Name, MarginL, MarginR, MarginV, Effect, Text
Dialogue: 0,0:00:00.00,0:00:15.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那么让我们简要地探讨一下唯独圣经的一些圣经依据。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So let's just briefly kind of get into some of the biblical evidence for Sola Scriptura.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:15.60,0:00:20.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果你在与一位罗马公教会护教学者交谈，比如一个公教会的\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And if you're talking to, say, a Roman Catholic apologist, somebody who is a defender of Roman
Dialogue: 0,0:00:20.92,0:00:26.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}辩护者，尤其是那些从新教改信公教会的人，通常是从一个非历史\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Catholicism, especially people who have converted from Protestantism to Roman Catholicism, usually
Dialogue: 0,0:00:26.36,0:00:31.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}性的新教背景来的，当他们阅读教父的著作时，突然对所教导的内\N{\an2\fs10\i1}a non-historical Protestantism, where they read the Fathers, all of a sudden they're amazed at the
Dialogue: 0,0:00:31.79,0:00:35.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}容感到惊讶。这些教导听起来不像新教，因此他们就成为了公教徒。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}things that were taught. They don't sound like Protestants, therefore they become Roman Catholic.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:35.16,0:00:40.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}事情往往就是这样发展的。但对于路德宗或英国圣公会信徒来说\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's often the way that it works itself out. But for a Lutheran or Anglican, it's, I think,
Dialogue: 0,0:00:40.84,0:00:44.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}，我认为我们看待教父的方式有很大不同，因为我们确\N{\an2\fs10\i1}quite a bit different in the way that we look at the Fathers, because we do see,
Dialogue: 0,0:00:44.59,0:00:48.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}实看到，嘿，这与我们今天所说、所教导以及我们崇拜的方式非常相似。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}hey, this is very similar to what we're saying and teaching and how we're worshiping today as well.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:49.72,0:00:53.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但如果你与一位罗马公教会护教学者交谈，当他们谈论\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But if you're talking to a Roman Catholic apologist, when they're speaking about Sola
Dialogue: 0,0:00:53.24,0:00:58.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}「唯独圣经」时，他们总是会反复提出同样的论点。如果你\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Scriptura, they're always going to raise the same statement over and over again. You're going
Dialogue: 0,0:00:58.20,0:01:03.56,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}关注公教会护教学或最近皈依罗马的人，你会经常听到这种说法\N{\an2\fs10\i1}to hear this if you're looking at Roman Catholic apologetics or recent converts to Rome, and that is
Dialogue: 0,0:01:03.56,0:01:09.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}，即圣经从未教导「唯独圣经」。所以你把圣经当作最高权威。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Scripture never teaches Sola Scriptura. So you are holding Scripture as the ultimate authority.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:09.80,0:01:14.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}然而，圣经本身从未说它是唯一的权威。因此，你自相矛盾\N{\an2\fs10\i1}However, Scripture itself never says that it is the only authority. Therefore, you're contradicting
Dialogue: 0,0:01:14.91,0:01:18.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}，因为你必然要超出圣经范围来说圣经是唯一标准，所以我\N{\an2\fs10\i1}yourself, because necessarily you're going outside of Scripture to say that Scripture is the only
Dialogue: 0,0:01:18.59,0:01:23.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}们可以摒弃唯独圣经。圣经并不教导唯独圣经，因此\N{\an2\fs10\i1}standard, and therefore we can throw out Sola Scriptura. So the Bible doesn't teach Sola
Dialogue: 0,0:01:23.16,0:01:29.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}根据新教和唯独圣经本身的固有原则，唯独圣经是错误的\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Scriptura, therefore Sola Scriptura is false, based on the inherent principles of Protestantism
Dialogue: 0,0:01:29.63,0:01:35.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}。所以它是自相矛盾的。这基本上是你在与人讨论唯独圣经时会\N{\an2\fs10\i1}and Sola Scriptura itself. So it's self-contradictory. That's basically the argument that you're going to
Dialogue: 0,0:01:35.23,0:01:39.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}听到的最常见论点。那么我们该如何应对？我认为我们的\N{\an2\fs10\i1}hear more than any other when you're talking to somebody about Sola Scriptura. So what do we do
Dialogue: 0,0:01:39.63,0:01:45.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}问题是，我们是否必须找到一段特定的经文说明圣经是唯\N{\an2\fs10\i1}with that? I think the question that we have is, do we have to find a particular Scripture that
Dialogue: 0,0:01:45.23,0:01:51.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一的权威？我认为我们不必这样做。我们不需要。你在保罗\N{\an2\fs10\i1}says Scripture is the only authority? And I just don't think we have to. We don't. There's nothing
Dialogue: 0,0:01:51.95,0:01:56.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}的任何书信中都找不到，比如他对罗马人说，顺便说一下，\N{\an2\fs10\i1}in, you know, you can't find, you know, in any of Paul's letters, for example, it's like he says to
Dialogue: 0,0:01:56.44,0:02:00.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣经是唯一的权威，传统不是权威，也没有训导权被赋予\N{\an2\fs10\i1}the Romans, by the way, Scripture is the only authority, and traditions are not an authority,
