[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: 0,0:00:01.05,0:00:12.13,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}今天我们要讨论导致以弗所和迦克墩大公会议的基督论争议。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So today we're going to be talking about the Christological controversy that leads up to the ecumenical councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. Dialogue: 0,0:00:12.13,0:00:15.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}到时候我会拼写这些词，所以现在不用担心。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And I'll spell those words when we get there, so don't worry about it yet. Dialogue: 0,0:00:15.34,0:00:23.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但基本上我们现在看的是4世纪末和5世纪的基督论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But basically what we're looking at now is later 4th and 5th century Christology. Dialogue: 0,0:00:23.68,0:00:34.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在你读到的许多相关书籍中，作者们会区分三位一体争议和基督论争议。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, in a lot of the books you'll read on this, authors make a distinction between The Trinitarian Controversy and the Christological Controversy. Dialogue: 0,0:00:34.86,0:00:40.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这种区分我并不太在意，因为对我来说这都是基督论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now this is not a distinction that I'm that concerned about, because to me it's all Christology. Dialogue: 0,0:00:40.57,0:00:45.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果我们不需要解释基督是谁，就不会有三位一体的教义。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If we didn't have the problem of explaining who Christ is, you wouldn't have the doctrine of the Trinity. Dialogue: 0,0:00:45.63,0:01:01.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但如果要做这种区分，三位一体争议主要是关于圣父和圣子之间的关\N系，当然后来圣灵也被包括进来，他们最终也不得不讨论这个问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But if you're going to make that distinction, the Trinitarian Controversy is really all about primarily the relationship between the Father and Son, but then of course along comes the Holy Spirit and they eventually have to get around to that as well. Dialogue: 0,0:01:02.31,0:01:31.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}从技术角度讲，基督论争议更进一步讨论：如果圣子是三位一体的第二位格\N，而我们已经讨论了三位一体各位格之间的关系，即三位一体内有合一性和\N区别性，那么这对基督的两性，即基督位格中的神性和人性，有什么启示？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Christological controversy, technically speaking then, takes that one step further and talks about, okay, if then the Son is the second person of the Trinity, and if now we've talked about the relationships between the persons of the Trinity, that there is unity and distinction within the Trinity, What does that have to say about the two natures of Christ, the divine nature and human nature within the person of Christ? Dialogue: 0,0:01:31.75,0:01:49.81,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换句话说，如果三位一体的基本问题是如何平衡三位一体中的合一性和区别性\N，那么基督论的问题就是如何在基督的位格内平衡两性的合一性和区别性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In other words, if the basic Trinitarian problem is how to balance unity and distinction in the Trinity, then the Christological problem is how to balance unity and distinction Within the person of Christ, the two natures. Dialogue: 0,0:01:49.81,0:01:52.73,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}两性如何成为一个位格？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}How are the two natures one person? Dialogue: 0,0:01:52.73,0:01:55.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它们是否作为一个位格统一起来？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Are they unified as one person? Dialogue: 0,0:01:56.08,0:01:58.98,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但同时，两性又如何保持区别？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But at the same time, how are the two natures distinct? Dialogue: 0,0:01:58.98,0:02:04.66,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这样神性就能保持其区别性而不经受变化，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So that the divinity retains its distinction without undergoing change, right? Dialogue: 0,0:02:04.66,0:02:09.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为我们从一开始就知道神性必须是不变的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because we've seen from the beginning that divinity has to be immutable. Dialogue: 0,0:02:09.39,0:02:11.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}神性不能改变。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Divinity can't change. Dialogue: 0,0:02:13.31,0:02:22.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们将讨论一些参与这场争议的神学家，并引导我们进入接下来的两次大公会议。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We're going to talk about some of the theologians that were involved in this controversy, and we're going to lead ourselves up to the next two ecumenical councils. Dialogue: 0,0:02:22.57,0:02:34.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果你面前有或者你有4世纪基督论的讲义，你会注\N意到一边是亚略，我们已经讨论过亚略主义争议了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If you have in front of you, or if you have the handout on 4th century Christology, you'll notice that on one side was Arius, and we dealt with the Arian controversy already. Dialogue: 0,0:02:34.14,0:02:38.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}另一边是我们还没有真正讨论过的人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}On the other side is someone we haven't really talked about yet. Dialogue: 0,0:02:39.18,0:02:41.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是亚波里拿里。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And this is Apollinarius. Dialogue: 0,0:02:48.47,0:02:52.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}哇，在干净的黑板上写字真好。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Wow, it's nice to write on a clean chalkboard. Dialogue: 0,0:02:52.19,0:02:53.89,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}老底嘉的亚波里拿里。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Apollinarius of Laodicea. Dialogue: 0,0:02:53.89,0:03:02.02,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他的生卒年大约是310年到390年，所以他确实属于4世纪。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, his dates are like 310 to 390, so he's solidly in the 4th century. Dialogue: 0,0:03:02.56,0:03:08.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们还没有真正讨论过他，但他出现的时间与加帕多家教父差不多。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We haven't really talked about him yet, but he comes up really around the same time as the Cappadocians. Dialogue: 0,0:03:08.94,0:03:13.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}事实上，他算是凯撒利亚的巴西流的笔友。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In fact, he was sort of a pen pal of Basil of Caesarea. Dialogue: 0,0:03:13.32,0:03:20.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们两人讨论如何解释「同质」或「同本质」的概念。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And the two of them discuss how to interpret the concept of homoousios, or consubstantiality. Dialogue: 0,0:03:21.59,0:03:42.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}亚波里拿里似乎一开始属于尼西亚或正统阵营，但在反对亚略时\N，因为他是反亚略主义者，但从中间立场来看，他反应过度了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Apollinarius seems to begin within the Nicene or Orthodox camp, but then in reacting against Arius, because he's an anti-Arian, but in reacting against Arius, from the perspective of the middle, he overreacts. Dialogue: 0,0:03:43.06,0:03:45.02,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}并走向了另一个极端。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}and goes to the other extreme. Dialogue: 0,0:03:45.02,0:03:53.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以你可以看到，如果亚略在黑板的这一边，钟摆就会\N摆到这里，我们将在黑板的这一边遇到亚波里拿里。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So you can see if Arius was on this side of the board, the pendulum is going to swing over to here, and we're going to meet Apollinarius over on this side of the board. Dialogue: 0,0:03:54.12,0:04:01.41,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，如果你思考亚略主义对人类学的影响。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, if you think about what Arianism did with anthropology. Dialogue: 0,0:04:01.41,0:04:06.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换句话说，亚略主义的人类学是一种非常乐观的人类学。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In other words, an Arian anthropology is a very optimistic anthropology. Dialogue: 0,0:04:06.39,0:04:09.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一种认为人类可以完美的人类学。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}An anthropology that says humans can be perfect. Dialogue: 0,0:04:11.65,0:04:20.09,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为它假设耶稣是一个人，基于一种收养论模式达到了某种完美。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because it assumes that Jesus was a human being who achieved some sort of perfection based on an adoptionist model. Dialogue: 0,0:04:20.09,0:04:21.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好吧，行。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay, fine. Dialogue: 0,0:04:21.39,0:04:34.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但对正统派、对尼西亚信经支持者来说，可怕的\N是如果耶稣能够进步达到完美，他也可能退步。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But, the scary part of that for the Orthodox, for the Nineteens, is that if Jesus can progress toward perfection, he could also regress. Dialogue: 0,0:04:34.60,0:04:39.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换句话说，他可能犯罪的可能性仍然存在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In other words, the possibility remains that he could sin. Dialogue: 0,0:04:40.92,0:04:43.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这对今天的我们来说不一定是个大问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That's not necessarily such a big deal for us today. Dialogue: 0,0:04:43.50,0:05:01.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我的意思是，今天很多人会认为耶稣本可以犯罪，只是他没有。但在当时，\N耶稣可能犯罪并因此失去作为人类救主资格的想法，是一个可怕的想法。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I mean, a lot of people today would assume that Jesus could have sinned, and he just didn't. But back then, the idea that Jesus might have sinned and thereby might have disqualified himself as savior of humanity, that was a scary thought. Dialogue: 0,0:05:01.47,0:05:05.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那是一个你知道的，就是那种，你知道的，不可想象的想法。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That was a thought that, you know, something that just, you know, was inconceivable. Dialogue: 0,0:05:06.48,0:05:16.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，亚波里拿里想要以这样一种方式描述基督，即使他想犯罪也完全不可能。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, Apollinarius wants to Describe Christ in such a way that it was utterly impossible for him to sin, even if he wanted to. Dialogue: 0,0:05:16.24,0:05:42.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，亚波里拿里推理认为，基督能完全避免犯罪，始终如一地抵抗诱惑，以及你能\N保证基督能避免诱惑的唯一方法是，如果他必须抵抗诱惑的那部分不是人性部分。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, Apollinarius reasoned, though, that the only way Christ could perfectly avoid sin, and consistently always resist temptation, and the only way that you're sort of guaranteed that Christ could avoid temptation, is if the part of him that has to resist temptation is not the human part. Dialogue: 0,0:05:42.87,0:05:49.46,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换句话说，如果耶稣有人的心智，那个人的心智最终会屈服于诱惑。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In other words, if Jesus has a human mind, that human mind is eventually going to give in to temptation. Dialogue: 0,0:05:49.46,0:05:59.66,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以亚波里拿里推理认为，为了保证耶稣永远不会犯罪，他必须没有人的心智。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So what Apollinarius reasons is that in order for you to have that guarantee that Jesus could never sin, he must not have a human mind. Dialogue: 0,0:06:00.37,0:06:10.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以对亚波里拿里来说，耶稣的人的心智被神圣的道或神圣的心智所取代。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So for Apollinarius, the human mind in Jesus is replaced with the divine logos, or the divine mind. Dialogue: 0,0:06:12.84,0:06:43.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在某种程度上，亚波里拿里推理道，等一下，如果耶稣有这两种本性，人性和\N神性，如果每种本性都有自己的心智，神性的心智是道，人性的心智是人的心\N智，如果每种本性都有自己的心智，自己的意志，我想我的电池刚刚没电了，\N如果每种本性都有自己的心智或意志，那是不是让耶稣成了精神分裂？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In a way, Apollinarius reasons, well, wait a minute, if Jesus has these two natures, human and divine, and if each nature has its own mind, the divine mind being the logos, and the human mind being the human mind, if each nature has its own mind, its own will, I think I just lost my battery, If each nature has its own mind or its own will, then does that make Jesus schizophrenic? Dialogue: 0,0:06:43.11,0:06:46.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是不是让耶稣有了两种心智？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Does that make Jesus of two minds? Dialogue: 0,0:06:47.98,0:06:54.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以他认为，这听起来好像基督的位格中没有足够的合一性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so he thought, well, that sounds to him like there's not enough unity then in the person of Christ. Dialogue: 0,0:06:54.40,0:07:00.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这听起来好像基督不再是一个位格，而是两个位\N格，或一个精神分裂的位格，或者别的什么。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It sounds like Christ isn't one person anymore, he's two persons, or one schizophrenic person, or something. Dialogue: 0,0:07:01.55,0:07:14.46,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，最终亚波里拿里决定相信，基本上，神圣的道取代了耶稣的人的心智。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, ultimately, what Apollinarius decided was that he came to believe that, basically, the divine logos replaced the human mind in Jesus. Dialogue: 0,0:07:15.26,0:07:25.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这样神圣的心智就能控制身体，压制它，约束它，使它不能犯罪。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So that the divine mind could hold down the body, suppress it, and keep it in check, so that it could not sin. Dialogue: 0,0:07:25.75,0:07:26.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}有点像是……\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Sort of like... Dialogue: 0,0:07:28.54,0:07:34.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}教会历史教授过去常这样说，就像把凯迪拉克的发动机装在大众车上。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Church history professor used to say it like this, like putting a Cadillac engine in a Volkswagen. Dialogue: 0,0:07:34.85,0:07:39.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那时大众车不是很好，但现在它们是更好的车。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Back then Volkswagen weren't that great, but now they're better cars. Dialogue: 0,0:07:39.77,0:07:45.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}让我们这样说吧，就像把科尔维特的发动机装在福特福克斯上。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Let's just say it like if you were to put a Corvette engine in a Ford Focus. Dialogue: 0,0:07:45.17,0:07:53.61,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在你知道这实际上行不通，但这就是神圣心智被插入人的位格的想法。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now you know that wouldn't work really, but that's the idea of the divine mind being inserted into The human person. Dialogue: 0,0:07:53.61,0:07:57.33,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那么，这样做的问题是什么呢？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, what's the problem with that though? Dialogue: 0,0:07:57.33,0:08:05.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}预想一下，有人站在中间看着这个并思考，你可能看到什么问题？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Anticipate somebody in the middle looking at that and thinking, what problem might you see in that? Dialogue: 0,0:08:08.94,0:08:11.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}神圣的心智取代了人的心智。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Divine mind replaces the human mind. Dialogue: 0,0:08:11.52,0:08:14.02,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它们不是平等的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They're not equal. Dialogue: 0,0:08:14.08,0:08:14.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}抱歉？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Sorry? Dialogue: 0,0:08:14.54,0:08:15.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它们不是平等的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They're not equal. Dialogue: 0,0:08:15.54,0:08:17.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好吧，我的意思是，它有什么不平等的地方？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, I mean, what's not equal about it? Dialogue: 0,0:08:17.32,0:08:18.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你说得对，但我希望你能更具体一些。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You're right, but I want you to be more specific. Dialogue: 0,0:08:18.96,0:08:20.42,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它有什么不平等的地方？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What's not equal about it? Dialogue: 0,0:08:23.04,0:08:26.72,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，没错，没有人的心智，所以他不是完全的人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yeah, right, there is no human mind, so he's not fully human. Dialogue: 0,0:08:26.72,0:08:40.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以在这里，我们又回到了黑板的这一边，我们正在失去基\N督的人性，因为一个人的心智被替换的耶稣不是完全的人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So here again, we're on this side of the board, we're losing the humanity of Christ, because a Jesus in which the human mind has been replaced is a Jesus who is not fully human. Dialogue: 0,0:08:40.39,0:08:54.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，基督是有肉体的，但并不是真正完全的人性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, Christ then is one who has flesh, But not really full humanity. Dialogue: 0,0:08:54.34,0:09:04.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以对亚波里拿里来说，道穿上了肉体，这是一种圣经\N的语言，但对他来说，这就像是穿上了一件皮肤套装。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So for Apollinarius, the Logos puts on flesh, which is kind of biblical language, but for him it means like, you know, sort of wearing a skin suit. Dialogue: 0,0:09:04.32,0:09:06.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}还记得「黑衣人」这部电影吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Remember the movie Men in Black? Dialogue: 0,0:09:06.41,0:09:10.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}外星人下来了，有个叫埃德加的家伙，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The alien comes down, and there's that guy Edgar, right? Dialogue: 0,0:09:10.01,0:09:20.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他基本上把埃德加的内脏吸出来，穿上他的皮，还有那\N些白色的层，就像是有人在穿埃德加的套装，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And he basically sucks the insides out of Edgar and wears his skin, and the white layers, and it was like someone else is wearing an Edgar suit, right? Dialogue: 0,0:09:20.30,0:09:23.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，这就有点像亚波里拿里眼中的基督。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, that's kind of Apollinarius as Christ. Dialogue: 0,0:09:23.16,0:09:29.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他穿着人的套装，但他并不是真正的人，因为在内里，他是神圣的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He's wearing a human suit, but he's not really human, because on the inside, he's divine. Dialogue: 0,0:09:29.12,0:09:31.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，亚波里拿里眼中的基督……\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, Apollinarius as Christ... Dialogue: 0,0:09:31.00,0:09:35.98,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，亚波里拿里本人会反对这种说法。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, Apollinarius himself would fight this. Dialogue: 0,0:09:35.98,0:09:36.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他会不同意。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He would disagree. Dialogue: 0,0:09:36.74,0:09:47.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他可能会说，不，这个基督是人，而且是全面的，但中间立场的\N批评会是，不，我们在这里看到的是一个不完全是人的基督。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He would probably say, no, this Christ is human and everything, but the critique from the middle is going to be, nah, what we're looking at here is a Christ who is not fully human. Dialogue: 0,0:09:47.30,0:09:51.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他完全是神，但他不完全是人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He is fully divine, But he's not fully human. Dialogue: 0,0:09:52.04,0:09:56.06,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以在某种程度上，我们失去了部分人性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so in a way, we've lost part of the human nature. Dialogue: 0,0:09:56.06,0:09:59.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我们这里不再有两性了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So we don't have two natures anymore here. Dialogue: 0,0:10:01.95,0:10:04.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是一个半性吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Is it one and a half natures? Dialogue: 0,0:10:04.47,0:10:05.89,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我不知道。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I don't know. Dialogue: 0,0:10:08.03,0:10:09.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我只是随便说说。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I'm just throwing stuff out there. Dialogue: 0,0:10:09.79,0:10:12.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我不会把这个说得太过分。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I wouldn't take that too far. Dialogue: 0,0:10:12.63,0:10:17.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但你看到它在某种程度上不到完全的两性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But you see how it's somehow less than fully two natures. Dialogue: 0,0:10:19.16,0:10:24.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}事实上，只有一个意志。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And in fact, there is only one will. Dialogue: 0,0:10:24.99,0:10:33.37,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以无论你有什么神性和人性，意志或心智是神圣的，不是人的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So whatever you have of the divinity and the humanity, the will or the mind is divine, not human. Dialogue: 0,0:10:33.37,0:10:36.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以只有一个意志，不是两个。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So there's one will, not two. Dialogue: 0,0:10:36.37,0:10:39.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}希腊语中实际上有一个词来形容这个，单意志论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}There's actually a word for this in Greek, monosolite. Dialogue: 0,0:10:39.40,0:10:44.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它的意思是一个意志。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It means one will. Dialogue: 0,0:10:45.58,0:11:05.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，所以亚波里拿里的基督，不是道成为人，而更多的\N是道成肉身不是成为人，道成肉身更多的是肉体的神化。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay, so Apollinarius is Christ, then, is not so much the word becomes human, it's more of the incarnation is not a becoming human, incarnation is more of a deifying of the flesh. Dialogue: 0,0:11:07.72,0:11:14.37,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}有时这被称为「道-肉体」基督论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Sometimes this is referred to as a word-flesh Christology. Dialogue: 0,0:11:14.43,0:11:18.87,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我不太喜欢这些标签，但如果你读到这个，我就给你提一下。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, I'm not big on these labels, but in case you read that, I'll throw it out there for you. Dialogue: 0,0:11:18.87,0:11:23.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但「道-肉体」的意思是肉体，而不是人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But what word flesh means is flesh as opposed to human. Dialogue: 0,0:11:24.05,0:11:34.