Dialogue: 0,0:02:00.59,0:02:05.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}某种无误的权威来传递无误的教导。似乎很多公教会护教学\N{\an2\fs10\i1}and there is no magisterium that is given some kind of infallible authority to pass on infallible
Dialogue: 0,0:02:05.63,0:02:11.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}者认为新教徒为了捍卫自己的立场必须找到一段这样说的\N{\an2\fs10\i1}teachings, which it seems like a lot of Roman Catholic apologists think that for Protestants to
Dialogue: 0,0:02:11.32,0:02:17.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}经文。不，我认为我们更应该做的是谈论圣经独特的权威\N{\an2\fs10\i1}defend their position that they have to find a text that says that. No, I think more so what we
Dialogue: 0,0:02:17.80,0:02:23.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}和独特的本质，只需说圣经确实呈现自己是神所默示的。提摩\N{\an2\fs10\i1}have to do is just speak about the unique authority of Scripture and the unique nature of Scripture,
Dialogue: 0,0:02:23.88,0:02:32.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}太后书3章16节是一段著名的经文，说到这一点，「圣\N{\an2\fs10\i1}and just to say that Scripture does present itself as God-breathed. 2 Timothy 3.16 is kind of
Dialogue: 0,0:02:32.03,0:02:36.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}经都是神所默示的，于教训、督责、使人归正、教导人学义都\N{\an2\fs10\i1}the famous text that says this, that all Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking,
Dialogue: 0,0:02:36.52,0:02:40.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是有益的，叫属神的人得以完全，预备行各样的善事。」我\N{\an2\fs10\i1}correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly or sufficiently
Dialogue: 0,0:02:40.60,0:02:46.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}认为这段经文教导了一些重要的事情。首先是圣经是神\N{\an2\fs10\i1}equipped for every good work. Now there are some important things, I think, that are taught
Dialogue: 0,0:02:46.11,0:02:52.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所默示的。它是神所呼出的。这本身就没有用于描述其他任何\N{\an2\fs10\i1}in that text. One is that Scripture is God-breathed. It is breathed out by God. That in and of itself
Dialogue: 0,0:02:52.27,0:02:58.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}事物，因此它本质上赋予了圣经其他事物所没有的独特性\N{\an2\fs10\i1}is not said of anything else, so it inherently gives Scripture a uniqueness that nothing else
Dialogue: 0,0:02:58.03,0:03:05.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}。我们从未被告知有任何传统或一套传统或训导权是以与圣\N{\an2\fs10\i1}has. We are never told that there is a tradition or a set of traditions or a magisterium that are
Dialogue: 0,0:03:05.47,0:03:11.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}经本身相同的方式被神默示的。所以我们确实有一些非\N{\an2\fs10\i1}God-breathed in the same sense that Scripture itself is. So we do have something that is so
Dialogue: 0,0:03:11.47,0:03:20.19,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}常清楚地陈述了圣经独特性的内容，我认为罗马的做法是说\N{\an2\fs10\i1}clearly stated about the uniqueness of Scripture, and I think where Rome goes is to say that, well,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:20.19,0:03:23.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}，举证责任在你身上，要证明没有其他东西是神所默\N{\an2\fs10\i1}the burden of proof is on you to say there's nothing else that's God-breathed or nothing
Dialogue: 0,0:03:23.63,0:03:28.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}示的，或者没有其他东西具有这种独特的权威，而我会说\N{\an2\fs10\i1}else that has this unique authority, and I would say the opposite, to say that Scripture places
Dialogue: 0,0:03:29.39,0:03:34.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}相反，圣经将自己置于如此与神自己相连的权威\N{\an2\fs10\i1}as this authority that is so connected to God Himself that He breathed it out,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:35.00,0:03:39.72,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}地位，以至于祂将其呼出，真正的举证责任在\N{\an2\b1}他们身上，要证明还有其他东西具有这些特征。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}that the burden is really on them to prove that anything else has those characteristics.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:40.27,0:03:47.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我反过来说，我认为举证责任不在我们这边，不\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So I turn it around, and I don't think the burden of proof is on us to try to prove
Dialogue: 0,0:03:47.88,0:03:53.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}需要我们去证明这不是神所默示的，或者这没有同\N{\an2\fs10\i1}this isn't God-breathed or this doesn't have that same kind of sense of authority,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:53.47,0:03:57.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}样的权威性，因为有各种团体声称许多东西与圣经同等\N{\an2\fs10\i1}because there are various groups that claim all sorts of things are on par with Scripture
Dialogue: 0,0:03:58.03,0:04:01.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}，或在神的默示方面与圣经处于同等地位，\N{\an2\fs10\i1}or are on an equal level with Scripture in terms of divine inspiration,
Dialogue: 0,0:04:01.63,0:04:06.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而举证责任不在我这边去证明所有这些说法都是错误的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}and the burden of proof is not on me to prove that all of those things are false.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:06.67,0:04:12.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我没有责任去证明世上每一个假先知都是错的，他\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I don't have a burden of proof to demonstrate that every false prophet out there in the world