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换句话说，更主流的替代说法被称为「道-人」，请\N原谅这不太包容的语言，但这通常是传统的叫法。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In other words, the more mainstream alternative to this would be called word man, and pardon the not so inclusive language, but that's usually what it's called traditionally. Dialogue: 0,0:11:34.96,0:11:41.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但在「道-人」的情况下，「人」的意思是人，即完全的人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But in that case, in the case of word man, the word man means human, as in fully human. Dialogue: 0,0:11:41.74,0:11:47.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}相比之下，在这种情况下，肉体只是指肉体，而不是完全的人性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In this case, then, by contrast, flesh means Just the flesh, but not the full humanity. Dialogue: 0,0:11:47.60,0:11:52.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}总之，如果你看到这些术语，这就是你所看到的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So anyway, if you see those terms, that's what you're looking at. Dialogue: 0,0:11:53.02,0:12:08.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，有趣的是，亚略的情况是，你有一种情况\N，就像肉体赢得了道的内住，或类似的东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, it's interesting because what you had with Arius was, with Arius you had a situation where it was like the flesh earned the indwelling of the word, or something like that. Dialogue: 0,0:12:08.84,0:12:14.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而亚波里拿里的情况则是道使肉体神化。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What you have with Apollinarius then is the word deifies the flesh. Dialogue: 0,0:12:14.74,0:12:25.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但主流观点认为，这两种解释都不足以充分解释「道成肉身」或「道成为人」。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But neither of those would be considered, by the mainstream, would be considered an adequate interpretation of the word became flesh, or the word became human. Dialogue: 0,0:12:25.95,0:12:32.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是主流观点想要坚持的，不仅仅是穿上，而是成为，成为人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And that's what the mainstream wanted to hold onto, was not just a putting on, but a becoming, and a becoming human. Dialogue: 0,0:12:32.55,0:12:34.65,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，我马上就回答你。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yeah, I'll get to you in a second there. Dialogue: 0,0:12:34.65,0:12:54.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，另一个有趣的事情是，虽然亚略设想的基督只有一个意志，尽管那个意志是\N人的，亚波里拿里也设想基督只有一个意志，只不过对他来说这个意志是神圣的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, the other interesting thing is that whereas Arius conceived of a Christ with one will, although that will was human, Apollinarius also conceived of a Christ with only one will, except for him the will was divine. Dialogue: 0,0:12:54.28,0:12:58.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}主流观点会说，不，他必须有两个意志。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The mainstream is going to say, no, he has to have two wills. Dialogue: 0,0:12:58.80,0:13:01.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他必须既有人的意志，又有神的意志。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He has to have both a human will and a divine will. Dialogue: 0,0:13:01.92,0:13:10.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为在某种意义上，当他在园中说，你知道，不要\N照我的意思，只要照你的意思，当人的意志……\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because in a sense, when he's in the garden saying, you know, not my will but yours, when the human will is... Dialogue: 0,0:13:12.25,0:13:14.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}顺服于神的意志。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Submitting itself to the divine will. Dialogue: 0,0:13:15.11,0:13:19.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}神的意志，神的旨意，就是基督里的神圣意志。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The divine will, the will of God, is the divine will in Christ. Dialogue: 0,0:13:19.58,0:13:24.66,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，必须有人的意志和神的意志。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, there has to be a human will and a divine will. Dialogue: 0,0:13:24.66,0:13:27.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，主流观点会有两个意志。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, the mainstream is going to have two wills. Dialogue: 0,0:13:28.08,0:13:31.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}亚略有一个意志，尽管是人的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Arius had one will, although it was human. Dialogue: 0,0:13:31.88,0:13:35.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}亚波里拿里有一个意志，但在这种情况下，它是神圣的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Apollinarius has one will, but in this case, it's divine. Dialogue: 0,0:13:35.20,0:13:37.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，他有点走向了另一个极端。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, he's sort of gone to the other extreme. Dialogue: 0,0:13:37.04,0:13:39.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，阿德里安，你有问题吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, Adrian, you had a question? Dialogue: 0,0:13:39.30,0:13:52.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，整个人性的问题是，在任何正统的著作中是否隐含或甚至暗示，基督可能会失败？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, the whole humanity thing is Is it implicit in any of the Orthodox writings, or maybe even implied, that Christ could have failed him? Dialogue: 0,0:13:52.77,0:13:55.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，我一开始就说过了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yeah, I said that up front. Dialogue: 0,0:13:55.15,0:14:04.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}亚波里拿里害怕的是，他推理如果亚略是对的，基督可以进步，那么基督也可能失败。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What scared Apollinarius was that he reasoned that if Arius was right, and Christ could progress, then Christ could also fail. Dialogue: 0,0:14:04.50,0:14:14.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他可能会犯罪，这会使他失去作为救主的资格，所以亚波\N里拿里想要以这样一种方式描述基督，使他不可能犯罪。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He could have sinned, and that would have disqualified him as Savior, and so Apollinarius wants to Describing Christ in such a way that it would be impossible for him to sin. Dialogue: 0,0:14:14.53,0:14:20.69,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是一个好问题，因为当时的尼西亚信经支持者\N可能也想说基督不可能犯罪，即使他想犯罪。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That's a good question, because the 19's at the time would probably also have wanted to say Christ could not have sinned, even if he wanted to. Dialogue: 0,0:14:20.69,0:14:38.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们只是没有走得那么远，试图描述这是因为他没有人的意志。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They just didn't go so far as to try and describe That's because he didn't have a human will. Dialogue: 0,0:14:38.30,0:14:46.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，我们将讨论两性或两个意志如何相互作用，所以今晚我们将沿着这条路继续。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, we'll talk about how the two natures or the two wills interact, so we're going to go down that road tonight. Dialogue: 0,0:14:46.97,0:14:52.13,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但是，就像我说的，对今天的我们来说，这可能看起来不是什么大问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But yeah, like I said, for us today, it might not seem like such a big deal. Dialogue: 0,0:14:52.13,0:15:08.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们可以说，耶稣本可以犯罪，他只是没有。有些人认为他犯\N过罪，但传统上大多数人会说他本可以犯罪，他只是没有。他\N本可以犯罪是因为他受到了诱惑，我们相信这诱惑是真实的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We could say, well, Jesus could have sinned, he just didn't. Some people think he did, but most people traditionally would say he could have, he just didn't. And he could have because He was tempted, and we believe the temptation was real. Dialogue: 0,0:15:09.74,0:15:24.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但在当时，大多数人，即使是主流观点，可能会说，不，即使他想\N犯罪也不可能，因为神的意志会压制人的意志，或类似的说法。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But back then, most people, even in the mainstream, would probably say, no, he couldn't have sinned even if he wanted to, because the divine will would suppress the human will, or something like that. Dialogue: 0,0:15:24.63,0:15:29.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，在亚波里拿里的基督观中，没有人的意志。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, in Apollinarius' Christ, there is no human will. Dialogue: 0,0:15:29.25,0:15:33.73,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，基督作为人实际上没有自由意志。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, Christ really has no free will as a human being. Dialogue: 0,0:15:37.49,0:15:51.42,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而在主流观点中，他们可能会说道压制，或者更好的说法是\N加强人的意志，但对亚波里拿里来说，道取代了人的意志。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Whereas in the mainstream, they might say that the Logos represses, or maybe a better way to say it is reinforces the human will, for Apollinarius, the Logos replaces the human will. Dialogue: 0,0:15:51.42,0:15:53.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以没有人的意志。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So there is no human will. Dialogue: 0,0:15:53.64,0:15:58.18,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以再次强调，只有一个意志被称为单意志论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so again, one will only is called monothelite. Dialogue: 0,0:15:58.28,0:16:01.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对亚波里拿里来说，那一个意志是神圣的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And for Apollinarius, that one will is divine. Dialogue: 0,0:16:02.14,0:16:11.29,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，再次强调，当亚波里拿里本人被指责削弱\N基督的人性时，他会反驳说这不是他的本意。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, again, Apollinarius himself, when charged with diminishing the humanity of Christ, would counter and say that's not what he intended. Dialogue: 0,0:16:11.31,0:16:17.17,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但是，再次从中间立场来看，确实看起来是这样。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But, again, from the perspective of the middle, it does look like that. Dialogue: 0,0:16:17.27,0:16:26.65,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但亚波里拿里在这里所做的是推动两性的合一，将两性推向合一的方向。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But what Apollinarius is doing here is pushing the unity of the two natures, pushing the two natures in the direction of unity. Dialogue: 0,0:16:26.65,0:16:32.10,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当我们有这个时你会看到，我们把所有这些方格都填满了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And what you're going to see when we have this We have all these squares filled in. Dialogue: 0,0:16:32.10,0:16:43.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当涉及到基督位格内两性的合一和区别时，你朝这个方向走得\N越远就越合一，朝那个方向走得越远就越有区别，越不合一。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}When it comes to the unity and distinction of the two natures within the person of Christ, the farther you go in this direction is more unity, the farther you go in this direction is more distinction and less unity. Dialogue: 0,0:16:43.74,0:16:47.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以在接下来的几分钟里你会看到这一点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So you'll see that as the next few minutes unfold. Dialogue: 0,0:16:49.88,0:16:57.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以对亚波里拿里来说，他把它推向合一，以至于两性实际上有点重叠。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so for Apollinarius, he's pushing it towards the unity such that the two natures really sort of overlap. Dialogue: 0,0:16:58.23,0:17:01.05,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你不再真正有两个完整的本性了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And you don't really have two full natures anymore. Dialogue: 0,0:17:01.05,0:17:08.61,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}神性某种程度上重叠或遮蔽了人性，甚至取代了部分人性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The divine nature kind of overlaps or overshadows the human nature, even replacing part of the human nature. Dialogue: 0,0:17:08.61,0:17:27.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，亚波里拿里被定为异端，或者说他的教导在381年的君士坦\N丁堡第二次大公会议上被定为异端。所以，现在钟摆要摆回来了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, Apollinarius was condemned as a heretic, or his teachings were condemned as heresy, at the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381. So, now, the pendulum is going to swing. Dialogue: 0,0:17:27.03,0:17:36.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}回到这里，因为我们现在这里有一位名叫涅斯托利的君士坦丁堡主教。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Back over to here, because what we have here now is a bishop of Constantinople named Nestorius. Dialogue: 0,0:17:47.31,0:17:53.41,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在我们在时间上跳跃了一下，因为他在428年成为主教，所以现在我们进入了5世纪。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And now we're jumping kind of ahead in time because he becomes bishop in 428, so now we're into the 5th century. Dialogue: 0,0:17:54.51,0:17:58.37,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我不想让你觉得这些人都坐在同一张桌子旁。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I don't want you to get the impression that these guys all sat around the same table. Dialogue: 0,0:17:58.45,0:18:03.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们在相互反对，但我们现在已经进入5世纪了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They're reacting against each other, but we're into the 5th century now. Dialogue: 0,0:18:07.33,0:18:19.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}涅斯托利反对亚波里拿里所宣扬的，但再次从中间立场来\N看，他反应过度，走向另一个极端，钟摆摆得这么远。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Nestorius reacts against what Apollinarius was selling, but again, from the perspective of the middle, he overreacts and goes to the other extreme and the pendulum swings this far. Dialogue: 0,0:18:19.82,0:18:36.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}问题是，我们越深入细节，这些争议的核心，就越难确定\N像涅斯托利这样的人是否真的教导了他被指控的内容。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The problem is that the farther we get into the details, The nitty-gritty of these controversies, the more difficult it becomes to determine whether someone like Nestorius really taught what he was accused of. Dialogue: 0,0:18:36.80,0:18:42.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}最新的学术研究认为，涅斯托利可能受到了不公平的批评。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The latest scholarship is that probably Nestorius may have gotten a bad rap. Dialogue: 0,0:18:42.46,0:18:50.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他可能比历史上给予的评价更接近中间，更接近尼西亚或正统立场。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And he was probably a lot closer to the middle, to the Nicene or Orthodox position than he historically has gotten credit for. Dialogue: 0,0:18:50.64,0:18:59.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我会给你一个概述，但请记住，我们所做的是\N某种程度上简化这些立场，以便你理解这些概念。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So I'm going to give you kind of an overview here, but remember what we're doing is sort of simplifying these positions so you understand the concepts. Dialogue: 0,0:18:59.39,0:19:08.93,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在很多人会说涅斯托利不应该被视为异端，但这个问题还没有定论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}A lot of people now would say Nestorius shouldn't have been considered a heretic, but that jury's still out. Dialogue: 0,0:19:08.98,0:19:27.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}无论如何，涅斯托利到底把这个观点推到了多远并不清楚，但正如你在黑板上看到我\N把他放在的位置，他将通过强调两性之间的区别来反对亚波里拿里对合一性的强调。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}At any rate, it's not really clear how far Nestorius pushed this, but what he does, as you can see by where I put him on the board, is he's going to react against Apollinarius' emphasis on the unity by emphasizing the distinction between the two natures. Dialogue: 0,0:19:27.50,0:19:32.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}涅斯托利想要把两性分得比亚波里拿里更开。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Nestorius wants to keep the two natures more separate than Apollinarius is doing. Dialogue: 0,0:19:32.82,0:19:36.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}涅斯托利认为亚波里拿里混淆了两性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Nestorius thinks Apollinarius is confusing the two natures. Dialogue: 0,0:19:38.10,0:19:47.42,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们正在失去区别，这意味着这是否会损害神性的不变性是值得质疑的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We're losing the distinction, which means that it's questionable whether that compromises the immutability of the divine nature. Dialogue: 0,0:19:47.42,0:19:53.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}涅斯托利希望两性保持不变。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Nestorius wants the two natures to remain the same. Dialogue: 0,0:19:53.01,0:20:13.42,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他朝那个方向推进到似乎否认了任何真正的联合，两\N性的联合实际上只存在于两个意志的合作层面上。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He pushes it in that direction to the point where he really seems to have denied any real union The union of the two natures is really only on the level of the cooperation of the two wills. Dialogue: 0,0:20:14.16,0:20:26.17,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他确实有两性，也确实有两个意志，但问题变成了，这两性是如何统一的？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He does have two natures, and he does have two wills, but the question becomes, how are those two natures unified? Dialogue: 0,0:20:26.17,0:20:27.61,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它们如何成为一体？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}How are they one? Dialogue: 0,0:20:28.72,0:20:47.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}涅斯托利似乎认为，神性和人性之间的真正联合仅仅\N是在意志层面上，人性顺服并与神性的意志合作。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What Nestorius seems to have argued is that the real union between divinity and humanity is simply on the level of the wills that the humanity submits to and cooperates with the will of the divine nature. Dialogue: 0,0:20:47.99,0:21:02.66,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以如果你这样想，如果你能在脑海中想象基督的两性，神性把人性拴在一条皮带上。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So if you think about it this way, if you can imagine in your head the two natures of Christ, And the divine nature has the human nature on a leash. Dialogue: 0,0:21:03.54,0:21:06.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而且这是一条短皮带。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so it's kind of a short leash too. Dialogue: 0,0:21:06.64,0:21:15.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这个比喻是解释为什么耶稣永远不会犯罪的\N一种方式，因为神性把人性拴在一条短皮带上。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So that story is a way of explaining how come Jesus could never sin is because the divine nature has the human nature on a short leash. Dialogue: 0,0:21:15.22,0:21:19.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但这条皮带实际上是连接两性的唯一东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the leash is really the only thing connecting the two natures. Dialogue: 0,0:21:19.74,0:21:24.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我看到有人举手了，没关系。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So I saw a hand going up, that's okay. Dialogue: 0,0:21:27.38,0:21:56.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以再说一遍，不清楚他到底把这个观点推到了多远，但他似乎在某些方面又摆\N回了亚略主义，因为亚略主义谈论圣父和圣子的合一是在合作意志的层面上的联\N合，现在涅斯托利谈论圣子内部神性和人性的合一也是在合作意志的层面上。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So again, it's not clear how far he really took this, but he seems to be swinging back toward Arianism in some ways, because whereas Arianism talked about the unity of Father and Son as a union on the level of cooperating wills, now Nestorius is talking about the unity of the divine and human within the Son, on the level of cooperating wills. Dialogue: 0,0:21:56.76,0:22:03.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但再次强调，这不是在基督位格本身层面上的合一。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But again, it's not a unity on the level of Christ's very personhood. Dialogue: 0,0:22:04.00,0:22:21.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}事实上，涅斯托利在谈论两性时使用了希腊词「prosopon」，有时被翻\N译为「位格」，所以对很多人来说，听起来好像他真正在谈论的是两个位格。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And in fact, Nestorius, when talking about the two natures, used the Greek word prosopon, which is sometimes translated person, so that it sounded like stuff to a lot of people that what he was really talking about was two persons. Dialogue: 0,0:22:23.31,0:22:27.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}就好像他在某种程度上暗示一个四位格的三位一体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Like, as if somehow he was suggesting a four-person trinity. Dialogue: 0,0:22:27.63,0:22:32.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣父、圣灵、圣子的神性、圣子的人性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Father, Holy Spirit, divine nature of the Son, human nature of the Son. Dialogue: 0,0:22:33.43,0:22:38.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，我不认为这真的是他的意思，但对一些人来说听起来就是这样。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, I don't think that's really what he meant, but it sounded like that to some people. Dialogue: 0,0:22:39.44,0:22:50.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，基本上，很多人认为这在基督位格内的神\N性和人性之间做出了太多区分，而合一性不够。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, basically, a lot of people saw this as too much distinction between the divine and human within the person of Christ, and not enough unity. Dialogue: 0,0:22:50.72,0:22:59.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，如果亚波里拿里的基督就像是科尔维特发动机装在福特福克斯里。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, if Apollinarius' Christ is like a Corvette engine stuck in a Ford Focus. Dialogue: 0,0:22:59.80,0:23:05.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}涅斯托利的基督就像是两个人穿在一套马装里。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Nestorius' Christ is like two men in a horse costume. Dialogue: 0,0:23:05.90,0:23:10.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它实际上还是两个，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's still really two, right? Dialogue: 0,0:23:10.80,0:23:14.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}可怜那个不得不当后半部分的，但那就是人性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Pity the one who's got to be the back end, but that's the humanity. Dialogue: 0,0:23:14.38,0:23:17.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为神性必须领导。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because the divine nature has to lead. Dialogue: 0,0:23:17.44,0:23:19.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但它仍然不是真正的一体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But it's still not really one. Dialogue: 0,0:23:21.57,0:23:27.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我喜欢用另一种方式来思考它，因为我是意大利人，就像意大利调味汁，油和醋。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Another way I like to think of it, because I'm Italian, like Italian dressing, oil and vinegar. Dialogue: 0,0:23:27.04,0:23:31.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你可以摇晃它们，混合它们，但放置一段时间后它们就会分离。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You can shake them up, you can mix them up, but leave them set for a while and they'll separate out. Dialogue: 0,0:23:31.96,0:23:35.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它们并没有真正永久地统一。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They're not really permanently unified. Dialogue: 0,0:23:37.54,0:23:47.