Dialogue: 0,0:04:13.72,0:04:18.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}们声称自己无误地教导圣灵所赐的事，或者说有什\N{\an2\fs10\i1}who claims that they're infallibly teaching the things that are given to them by the Spirit or
Dialogue: 0,0:04:18.27,0:04:23.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}么新弥赛亚，或者其他类似的团体。我没有责任去证\N{\an2\fs10\i1}that there are some new Messiah or all of these kinds of groups, the burden is not on me to prove
Dialogue: 0,0:04:23.95,0:04:29.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}明他们没有神圣权柄。相反，他们有责任去证明\N{\an2\fs10\i1}that they don't have that divine authority. The burden on them is to prove that they do
Dialogue: 0,0:04:29.16,0:04:33.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们确实拥有某种与圣经独特性相当的神圣权柄。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}have some kind of divine authority that is equal with the uniqueness of Scripture.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:33.16,0:04:38.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是第一点。我认为我们在谁需要证明什么这个问题上\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So that's the first point. I think we're coming from different starting points in terms of
Dialogue: 0,0:04:38.67,0:04:44.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}有不同的出发点。所以我从根本上否认这个原则，即\N{\an2\fs10\i1}who has to prove what. So I fundamentally deny that principle at all, that to prove
Dialogue: 0,0:04:44.92,0:04:51.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}为了证明唯独圣经，你必须证明圣经某处说了唯独圣经。不\N{\an2\fs10\i1}sola scriptura you have to prove that the Bible says sola scriptura somewhere. No, I think that
Dialogue: 0,0:04:51.39,0:04:56.51,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}，我认为这只是源于圣经的独特性和圣经本质的一种信念。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}is just a conviction that comes out of the uniqueness of Scripture and what Scripture is.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:56.51,0:05:01.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你必须证明其他事物也具有圣经所独有并自称具有的独\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You have to prove that something else has that uniqueness that Scripture itself has and claims
Dialogue: 0,0:05:01.00,0:05:06.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}特性，我认为传统以各种形式所表达的并不具备这种独特\N{\an2\fs10\i1}for itself, and I don't think that tradition in the various forms that one tries to speak about it
Dialogue: 0,0:05:07.32,0:05:11.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}性。那段经文中另一个重要之处是，它确实\N{\an2\fs10\i1}has that. The other thing that is important in that text is it does say that
Dialogue: 0,0:05:12.27,0:05:18.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}说明圣经足以装备人行各样的善事，并为你列出了这\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Scripture is sufficient to equip one in every good work, and it outlines those things for
Dialogue: 0,0:05:19.79,0:05:23.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}些事，即教训、督责、使人归正、教导人学义。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}you as being teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:23.39,0:05:30.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，在提摩太前书中确实有一种观念，即圣经具\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So there certainly is a sense in 1 Timothy that Scripture has a sufficiency or the sufficiency
Dialogue: 0,0:05:30.83,0:05:36.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}有充分性或足够性，可以装备人行各样的善事，\N{\an2\fs10\i1}of Scripture to equip for every good work, which includes all of those things connected to
Dialogue: 0,0:05:36.11,0:05:40.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}包括与教导有关的一切事情。所以教导、责备、纠正\N{\an2\fs10\i1}teaching. So teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. So there is a unique
Dialogue: 0,0:05:40.76,0:05:46.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}和训练人学义都包括在内。圣经有独特的权威。圣\N{\an2\fs10\i1}authority. The unique authority of Scripture in that it is God-bred gives it that sufficiency,
Dialogue: 0,0:05:46.76,0:05:52.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}经的独特权威在于它是神所默示的，这赋予了它充\N{\an2\fs10\i1}and so it is sufficient to equip one in good works that include teaching because of its unique
Dialogue: 0,0:05:52.04,0:05:58.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}分性，因此它足以装备人行善事，包括教导，这\N{\an2\fs10\i1}character. Now that I think is as close of a text as you're going to get that proves sola
Dialogue: 0,0:05:58.11,0:06:03.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是因为它的独特性质。我认为这是你能找到的最接\N{\an2\fs10\i1}scriptura. Not that the point of the text is to say let's compare Scripture to tradition and
Dialogue: 0,0:06:03.39,0:06:06.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}近证明唯独圣经的经文。这段经文的重点并不\N{\an2\fs10\i1}different kinds of authority and levels of authority. That's not the point of the text,
Dialogue: 0,0:06:07.23,0:06:13.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是要比较圣经与传统，或不同种类和层次的权威。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}but it does speak about the unique authority of Scripture as being theanoustos or God-breathed
Dialogue: 0,0:06:13.32,0:06:20.51,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但它确实谈到了圣经的独特权威，作为神所默示的\N{\an2\fs10\i1}being connected to its sufficiency in equipping one for good works and for teaching. Now the