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这当然意味着，涅斯托利会对几个重要的神学概念感到不舒服。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So that means, of course, that Nestorius is going to be uncomfortable with a couple of important theological concepts. Dialogue: 0,0:23:47.58,0:23:57.45,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}其中之一是「属性交流」，即从人性到神性借用和借出特性的观念，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}One of which is communicatio idiomantum, the idea of the borrowing of idiomatic properties, borrowing and loaning from humanity to divinity, right? Dialogue: 0,0:23:57.85,0:24:11.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这种观念认为神性将荣耀借给人性，而神性从人性借用脆弱性，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This idea that the divine nature loans glory to the human nature and the divine nature borrows frailty from the human nature, right? Dialogue: 0,0:24:11.62,0:24:15.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，涅斯托利不喜欢这个想法，因为这意味着太多的合一性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, Nestorius doesn't like that idea because that's too much unity. Dialogue: 0,0:24:16.08,0:24:18.02,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他希望它们比这更分离。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He wants them to be more separate than that. Dialogue: 0,0:24:18.02,0:24:31.19,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}涅斯托利不喜欢的另一件事是教会中已有的一个传统，\N即使用一个特定的称号来称呼马利亚，耶稣的母亲。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The other thing Nestorius doesn't like is a tradition that we already have in the Church, a tradition of using a particular title for Mary, the mother of Jesus. Dialogue: 0,0:24:31.19,0:24:35.93,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这个称号在希腊语中是「Theotokos」。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The title in Greek is Theotokos. Dialogue: 0,0:24:36.53,0:24:43.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}「Theot」来自神，「bearer」意为承载者，\N即「神的承载者」，或翻译成英语就是「神的母亲」。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Theot from God, the bearer, the God-bearer, or translated into English, mother of God. Dialogue: 0,0:24:45.47,0:24:58.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}称呼马利亚为「神的母亲」已经有了传统，我不知道你在读《安东尼传》时是否注\N意到了，这本书写于大约360年，所以从4世纪开始，这个称呼就已经存在了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}There's already a tradition of calling Mary Mother of God, and I don't know if you may have even noticed it when you were reading The Life of Anthony, written in about 360, so from the 4th century, it's already there. Dialogue: 0,0:25:00.36,0:25:09.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，涅斯托利对此感到不舒服，因为问题在于。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, Nestorius is uncomfortable with this, because, here's the issue. Dialogue: 0,0:25:11.57,0:25:27.21,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}问题是，当耶稣在马利亚的子宫里时，是只有基督的人性在马利亚\N的子宫里，还是基督的两性，神性和人性，都在马利亚的子宫里？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The question is, When Jesus was in Mary's womb, was only the human nature of Christ in Mary's womb, or were both natures of Christ, divine and human, in Mary's womb? Dialogue: 0,0:25:27.21,0:25:33.05,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}基督的神性是否被限制在马利亚的子宫内？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Was the divine nature of Christ circumscribed within the womb of Mary? Dialogue: 0,0:25:34.63,0:25:40.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}涅斯托利想说不，因为对他来说，这意味着两性之间有太多的合一性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Nestorius wants to say no, because to him that's too much unity between the two natures. Dialogue: 0,0:25:40.26,0:25:43.05,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他想说，好吧，让我们称她为基督的母亲。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He wants to say, well, let's call her mother of Christ. Dialogue: 0,0:25:43.05,0:25:45.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}让我们称她为「Christotokos」。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Let's call her Christotokos. Dialogue: 0,0:25:45.67,0:25:53.13,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们可以称她为基督的母亲，因为对涅斯托利来说，她只是基督人性的母亲。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We can call her mother of Christ, because for Nestorius, she's only the mother of the human nature of Christ. Dialogue: 0,0:25:53.59,0:26:08.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但对教会中的许多人来说，马利亚是基督两性的母亲，所以她可以通过归属被称为神\N的母亲，你可以对三位一体的第二位格说的任何话，你都可以对整个三位一体说。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But, for many people in the Church, Mary is the mother of both natures of Christ, and so she can be called mother of God by appropriation, whatever you can say about the second person of the Trinity, you can say about the whole Trinity. Dialogue: 0,0:26:08.11,0:26:13.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，我们并不是说她是整个三位一体的母亲，她不是圣父的母亲。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, we're not saying she's mother of the whole Trinity, She's not the mother of the father. Dialogue: 0,0:26:14.26,0:26:17.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但对涅斯托利这样的人来说，他担心这听起来像是那样。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But to somebody like Nestorian, he worries that it sounds like that. Dialogue: 0,0:26:17.76,0:26:21.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以有几件事我希望你能看到并从中得到。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So there are a couple of things I want you to see and get out of this. Dialogue: 0,0:26:21.60,0:26:33.21,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}其中之一是，这个关于马利亚「神的母亲」称号的争议可能听起来像是关于\N对马利亚的崇敬，可能听起来真的是关于马利亚，但实际上是关于基督。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}One of which is this controversy over the title Theotokos for Mary might sound like it's about Marian devotion, might sound like it's really about Mary, but it's really about Christ. Dialogue: 0,0:26:33.21,0:26:35.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这实际上是一个基督论问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's really a Christological issue. Dialogue: 0,0:26:35.78,0:26:43.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}基督论问题是基督的神性是否被限制在马利亚的子宫内。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Christological issue is whether or not the divine nature of Christ was circumscribed in the womb of Mary. Dialogue: 0,0:26:43.32,0:26:47.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}马利亚的子宫里是否包含了基督的两性？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Did Mary hold in her womb both natures of Christ? Dialogue: 0,0:26:47.83,0:26:54.29,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}主流观点会想说是的，因为否则两性就不够统一。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And the mainstream is going to want to say yes, because otherwise the two natures are not unified enough. Dialogue: 0,0:26:54.29,0:27:05.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果两性像我们认为的那样统一，那么它们就不能以那种方式分\N离，而在马利亚的子宫内，两性都被限制在其中，人性和神性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If the two natures are as unified as we think they are, then they cannot be separated in that way, and that within the womb of Mary, both natures were circumscribed, human and divine. Dialogue: 0,0:27:06.19,0:27:09.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这真的成为了问题所在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And that really becomes the issue. Dialogue: 0,0:27:10.20,0:27:23.31,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我希望我在中间有一块黑板，但我没有。不过在你的讲义上，\N你会注意到我在中间列出了一个人，就是亚历山大的西里尔。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I wish I had chalkboard right here in the middle, but I don't. But on your handout, you'll notice I've listed in the middle, one of the people I've listed is Cyril of Alexandria. Dialogue: 0,0:27:23.97,0:27:35.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}西里尔从412年到444年担任亚历山大的主教。所以当\N涅斯托利是君士坦丁堡的主教时，他是亚历山大的主教。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Cyril is Bishop of Alexandria from 412 to 444. So he's Bishop of Alexandria when Nestorius is Bishop of Constantinople. Dialogue: 0,0:27:35.90,0:27:43.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}亚历山大的西里尔，你知道，是那种有好有坏的人之一。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Cyril of Alexandria is, you know, one of these guys who, you know, there's some good things about him, there's some bad things about him. Dialogue: 0,0:27:43.52,0:27:48.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他在亚历山大歧视并攻击诺瓦提安派。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He discriminated against and attacked Novatianists in Alexandria. Dialogue: 0,0:27:48.62,0:27:51.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他把所有犹太人都赶出了亚历山大。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He kicked all the Jews out of Alexandria. Dialogue: 0,0:27:51.98,0:27:54.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以你不会说他是个特别好的人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So you wouldn't call him a super nice guy. Dialogue: 0,0:27:54.44,0:28:04.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但他将推动我们朝着描述基督论的语言向大公会议迈进。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But he is going to move us along towards the language for describing Christology towards the ecumenical councils. Dialogue: 0,0:28:05.88,0:28:26.42,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，如果西里尔必须在这两者之间选择一个，他可能更接近亚波里拿里，但最终他与\N涅斯托利就「神的母亲」的问题，即马利亚是否适合被称为神的母亲的问题发生争执。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, if Cyril had to pick one or the other of these, he'd probably be closer to Apollinarius, but eventually he gets into it with Nestorius over the issue of Theotokos, over the issue of whether Mary is appropriately called Mother of God. Dialogue: 0,0:28:26.42,0:28:32.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以最终在这个阶段，他某种程度上代表了中间立场。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so eventually he, at this stage of the game, sort of represents the middle. Dialogue: 0,0:28:32.24,0:28:42.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，西里尔和涅斯托利通过书信相互争论，但当然他们\N无法解决问题，双方都坚持自己的立场，谁也不让步。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, Cyril And Nestorius argued with each other by letter, but of course they couldn't sort it out, both stood their ground, and neither one gave in at all. Dialogue: 0,0:28:42.92,0:28:44.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那么他们怎么办？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So what do they do? Dialogue: 0,0:28:44.78,0:28:46.81,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，你可能能看出这会怎么发展。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, you can probably see where this is going. Dialogue: 0,0:28:46.81,0:28:57.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们向罗马主教求助，他的名字是塞莱斯廷，如果你准备好拼写的\N话是C-E-L-E-S-T-I-N-E。罗马的塞莱斯廷。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They appealed to the bishop of Rome, whose name was Celestine, if you're ready to sound C-E-L-E-S-T-I-N-E. Celestine of Rome. Dialogue: 0,0:28:57.53,0:29:13.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，再看看我们如何有另一个台阶沿着罗马主教向教皇职位演变\N的道路，我们稍后会更详细地讨论这个，但我想让你看到这一点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, again, look at how we have another stepping stone along the path of the evolution of the bishop of Rome towards the office of the papacy, which we'll talk about more in detail later, but I want you to see this. Dialogue: 0,0:29:13.39,0:29:32.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}两位东方主教，大都市的主教，君士坦丁堡和亚历山大，他们无\N法达成一致，他们向罗马主教求助，罗马主教正在成为，已经成\N为某种最后的上诉法院，甚至是其他大都市主教之上的仲裁者。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Two eastern bishops, bishops of metropolitan cities, Constantinople and Alexandria, they can't agree, they appeal to the bishop of Rome, who is becoming, has become, sort of the last court of appeal, the arbiter over other bishops, even over other metropolitans. Dialogue: 0,0:29:33.73,0:29:36.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，塞莱斯廷站在了西里尔一边。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, Celestine sided with Cyril. Dialogue: 0,0:29:36.89,0:29:38.13,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}早就料到会这样。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Saw that coming. Dialogue: 0,0:29:38.41,0:29:44.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}罗马举行了一次主教会议，谴责涅斯托利为异端。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}A synod was held in Rome, which condemned Nestorius as a heretic. Dialogue: 0,0:29:44.42,0:29:49.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}亚历山大也举行了类似的主教会议，做出了同样的决定。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}A similar synod was held in Alexandria, which did the same. Dialogue: 0,0:29:49.32,0:29:54.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，涅斯托利被视为异端。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, Nestorius is considered a heretic. Dialogue: 0,0:29:54.12,0:30:01.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}再次强调，你知道，这里也有政治问题，就是西里尔和涅斯托利之间的权力斗争。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Again, there are, you know, there's political issues here as well, in terms of, you know, power struggle between Cyril and Nestorius. Dialogue: 0,0:30:01.71,0:30:06.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，再说一遍，涅斯托利可能受到了不公平的批评。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, again, it's probably the case that Nestorius is getting a bad rap. Dialogue: 0,0:30:06.20,0:30:09.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而且不清楚他到底在这个问题上走得有多远。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And it's not clear just how far he went with this. Dialogue: 0,0:30:09.92,0:30:26.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但他的追随者，在他之后的人，我们称之为涅斯托\N利派，他们在强调两性区别的方向上走得更远。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But his followers, people who came after him, whom we will refer to as Nestorians, they pushed it even further in the direction of emphasizing the distinction between the two natures. Dialogue: 0,0:30:27.96,0:30:48.41,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，如果涅斯托利没有一种双位格基督的概念，他的追随者可能有，\N并且真的把神性和人性分离到了极端，以至于几乎没有什么连接它们。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, If Nestorius didn't have the concept of a sort of two-person Christ, his followers probably did, and really separated the divine nature and the human nature out to the extreme, so that there's almost nothing connecting them. Dialogue: 0,0:30:48.69,0:30:57.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当然，再次强调，其中一个原因是为了保护神性及其不变性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}One of the reasons, of course, again, is to sort of protect the divinity and its immutability. Dialogue: 0,0:31:00.21,0:31:31.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果涅斯托利，然后肯定是涅斯托利派强调基督中神性和人性之\N间存在的唯一合一性是在意志层面上的合一，这可以被称为道德\N联合或心理联合，或意志联合，这是一个与意志有关的词。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If Nestorius and then certainly the Nestorians are emphasizing that the only unity that exists between the divine nature and the human nature in Christ is a unity on the level of the wills, which could be called a moral union or a psychological union, Or a volitional union, this is a word having to do with the wills. Dialogue: 0,0:31:31.65,0:31:32.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}类似这样。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Something like this. Dialogue: 0,0:31:32.52,0:31:41.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这个想法是，在基督里连接神性和人性的唯一东西是在合作意志层面上的联合。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The idea is that the only thing connecting the divine and the human natures in Christ is a union on the level of cooperating wills. Dialogue: 0,0:31:41.26,0:31:48.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果这就是这里发生的事，那么西里尔想要倡导的是一种更深层的联合。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If that's what's going on over here, then what Cyril is going to want to advocate is a deeper union. Dialogue: 0,0:31:49.09,0:31:50.17,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它必须比那更深。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's got to be deeper than that. Dialogue: 0,0:31:50.17,0:31:54.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它必须是神性和人性之间的一种联合，意味着它们不能被分开。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's got to be a union between the divine and human that means that they can't be separated. Dialogue: 0,0:31:54.67,0:31:57.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这种油和醋的比喻行不通。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This oil and vinegar thing is not going to work. Dialogue: 0,0:31:58.05,0:32:03.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，它必须是在基督位格本身层面上的联合。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so it has to be a union on the level of Christ's very personhood. Dialogue: 0,0:32:04.30,0:32:08.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这简单地说就是你不能有两个位格，你必须有一个位格。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Which simply is a way of saying you can't have two persons, you've got to have one person. Dialogue: 0,0:32:08.88,0:32:10.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它必须是位格的合一。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It has to be a unity of persons. Dialogue: 0,0:32:11.54,0:32:21.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以用于表示位格联合的术语，我就把它放在这里，它不属\N于这个框，因为它实际上属于中间，但我要把它放在这里。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the term that will be used for a personal union I'm just going to put this over here, it doesn't belong in the box, because it really belongs in the middle, but I'm going to put it here. Dialogue: 0,0:32:22.26,0:32:25.100,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你当然可以用英语称之为位格联合。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You could certainly call it a personal union in English. Dialogue: 0,0:32:26.32,0:32:33.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在希腊语中，这个词是「hypostasis」，或称为「位格联合」。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In Greek, it's this word, hypostasis, or a hypostatic union. Dialogue: 0,0:32:34.24,0:32:53.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以位格联合是在基督非常个人的层面上的联合，我们强调基督一个位格\N的合一性，他有两性，但这两性是统一的，因此它们在一个位格中联合。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the hypostatic union is this union on the level of Christ very personally, that we emphasize the unity of the one person of Christ, who has two natures, but those natures are Unified, so that they're united in one person. Dialogue: 0,0:32:54.63,0:33:00.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就把我们带到了第三次大公会议。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Which brings us to the Third Ecumenical Council. Dialogue: 0,0:33:01.87,0:33:10.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在我们继续之前，让我看看到目前为止有没有什么问题，因为我知道\N这是深奥的哲学内容，如果我还没解释清楚，请让我再解释一下。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Before we go there, let me see if we have any questions so far, because I know this is deep philosophical stuff, so make me explain it if I haven't yet. Dialogue: 0,0:33:12.45,0:33:14.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}到目前为止有什么问题吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Any questions so far? Dialogue: 0,0:33:15.61,0:33:21.45,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，我们现在来到第三次大公会议，也就是以弗所会议。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, we come now to the Third Ecumenical Council, which is the Council of Ephesus. Dialogue: 0,0:33:21.45,0:33:23.73,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}有人能告诉我这次会议在哪里举行吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Can anyone tell me where this was held? Dialogue: 0,0:33:23.73,0:33:24.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，以弗所，谢谢。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yeah, Ephesus, thank you. Dialogue: 0,0:33:24.75,0:34:00.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}431年。现在请记住，就像我总说的，我不是很在意日期，但如果有任何教会历史上的日\N期你应该记住，那就是325年、381年、431年，在我们今天结束之前还会有一个。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Year 431. Now remember, as I always say, I'm not a big stickler on dates, but if there are any dates from church history that you should remember, 325, 381, 431, there's going to be one more before we're done today. Dialogue: 0,0:34:02.38,0:34:17.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}第三次大公会议由皇帝狄奥多西二世召集，由亚历山\N大的西里尔主持，得到了罗马的塞莱斯廷的授权。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Third Ecumenical Council was convened by the Emperor Theodosius II, and presided over by Cyril of Alexandria, with authority from Celestine of Rome. Dialogue: 0,0:34:17.93,0:34:31.72,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以即使塞莱斯廷没有去，他某种程度上仍然有这个，有\N这种假设他在那里有权威，西里尔是以他的权威主持的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So even though Celestine doesn't go, he sort of still has this, there's this assumption that he has authority there, that Cyril presides on his authority. Dialogue: 0,0:34:31.94,0:34:37.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，所以涅斯托利被逐出教会。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay, so Nestorius is excommunicated. Dialogue: 0,0:34:37.78,0:34:43.13,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是塞莱斯廷给西里尔的首要任务，确保你把涅斯托利逐出教会。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That was Celestine's, job number one for Cyril, make sure you excommunicate Nestorius. Dialogue: 0,0:34:45.23,0:34:48.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}涅斯托利被逐出教会。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Nestorius is excommunicated. Dialogue: 0,0:34:49.19,0:34:56.73,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}381年君士坦丁堡会议对亚波里拿里的谴责得到确认。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The condemnation of Apollinarius from the Council of Constantinople in 381 is affirmed. Dialogue: 0,0:34:57.45,0:34:59.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以现在我们有了这个。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So now we have this. Dialogue: 0,0:34:59.58,0:35:11.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们知道这行不通，因为它不是完整的两性，不\N是完整的人性，也因为单一意志的说法行不通。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We know this isn't going to work because it's not a full two natures, not a full humanity, also because the one will thing is not going to work. Dialogue: 0,0:35:11.28,0:35:22.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们知道这也行不通，因为这没有位格联合或位格性联合。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We know this is also not going to work because of the The fact that this does not have a personal union or a hypostatic union. Dialogue: 0,0:35:22.87,0:35:31.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但是，值得称赞的是，根据会议的说法，涅斯托利在这一点和这一点上是正确的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But, to Nestorius' credit, this is correct, and this is correct according to the Council. Dialogue: 0,0:35:31.11,0:35:32.81,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}基督确实有两性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Christ does have two natures. Dialogue: 0,0:35:32.81,0:35:34.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}基督确实有两个意志。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Christ does have two wills. Dialogue: 0,0:35:34.85,0:35:43.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}只是两性的联合必须是比单纯的道德联合或心理联合更深的联合。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's just that the union of the two natures has to be a deeper union than simply a moral union or a psychological union. Dialogue: 0,0:35:43.69,0:36:00.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以你看，最终，虽然会议显然没有这样描述，这是我这样描述\N的，但最终涅斯托利在两个意志之间有太多区别而不够合一。