Dialogue: 0,0:06:20.51,0:06:26.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}，与其充分性相连，足以装备人行善事和教导。罗\N{\an2\fs10\i1}rebuttal to that from Rome is always going to be the same, which is, well, when that particular
Dialogue: 0,0:06:26.20,0:06:32.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}马公教会对此的反驳总是一样的，即当这段经\N{\an2\fs10\i1}text was written, the entirety of the New Testament was being written, so it's not yet
Dialogue: 0,0:06:32.04,0:06:37.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}文写成时，新约全书正在写作中，尚未完全写成。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}totally written. Therefore, he's speaking only of the Old Testament, and if you take that to
Dialogue: 0,0:06:37.23,0:06:42.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，他只是在谈论旧约，如果你认为这段经文谈\N{\an2\fs10\i1}be speaking about the sufficiency of Scripture, then it's only speaking about the sufficiency
Dialogue: 0,0:06:42.35,0:06:47.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}的是圣经的充分性，那么它只是在谈论旧约的充\N{\an2\fs10\i1}of the Old Testament and not at all the New Testament, and then you have a problem because
Dialogue: 0,0:06:48.11,0:06:51.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}分性，而不是新约，这样你就有问题了，因为相信唯\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Protestants who believe in sola scriptura believe in the authority of the Old and New Testaments
Dialogue: 0,0:06:51.55,0:06:55.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}独圣经的新教徒在说唯独圣经时，相信的是新旧约的\N{\an2\fs10\i1}when they're saying sola scriptura. But I kind of think that that's really missing the point of the
Dialogue: 0,0:06:55.64,0:06:59.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}权威。但我认为这真的是误解了经文的重点。经\N{\an2\fs10\i1}text. The point of the text is not really to outline what the books of the Bible are. It's
Dialogue: 0,0:06:59.95,0:07:04.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}文的重点并不是要列出圣经的书卷。它只是在谈论圣\N{\an2\fs10\i1}just speaking about the nature of Scripture. So it is true that it is in the nature of Scripture,
Dialogue: 0,0:07:04.60,0:07:08.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}经的本质。所以，无论他是在谈论新约还是旧约\N{\an2\fs10\i1}whether he's speaking about the Old and New Testament, that it is the thing that makes one
Dialogue: 0,0:07:08.20,0:07:16.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}，圣经的本质确实是使人在这些善事上充分的东西\N{\an2\fs10\i1}sufficient in those good works. And so if that is true of the Old Testament and what had been
Dialogue: 0,0:07:16.27,0:07:19.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}。因此，如果这对旧约和当时已写成的新约部分是\N{\an2\fs10\i1}written of the New Testament at this time, and there can be some debate about that and exactly
Dialogue: 0,0:07:19.88,0:07:25.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}真实的，尽管关于当时究竟有哪些书卷被写成或\N{\an2\fs10\i1}which books had been written or understood as Scripture or transmitted at that point in any
Dialogue: 0,0:07:25.32,0:07:30.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}被理解为圣经或在广泛意义上被传播，可能存在一些\N{\an2\fs10\i1}broad sense at all, but it's speaking about the nature of what Scripture is. So I think it would
Dialogue: 0,0:07:30.83,0:07:35.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}争议，但它谈论的是圣经的本质。所以我认为\N{\an2\fs10\i1}be the understanding that in terms of the sufficiency of what Scripture is for, if New
Dialogue: 0,0:07:35.16,0:07:38.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}，就圣经的充分性而言，如果新约书卷正在继续\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Testament books are written and continuing to be written, including First Timothy itself,
Dialogue: 0,0:07:38.92,0:07:45.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}写作，包括提摩太前书本身，它们也会具有与旧约相\N{\an2\fs10\i1}they would have that same unique character as well that the Old Testament did have. So I think that
Dialogue: 0,0:07:45.55,0:07:49.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}同的独特性质。因此，我认为如果有任何支持唯\N{\an2\fs10\i1}there is, if there's any proof text for sola scriptura, that would be the closest one that
Dialogue: 0,0:07:49.88,0:07:54.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}独圣经的证明经文，这将是最接近的一个，因为它教导了圣经的独特性和充分性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}there is because of the uniqueness and the sufficiency of Scripture that is taught there.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:54.04,0:08:01.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但同时，我认为你不必非要证明圣经用明确的词\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But at the same time, I don't think you have to necessarily prove that the Bible says sola
Dialogue: 0,0:08:01.39,0:08:05.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}语说明唯独圣经。就圣经的独特性和权威而言，\N{\an2\fs10\i1}scriptura in so many words. It is in terms of the uniqueness and authority of Scripture,
Dialogue: 0,0:08:05.95,0:08:10.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你需要证明在圣经之外还有其他东西被赋予了这种权威。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}you have to prove that there is something else that is given that authority outside of Scripture.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:11.64,0:08:17.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，我要谈的另一段经文是马太福音第15章，这段\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the other place that I would go is from Matthew 15, and this is a text that is cited