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so you see, ultimately, though the Council obviously didn't describe it this way, this is me describing it this way, but ultimately Nestorius has too much distinction and not enough unity between the two wills. Dialogue: 0,0:36:00.51,0:36:06.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}亚波里拿里在两个意志之间有太多合一而不够区别。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Apollinarius has too much unity and not enough distinction between the two wills. Dialogue: 0,0:36:06.11,0:36:14.69,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，两个意志之间合一和区别的正统平衡是西里尔的位格联合。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so that the orthodox balance of unity and distinction Between the two wills is Cyril's hypostatic union. Dialogue: 0,0:36:14.69,0:36:25.66,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这个概念被确认为正确理解基督，即两性在他位格层面上的联合。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And that concept is affirmed as the correct understanding of Christ as two natures with a union on the level of his very personhood. Dialogue: 0,0:36:25.96,0:36:32.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这不仅仅是心理上、道德上或意志上的联合，而是一种完全的联合。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So it's not just a psychological or moral or volitional union, it's a complete union. Dialogue: 0,0:36:33.30,0:36:34.93,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，现在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay, now. Dialogue: 0,0:36:36.80,0:36:43.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}涅斯托利和他的支持者实际上离开并召开了自己的会议，他们把西里尔逐出教会。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Nestorius and his supporters actually went off and had their own council, and they excommunicated Cyril. Dialogue: 0,0:36:44.38,0:36:53.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但因为官方会议得到了皇帝狄奥多西二世的支持，他介入了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But because the official council had the backing of the emperor, Theodosius II, he stepped in. Dialogue: 0,0:36:53.99,0:37:09.72,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他实际上逮捕了涅斯托利和西里尔两人，但当明确西里尔是得\N到罗马支持的那个人时，西里尔被释放，涅斯托利被流放。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He actually arrested both Nestorius and Cyril, but then when it became clear that Cyril was the one backed by Rome, Cyril was released and Nestorius was exiled. Dialogue: 0,0:37:09.86,0:37:18.65,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，你可能认为这就够了，但事实并非如此，因为我们实际上还有一个方框要填。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, you'd think that would be enough, but it's not, because we really actually have one more box to fill in here. Dialogue: 0,0:37:19.31,0:37:21.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，你知道这是怎么回事。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, you know how this works. Dialogue: 0,0:37:25.90,0:37:28.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}钟摆现在要摆到另一边了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The pendulum is going to swing to the other side now. Dialogue: 0,0:37:28.40,0:37:39.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}有人会反对被称为涅斯托利主义的东西，事实上，再次从中间立场来看，会反应过度。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Someone is going to react against Nestorianism, as it comes to be called, and in fact, again, from the perspective of the middle, will overreact. Dialogue: 0,0:37:39.24,0:37:42.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这个人的名字是欧迪奇。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And this guy's name is Eutyches. Dialogue: 0,0:37:43.10,0:37:44.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，他不是主教。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, he's not a bishop. Dialogue: 0,0:37:44.38,0:37:46.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他是君士坦丁堡的一个修士。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He's a monk from Constantinople. Dialogue: 0,0:37:47.14,0:37:51.13,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以他就在涅斯托利派的后院里。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So he's right in Nestorian's backyard there. Dialogue: 0,0:37:54.01,0:38:09.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}基本上，他在反对涅斯托利，所以如果涅斯托利或涅斯托利主义强调\N两性之间的区别，欧迪奇就会通过强调两性的合一来反对这一点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Basically, he's reacting against Nestorius, and so if Nestorius or Nestorianism is an emphasis on the distinction between the two natures, Eutychius is going to react against that by emphasizing the unity of the two natures. Dialogue: 0,0:38:09.31,0:38:21.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但他把两性的合一推得比亚波里拿里更远，到了\N不仅没有两性，甚至连一个半性都没有的地步。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But he pushes the unity of the two natures farther than Apollinarius did, to the point where not only doesn't he have two natures, he doesn't even have one and a half natures. Dialogue: 0,0:38:21.76,0:38:32.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他的建议听起来像是神性不仅仅是遮蔽了人性，像亚波里拿里那样。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What he suggests It sounds like the divine nature hasn't just overshadowed the human nature, like Apollinarius. Dialogue: 0,0:38:32.50,0:38:37.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它完全吸收了人性，所以没有人性剩下。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's completely absorbed the human nature, so there's no human nature left. Dialogue: 0,0:38:37.46,0:38:41.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，实际上，他最终只剩下一性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, in effect, he ends up with only one nature. Dialogue: 0,0:38:42.14,0:38:50.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，他会说一开始有两性，但一旦它们接触，一旦它们连接，神性就吸收了人性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, he would say that there were two natures to start with, but as soon as they touch, as soon as they connect, the divine nature absorbs the human nature. Dialogue: 0,0:38:51.89,0:39:02.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}中间立场的批评会是，好吧，如果是这样的话，那么你剩下的那一性完全是一种新东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The critique from the middle is going to be, well, if that's the case, then the one nature you're left with is sort of a new thing entirely. Dialogue: 0,0:39:02.72,0:39:11.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就像某种合金，你有铜和锌，你把它们放在一起，你就得到了黄铜。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's like an alloy of some kind, where you've got copper and zinc, you put them together and you get brass. Dialogue: 0,0:39:11.14,0:39:14.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但黄铜既不是铜也不是锌了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But brass is neither copper nor zinc anymore. Dialogue: 0,0:39:14.40,0:39:15.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以就是这样。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So it's like that. Dialogue: 0,0:39:15.64,0:39:18.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，有一个拉丁语术语来形容这个。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, there's a Latin term for this. Dialogue: 0,0:39:23.41,0:39:28.19,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}「tertium quid」，第三种东西，一种完全不同的东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}A tertium quid, a third thing, a completely different thing. Dialogue: 0,0:39:28.19,0:39:37.98,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但关键是人性似乎被吸收到神性中，以至于我们现在到了没有人性剩下的地步。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the point is that the human nature seems to be absorbed into the divine nature so that we're now at the point where there's no humanity left. Dialogue: 0,0:39:38.62,0:39:44.100,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}无论那里有什么人性，在道成肉身中都某种程度上被神化并转变成这第三种东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Whatever humanity was there is sort of deified in the incarnation and turned into this third thing. Dialogue: 0,0:39:45.08,0:39:58.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，对于一性，我们有一个希腊词，一个意志是单意志论，一性是单性论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, with one nature, we've got a Greek word for that, One will is monophilite, one nature is monophysite. Dialogue: 0,0:39:58.70,0:40:02.81,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}单性论基督论是一性基督论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Monophysite Christology is one nature Christology. Dialogue: 0,0:40:02.95,0:40:12.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}联合后是一性，而且这一性完全是神性，这实际上意味着单性论基督论有……\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's one nature after the union and that nature is all divine, which means effectively that monophysite Christology has... Dialogue: 0,0:40:13.41,0:40:16.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你剩下的是一个不再有人性的基督。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}you're left with a Christ that has no humanity anymore. Dialogue: 0,0:40:18.55,0:40:32.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我想，它看起来有点像形态论者的基督，但它与形态论不同\N，因为它不一定将三位一体的三个位格合并为一个东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And it looks, I suppose, something like the Christ of the modalists, but it's different from modalism because it doesn't necessarily conflate all three persons of the Trinity into one thing. Dialogue: 0,0:40:32.58,0:40:41.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但形态论对三位一体所做的，欧迪奇主义或单性论对基督的两性所做。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But what modalism did with the Trinity, Eutychianism or Monophysitism does with the two natures of Christ. Dialogue: 0,0:40:41.16,0:40:42.49,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这说得通吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Does that make sense? Dialogue: 0,0:40:43.23,0:40:56.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我们某种程度上是在重复同样的论点，虽然之前它们是关于圣父和\N圣子之间的关系，现在它们是关于圣子内部人性和神性之间的关系。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So we're sort of Rehashing the same arguments, although before they were about the relationship between Father and Son, now they're about the relationship between humanity and divinity within the Son. Dialogue: 0,0:40:56.91,0:40:57.93,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以……\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so... Dialogue: 0,0:40:59.45,0:41:07.31,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当然，主流的批评是，如果人性被吸收了，耶稣就不是真正的人了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The critique from the mainstream, of course, is that if the humanity is absorbed, Jesus is not really human. Dialogue: 0,0:41:07.31,0:41:13.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他可能与神同质，但他不再与人类同质了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He may be homoousios with God, but he's not homoousios with humanity anymore. Dialogue: 0,0:41:13.11,0:41:14.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他不与人性同质。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He's not consubstantial with humanity. Dialogue: 0,0:41:14.85,0:41:16.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他不再是我们中的一员了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He's not one of us anymore. Dialogue: 0,0:41:16.86,0:41:21.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}再说一次，如果他不是我们中的一员，他怎么能代表我们？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And again, if he's not one of us, how can he be a representative of us? Dialogue: 0,0:41:21.30,0:41:22.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他怎么能成为我们的救主？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}How can he be our savior? Dialogue: 0,0:41:23.64,0:41:24.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所有这些。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}All of that. Dialogue: 0,0:41:24.20,0:41:26.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，所有这些相同的问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, all those same problems. Dialogue: 0,0:41:26.72,0:41:33.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，公平地说，欧迪奇试图成为一个好的西里尔派。