Dialogue: 0,0:08:18.27,0:08:22.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}经文在讨论圣经与传统的关系时经常被引用。如果你读过马\N{\an2\fs10\i1}many times in the relationship between Scripture and tradition. It's discussed a lot if you read,
Dialogue: 0,0:08:22.60,0:08:27.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}丁·卡梅内茨或路德，或是宗教改革时期及后改革经院时代\N{\an2\fs10\i1}you know, Martin Kamenetz or Luther or a lot of people at the time of the Reformation or in the
Dialogue: 0,0:08:27.55,0:08:32.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}的许多人的著作，你会发现这段经文被广泛讨论，因为它\N{\an2\fs10\i1}post-Reformation scholastic era, because this is really the heart of the debate in many ways,
Dialogue: 0,0:08:32.91,0:08:38.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在很多方面触及了辩论的核心。如果传统被赋予了与\N{\an2\fs10\i1}because if tradition was given this equal authority to Scripture, then I shouldn't be
Dialogue: 0,0:08:38.67,0:08:42.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣经同等的权威，那么我就不应该是路德宗信徒，也不应\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Lutheran. I shouldn't be any kind of Protestant. I should be either Eastern Orthodox or Roman
Dialogue: 0,0:08:42.20,0:08:49.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}该是任何新教徒。我应该成为东正教徒或公教徒。如果你读早\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Catholic. And a lot of what, if you read the, you know, the earlier Lutheran writers, someone like
Dialogue: 0,0:08:49.55,0:08:54.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}期路德宗作家的著作，比如卡梅内茨、格哈德或其他人，\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Kamenetz or Gerhard or others, where they are going to focus a lot of their attention is on
Dialogue: 0,0:08:55.40,0:09:03.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你会发现他们将大量注意力集中在证明罗马传统本身的\N{\an2\fs10\i1}proving the contradictions in the Roman tradition itself and rebutting the claims of this
Dialogue: 0,0:09:03.23,0:09:08.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}矛盾，以及反驳罗马声称的绝对历史连续性和一致性\N{\an2\fs10\i1}absolute historical continuity and consistency that happens in Rome. I think they're
Dialogue: 0,0:09:08.28,0:09:14.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}。我认为他们是完全正确的，这些都是很好的论证方式。但\N{\an2\fs10\i1}absolutely right, and those are very good ways to argue, but today we're dealing a lot more with
Dialogue: 0,0:09:14.44,0:09:18.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}今天，我们更多地在处理东正教的问题，我认为尤其是\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Eastern Orthodoxy, I think, especially within Lutheranism, because it's something that is
Dialogue: 0,0:09:18.20,0:09:24.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在路德宗内部，因为相比公教会，东正教对人们更有吸引力，\N{\an2\fs10\i1}more attractive to people than Roman Catholicism is, especially because of the, well, the liberalism
Dialogue: 0,0:09:24.03,0:09:30.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}特别是因为自梵蒂冈第二次大公会议以来，自由主义已经\N{\an2\fs10\i1}that's snuck into Rome since Vatican II. It's hard to kind of take those absolutist claims of
Dialogue: 0,0:09:30.91,0:09:35.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}悄然渗入罗马。很难再认真对待那些关于历史一致性的绝对主\N{\an2\fs10\i1}historical consistency seriously at all. I really can't do it, and the more I study the history of
Dialogue: 0,0:09:35.88,0:09:43.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}张。我真的无法接受，而且我越是研究罗马和教宗制度的历\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Rome and the papacy and read the Fathers and then switch to reading Roman Catholic writers today,
Dialogue: 0,0:09:43.00,0:09:48.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}史，阅读教父的著作，然后转而阅读今天公教会作家的\N{\an2\fs10\i1}that there's such an inconsistency that I'm not even slightly convinced of any claims of
Dialogue: 0,0:09:48.76,0:09:55.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}作品，就越发现其中存在如此大的不一致，以至于我对任何连\N{\an2\fs10\i1}continuity at all. So that's not even a temptation at all. But Eastern Orthodoxy is different in that
Dialogue: 0,0:09:56.67,0:10:00.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}续性的主张都丝毫不信服。所以这根本不是一种诱惑\N{\an2\fs10\i1}it has a lot more behind it, I think, in terms of consistency with the early church,
Dialogue: 0,0:10:00.59,0:10:07.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}。但东正教不同，它在与早期教会的一致性方\N{\an2\fs10\i1}and it doesn't have all this baggage that Rome has. So I think the problem
Dialogue: 0,0:10:07.55,0:10:12.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}面有更多支持，而且没有罗马那么多的包袱。所以我认为，看\N{\an2\fs10\i1}in looking at some of the early Lutheran writers is that they spend so much time just dealing with
Dialogue: 0,0:10:12.20,0:10:17.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一些早期路德宗作家的问题在于，他们花了太多时间只是\N{\an2\fs10\i1}the claims of Rome's tradition that they don't spend as much time just interacting with sola
Dialogue: 0,0:10:17.40,0:10:22.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}处理罗马传统的主张，而没有花太多时间专门讨论唯独圣经\N{\an2\fs10\i1}scriptura as a doctrine, dealing with tradition itself as a whole, because they're only thinking
Dialogue: 0,0:10:22.59,0:10:28.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}作为一个教义，或整体上处理传统本身，因为他们只考虑罗马\N{\an2\fs10\i1}in terms of Rome. They're not thinking so much in terms of the East. But let's look at a text from
Dialogue: 0,0:10:28.84,0:10:37.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}，而没有太多考虑东方教会。但让我们来看看马太\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Matthew 15, and this is a text that speaks about the relationship between scripture
Dialogue: 0,0:10:37.96,0:10:43.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}福音第15章的一段经文，这段经文谈到了圣经与传统的关系，\N{\an2\fs10\i1}and tradition, and it speaks about the relationship between scripture and tradition in relation to the
Dialogue: 0,0:10:43.15,0:10:47.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}特别是在文士和法利赛人的教导方面。这是马太福音第15章，从第1节开始。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}teaching of the scribes and the Pharisees. So this is Matthew 15, starting in verse 1.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:47.79,0:10:51.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那时有法利赛人和文士从耶路撒冷来见耶稣，说\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, Why do your
Dialogue: 0,0:10:51.47,0:10:56.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}「你的门徒为什么犯古人的遗传呢？因为吃饭的时候\N{\an2\fs10\i1}disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat
Dialogue: 0,0:10:56.28,0:11:00.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}，他们不洗手。」耶稣回答说「你们为什么因着你们\N{\an2\fs10\i1}bread. He answered and said to them, Why do you also transgress the commandments of God because of
Dialogue: 0,0:11:00.91,0:11:05.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}的遗传犯神的诫命呢？神说『当孝敬父母』又说『\N{\an2\fs10\i1}your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honor your father and your mother, and he who curses
Dialogue: 0,0:11:05.40,0:11:10.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}咒骂父母的，必治死他。』你们倒说『无论何人对\N{\an2\fs10\i1}father and mother, let him be put to death. But you say, Whoever says to his father or mother,
Dialogue: 0,0:11:10.28,0:11:14.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}父母说，我所当奉给你的已经作了供献，他就可以\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Whatever prophet you might have received from me as a gift to God, then he need not honor his
Dialogue: 0,0:11:14.52,0:11:18.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不孝敬父母。』这就是你们借着遗传，废了神的诫命。」\N{\an2\fs10\i1}father or mother. Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:18.44,0:11:24.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}假冒为善的人哪，以赛亚指着你们说的预言是不错的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying, These people draw near to me with their
Dialogue: 0,0:11:24.52,0:11:28.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他说，「这百姓用嘴唇尊敬我，心却远离我。他们将人\N{\an2\fs10\i1}mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. In vain do they worship
Dialogue: 0,0:11:28.67,0:11:36.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}的吩咐当作道理教导人，所以拜我也是枉然。」这里\N{\an2\fs10\i1}me, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men. So what we have here is a claim about an
Dialogue: 0,0:11:36.59,0:11:44.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们看到一个关于从摩西传下来的无误传统及其与圣经\N{\an2\fs10\i1}infallible tradition that is passed down from Moses and its relationship to scripture. And I
Dialogue: 0,0:11:44.03,0:11:50.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}关系的说法。我认为我们从中可以得出一个今天可以应用\N{\an2\fs10\i1}think what we see here is a principle that we can apply today, which is so let's look at the claims
Dialogue: 0,0:11:50.11,0:11:54.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}的原则，那就是让我们来看看罗马公教会和犹太人的主\N{\an2\fs10\i1}of Rome and the claims of the Jews. And I think this is important because Chemnitz points this
Dialogue: 0,0:11:54.35,0:12:01.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}张。我认为这很重要，因为开姆尼茨经常指出这一点，\N{\an2\fs10\i1}out a lot, which is there's a lot of similarity between the claims of an infallible tradition
Dialogue: 0,0:12:01.08,0:12:06.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}即通过训导权传下来的无误传统的说法与通过文士和法利\N{\an2\fs10\i1}passed on through the magisterium and the claims of an infallible tradition being passed on through
Dialogue: 0,0:12:06.35,0:12:11.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}赛人从摩西传下来的无误传统的说法有很多相似之处。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}the scribes and Pharisees that come down from Moses. And so the Jews in the first century had
Dialogue: 0,0:12:11.15,0:12:19.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}第一世纪的犹太人有一个非常相似的观念，即圣经本\N{\an2\fs10\i1}a very similar notion that scripture itself is an authority, but there also are these other
Dialogue: 0,0:12:19.08,0:12:24.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}身是一个权威，但还有其他权威，即摩西所给的律法，后\N{\an2\fs10\i1}authorities, which are the sayings of, well, laws given by Moses, which become the sayings of the
Dialogue: 0,0:12:24.11,0:12:28.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}来成为文士和法利赛人的言论。我们今天想到的是类似于\N{\an2\fs10\i1}scribes and Pharisees. We think today of something like the Babylonian Talmud that is written down
Dialogue: 0,0:12:28.35,0:12:35.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}新约之后写下的巴比伦塔木德。但我们有这些无误的传\N{\an2\fs10\i1}after the New Testament. But we have then these infallible traditions and what those infallible
Dialogue: 0,0:12:35.96,0:12:42.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}统，这些无误的传统的作用是解释圣经。因此，如果你要\N{\an2\fs10\i1}traditions do is serve to interpret scripture. And so if you're going to interpret various laws,
Dialogue: 0,0:12:42.52,0:12:48.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}解释各种律法，例如安息日以及我们在安息日休息的含\N{\an2\fs10\i1}for example, the Sabbath and what it means that we are to rest on the Sabbath. So look at that
Dialogue: 0,0:12:48.11,0:12:53.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}义。所以看看那个在圣经中很清楚的传统或诫命。现在\N{\an2\fs10\i1}tradition or that commandment that's clear in scripture. Now we have various traditions that
Dialogue: 0,0:12:53.15,0:13:00.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们有各种传下来的传统。我们有哈拉卡和哈加达，它们是\N{\an2\fs10\i1}are passed on. We have Halakha and Haggadah, which are these kind of expansions of the Old Testament
Dialogue: 0,0:13:00.67,0:13:05.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对旧约的一种扩展，既有叙事形式，也有各种律法及\N{\an2\fs10\i1}in terms of both narrative form as well as in terms of various laws and how those laws are
Dialogue: 0,0:13:05.71,0:13:10.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}其发展方式。所以我们在其中有，比如说安息日的诫命，\N{\an2\fs10\i1}developed. So we have within that, you know, say the command of the Sabbath, now we have various
Dialogue: 0,0:13:10.11,0:13:15.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在我们有各种特定的传统会说这是我们解释圣经的指\N{\an2\fs10\i1}particular traditions would say this is now our guide to interpreting scripture. And that guide
Dialogue: 0,0:13:15.71,0:13:22.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}南。这个解释圣经的指南包括我们履行这些诫命的各\N{\an2\fs10\i1}to interpreting scripture includes all of these various ways that we are to fulfill those
Dialogue: 0,0:13:22.35,0:13:31.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}种方式。然后它就不仅仅是单单圣经了，而是通过这些\N{\an2\fs10\i1}commandments. And then it becomes not just scripture alone, but scripture as it is understood
Dialogue: 0,0:13:31.08,0:13:36.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}据说是摩西口头传下来的各种传统来理解的圣经。所以据\N{\an2\fs10\i1}through these various traditions that have been said to be orally passed down by Moses. So it was
Dialogue: 0,0:13:36.20,0:13:41.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}说摩西有书面律法和口头律法，这就导致了我们在第一世纪\N{\an2\fs10\i1}taught that Moses had the written law and the oral law, which resulted in the situation that we have
Dialogue: 0,0:13:41.79,0:13:48.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}看到的情况，即各种传统，耶稣自己经常被这些传统来\N{\an2\fs10\i1}in the first century with the various traditions that Jesus himself is often judged by. So we
Dialogue: 0,0:13:48.76,0:13:53.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}判断。所以我们肯定有一个平行。我认为很难不看\N{\an2\fs10\i1}certainly have a parallel. And I think it's really hard not to see the parallel between
Dialogue: 0,0:13:54.44,0:14:01.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}到罗马公教会和犹太教之间的平行，即我们有两个相互竞争\N{\an2\fs10\i1}what we have in Rome and what we have in Judaism, which is we have two competing things. We have one
Dialogue: 0,0:14:01.15,0:14:05.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}的东西。我们有一个说有这个传统，然后有圣经。据说传\N{\an2\fs10\i1}that says there's this tradition and then there's scripture. And the tradition is said to simply
Dialogue: 0,0:14:05.96,0:14:11.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}统只是解释圣经或帮助我们理解圣经，或给我们一种\N{\an2\fs10\i1}interpret scripture or help us to understand scripture or give us the kind of infallible,
Dialogue: 0,0:14:11.08,0:14:14.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}无误的，虽然犹太人在第一世纪并没有使用这个特定术语\N{\an2\fs10\i1}not that the Jews are using that particular term at this time of the first century, but the same
Dialogue: 0,0:14:14.84,0:14:21.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}，但是同样的概念，这种对圣经真正含义的无误解释者。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}concept nonetheless, this kind of infallible interpreter of what scripture really means.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:22.59,0:14:28.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}正是在这种背景下，耶稣确立了一些我认为对今天的教会仍\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And it's in that context that Jesus does set up some principles that I think are valid for the
Dialogue: 0,0:14:28.59,0:14:35.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}然有效的原则。这个原则就是，传统和圣经之间确实可\N{\an2\fs10\i1}church today. And the principle is that there can be indeed opposition between tradition
Dialogue: 0,0:14:35.55,0:14:43.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}能存在对立。当圣经和传统发生冲突时，圣经才是最终的决\N{\an2\fs10\i1}and scripture. And when scripture and tradition are at odds, it is scripture that is the thing
Dialogue: 0,0:14:43.32,0:14:50.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}定性因素。因此，圣经对传统有这种压倒性的权威。所以，\N{\an2\fs10\i1}that gets the final say. So scripture has this kind of overriding power over tradition. So if
Dialogue: 0,0:14:50.44,0:14:53.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果圣经说一件事，而传统说另一件事，圣经总是胜出。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}scripture says something and tradition says something, scripture wins every time.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:55.15,0:14:59.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而且，我们不仅要始终根据各种据称是无误的传统\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And it's not just that we have to always interpret scripture in light of the various
Dialogue: 0,0:14:59.32,0:15:05.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}来解释圣经，这些传统被传承下来作为解释圣经的方法。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}supposed infallible traditions that have been passed down as ways to interpret scripture.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:06.44,0:15:11.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我们看到这种情况发生在第一世纪，这与宗教改革时\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So we have that going on in the first century, which is very much parallel to what's happening
Dialogue: 0,0:15:12.20,0:15:17.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}期的晚期中世纪所发生的情况非常相似。现在，公教会\N{\an2\fs10\i1}throughout the late middle ages when we arrive at the time period of the Reformation. Now,
Dialogue: 0,0:15:18.76,0:15:22.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}护教学者在处理这段经文时总是会说，这只是在谴责某\N{\an2\fs10\i1}what Roman Catholic apologists do when they approach this text is they're always going to
Dialogue: 0,0:15:22.28,0:15:28.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}种特定的传统，那就是人的遗传，因为这是耶稣所用的词\N{\an2\fs10\i1}say, well, this is just condemning a particular kind of tradition, and that is the traditions
Dialogue: 0,0:15:28.59,0:15:32.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}。所以区别在于，罗马公教会并不教导人的遗传，而那\N{\an2\fs10\i1}of men, because that's the phrase that Jesus uses. So the difference is Rome doesn't teach
Dialogue: 0,0:15:32.35,0:15:38.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}些据称拥有无误的圣经教导和解释的犹太人，他们却在\N{\an2\fs10\i1}the traditions of men, but the Jews who had supposedly had this infallible set of teachings
Dialogue: 0,0:15:38.44,0:15:42.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}教导人的遗传。但这就留下了一个问题，那就是，根据\N{\an2\fs10\i1}and interpretations of scripture, they were teaching traditions of men. And that leaves a
Dialogue: 0,0:15:42.76,0:15:47.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}什么标准？你如何判断一个是人的遗传，而另一个不是人的\N{\an2\fs10\i1}question, though, which is to say, well, according to what? How do you judge one as a tradition of
Dialogue: 0,0:15:47.96,0:15:52.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}遗传？因为他们基本上在做同样的声称。第一世纪的犹\N{\an2\fs10\i1}men and the other not as a tradition of men? Because they're making pretty much the same
Dialogue: 0,0:15:52.59,0:15:59.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}太人也在做同样的声称，他们可以向耶稣指出同样的事。他们\N{\an2\fs10\i1}claims. And so the first century Jews are making the same claims, and they could point out to Jesus
Dialogue: 0,0:15:59.96,0:16:05.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}可以说，嘿，耶稣，旧约在哪里说旧约是唯一的权威，而\N{\an2\fs10\i1}here the same thing. They could say, hey, Jesus, where does the Old Testament say that the Old
Dialogue: 0,0:16:05.00,0:16:08.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不是人的遗传？你看，他们可以使用同样的论点。但当\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Testament is the only authority and not the traditions of men? You see, they could use the
Dialogue: 0,0:16:08.76,0:16:15.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}然，这对耶稣是行不通的。但为什么会有什么不同呢？再次\N{\an2\fs10\i1}same argument. But of course, that wouldn't work with Jesus. But why is that any different? Again,
Dialogue: 0,0:16:15.32,0:16:20.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}说明，举证责任在他们身上，当耶稣说，嘿，圣经和传\N{\an2\fs10\i1}the burden of proof was on them to show when Jesus says, hey, there's opposition between
Dialogue: 0,0:16:20.52,0:16:25.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}统之间存在对立时，举证责任就落在法利赛人身上，他们需\N{\an2\fs10\i1}scripture and the traditions, the burden of proof is on then the Pharisees to go back and say, no,
Dialogue: 0,0:16:25.32,0:16:29.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}要回去说，不，这里是我们知道这些传统确实是真实\N{\an2\fs10\i1}here is where we know that these traditions are indeed true and infallible and correct,
Dialogue: 0,0:16:29.71,0:16:35.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}、无误和正确的，它们确实来自摩西。但耶稣给了我们\N{\an2\fs10\i1}and they really came from Moses. But Jesus gives us a way to interpret that relationship
Dialogue: 0,0:16:35.64,0:16:39.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一种解释圣经和传统之间关系的方法，那就是当两者\N{\an2\fs10\i1}between scripture and tradition, which is scripture overrides tradition when there is
Dialogue: 0,0:16:39.79,0:16:47.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}之间存在矛盾时，圣经凌驾于传统之上。你知道，耶稣并没\N{\an2\fs10\i1}a contradiction between the two. And, you know, Jesus doesn't then make some distinction to say,
Dialogue: 0,0:16:47.32,0:16:50.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}有做出某种区分说，好吧，这是人的遗传，但还有其他与圣\N{\an2\fs10\i1}well, this is traditions of men, but there also are these other traditions which are on par with
Dialogue: 0,0:16:50.59,0:16:54.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}经同等的传统，那些是神传下来的。顺便说一下，这就是你如何知道其中的区别。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}scripture, and those are ones passed on by God. And by the way, here's how you know the difference.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:54.52,0:16:59.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他在评估犹太人的传统时，似乎确实是按照唯独\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He certainly seems to be functioning on a sola scriptura kind of principle when he is evaluating
Dialogue: 0,0:16:59.15,0:17:03.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣经的原则行事。我看不出有什么理由不应\N{\an2\fs10\i1}the traditions of the Jews. And I don't see any reason why we shouldn't apply that same
Dialogue: 0,0:17:03.96,0:17:06.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}该用同样的原则来审视教会的传统。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}principle in the way that we look at traditions in the church as well.