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, to be fair, Eutychius was trying to be a good Cyrillian. Dialogue: 0,0:41:33.76,0:41:43.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他试图跟随西里尔，但他要么误解了西里尔，要\N么simply拒绝说西里尔没说过的任何话。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He was trying to follow Cyril, but he either misinterpreted Cyril, or he simply refused to say anything Cyril didn't say. Dialogue: 0,0:41:43.28,0:41:49.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以当他被质问时，他们说，好吧，欧迪奇，基督与人性同质吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So when he was confronted, and they said, okay, Eutychius, well, is Christ consubstantial with humanity? Dialogue: 0,0:41:51.01,0:41:57.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}由于他记不起西里尔在任何地方说过基督是这样的，他就不能说基督是这样的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Since he couldn't remember any place where Cyril said that Christ was, He couldn't say that Christ was. Dialogue: 0,0:41:57.44,0:42:02.61,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，从某种意义上说，也许欧迪奇超出了他的能力范围，他不是主教。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, in a sense, maybe Eutychius was in over his head, not a bishop. Dialogue: 0,0:42:02.61,0:42:05.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他是修道院的院长，但基本上是个修士。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He's the abbot of the monastery, but he's basically a monk. Dialogue: 0,0:42:05.99,0:42:07.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他不是神职人员。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He's not clergy. Dialogue: 0,0:42:07.23,0:42:10.29,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}也许不是神学家。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Maybe not a theologian. Dialogue: 0,0:42:12.54,0:42:24.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，实际上，西里尔、亚波里拿里、欧迪奇，你知道，他们之间的界限并不是很严格。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, in reality, Cyril, Apollinarius, Eutychius, Not a real tight, you know, borders between them. Dialogue: 0,0:42:24.44,0:42:25.56,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}有点模糊的界限。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Kind of fuzzy borders. Dialogue: 0,0:42:25.56,0:42:30.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而且，你知道，就像我已经说过的，涅斯托利可能受到了不公平的批评。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And, you know, as I already said, Nestorius may have gotten a bad rap. Dialogue: 0,0:42:30.26,0:42:37.81,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，我们在这些辩论中走得越远，就越难真正定义什么是异端了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, the farther we go in these debates, the harder it becomes to really define what heresy is anymore. Dialogue: 0,0:42:37.81,0:42:41.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}过去，哦，在2世纪和3世纪，这是如此容易。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It used to be, oh, back in the 2nd and 3rd century it was so easy. Dialogue: 0,0:42:41.39,0:42:42.51,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在变得困难了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now it's difficult. Dialogue: 0,0:42:42.51,0:42:44.17,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但无论如何，这就是我们现在的情况。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But, at any rate, here's where we are. Dialogue: 0,0:42:44.17,0:42:53.33,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以最终，这将引导我们到另一次大公会议。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so that Ultimately, this is going to lead us to yet another ecumenical council. Dialogue: 0,0:42:53.33,0:43:01.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，就像你有尼西亚会议，但那并没有真正解决问\N题，你不得不召开君士坦丁堡会议，这里也是一样。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, just like you had the Council of Nicaea, but that didn't really settle the issue, and you had to have the Council of Constantinople, same thing here. Dialogue: 0,0:43:01.62,0:43:11.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们有了以弗所会议，但那并没有完全解决问题，所\N以我们将不得不召开迦克墩会议，我们将会讨论到。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We had the Council of Ephesus, but that didn't quite do the trick, so we're going to have to have the Council of Chalcedon that we'll come to. Dialogue: 0,0:43:11.96,0:43:22.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}虽然我忘了提，而且我没有特别说，以弗所会议也\N确实颁布法令，称马利亚为神的母亲是适当的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Though I failed to mention, and I didn't say it specifically, that the Council of Ephesus did also Decree that it is appropriate to call Mary Mother of God. Dialogue: 0,0:43:22.30,0:43:34.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}事实上，一些最古老的献给马利亚的教堂就是在这个时期建立的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And in fact, some of the most ancient churches dedicated to Mary were founded at this time. Dialogue: 0,0:43:34.95,0:43:46.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，你知道，在较老的教派中，罗马公教会、希腊\N正教会、其他东方教派，马利亚被视为神的母亲。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, you know, in the older denominations, Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, the other Eastern denominations, Mary is considered Mother of God. Dialogue: 0,0:43:46.60,0:43:51.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是她合法的称号。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That's a legitimate title for her. Dialogue: 0,0:43:55.16,0:43:56.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，有问题吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yes, question? Dialogue: 0,0:43:56.50,0:43:58.46,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们开始圣人封号了吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Are they starting sainthood? Dialogue: 0,0:43:58.46,0:44:01.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}她得到那个称号了吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Did she get that title? Dialogue: 0,0:44:01.94,0:44:03.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，这是个好问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, that's a good question. Dialogue: 0,0:44:03.48,0:44:07.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}马利亚总是与其他圣人有些不同。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Mary is always a little bit different than the rest of the saints. Dialogue: 0,0:44:09.50,0:44:17.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你知道，圣人的概念，我们几周后会更多地讨论这\N个，但圣人的概念实际上是在迫害期间开始的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You know, the idea of sainthood, we'll talk about this more in a couple weeks, but the idea of sainthood really starts during the persecutions. Dialogue: 0,0:44:18.62,0:44:35.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}有一种假设，你知道，因为殉道某种程度上是保证得救的，你知道\N，如果你殉道了，不管你一生做过什么，你知道，你都保证得救。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}There's an assumption that, you know, because martyrdom is sort of a guaranteed salvation, you know, if you're martyred, it doesn't matter what you've done in your life, you know, you're guaranteed salvation. Dialogue: 0,0:44:35.71,0:44:41.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，殉道者就像是你确定在天国里的人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, the martyrs are kind of like The people that you know for sure are in the kingdom. Dialogue: 0,0:44:41.99,0:44:46.31,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为记住，回到保罗的书信，所有基督徒都被称为圣徒，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because remember, going back to Paul's letter, all Christians are called saints, right? Dialogue: 0,0:44:46.33,0:44:52.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但问题是，你不能真正知道任何一个人是否可能因罪失去了他们的救恩。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the problem is, is you don't really know with any one individual if they might have lost their salvation through sin. Dialogue: 0,0:44:53.22,0:44:57.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以你确定是圣徒的唯一人是殉道者。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the only people you know for sure who are saints are the martyrs. Dialogue: 0,0:44:57.62,0:45:04.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以发展出了将这个称号附加给殉道者的传统，因为你确定。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so the tradition develops of attaching that title to the martyrs because you know for sure. Dialogue: 0,0:45:04.72,0:45:12.13,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}然后在迫害结束后，修道主义成为新的殉道。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And then after the persecutions are over, the Monasticism becomes the new martyrdom. Dialogue: 0,0:45:12.13,0:45:23.19,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以苦行者会被称为圣人，因为他们被视为，他们并没有字面意义\N上献出生命，但他们在为基督放弃生活方式的意义上献出了生命。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the ascetics will be called saints because they're seen as having, they didn't give their lives literally, but they gave their lives in the sense of giving up their lifestyle for Christ. Dialogue: 0,0:45:23.19,0:45:26.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以它从那里开始发展。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So it sort of goes from there. Dialogue: 0,0:45:26.71,0:45:31.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但马利亚总是有点不同，因为她不属于这两类中的任何一类。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But Mary is always a little bit different because she doesn't fall into either of those categories. Dialogue: 0,0:45:32.51,0:45:45.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但因为她在福音故事中的特殊地位和生下耶稣，她肯定被认为是圣徒之一。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But because of her Her specific place in the Gospel story and having given birth to Jesus, she is considered one of the saints for sure. Dialogue: 0,0:45:47.19,0:45:51.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但在这个时候，你还没有真正看到这被用作她的称号。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But at this point, you don't really see that used as a title yet for her. Dialogue: 0,0:45:52.12,0:45:53.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我想不出来。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Not that I can think of. Dialogue: 0,0:45:55.00,0:46:01.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，「神的母亲」这个称号至少可以追溯到4世纪，如果不是更早的话。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, Mother of God goes back at least to the 4th century, if not before. Dialogue: 0,0:46:03.19,0:46:05.09,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，在这一点上还有其他问题吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Alright, any other questions at this point? Dialogue: 0,0:46:05.27,0:46:05.89,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们进展如何？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}How are we doing? Dialogue: 0,0:46:05.89,0:46:07.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你们还跟得上吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You still with me? Dialogue: 0,0:46:07.45,0:46:08.29,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay. Dialogue: 0,0:46:08.77,0:46:12.29,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，在这一点上我们有一些政治纷争正在进行。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, at this point we have some political wranglings that go on. Dialogue: 0,0:46:12.29,0:46:24.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}例如，当亚历山大的西里尔去世时，一个名叫狄奥斯科鲁的人继任为亚历山大的主教。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}For example, when Cyril of Alexandria dies, he is succeeded as Bishop of Alexandria by a guy named Diosaurus. Dialogue: 0,0:46:27.56,0:46:37.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而狄奥斯科鲁，正如你从我在这里写下他的名字可以\N看出，是欧迪奇的追随者，或者说站在欧迪奇一边。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And Diosaurus, as you can see from the fact that I wrote him over here, is a follower of Eutyches, or side with Eutyches. Dialogue: 0,0:46:38.04,0:46:50.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以发生的事情是，当亚历山大的主教改变时，它从正统变成了单性论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so what happens is, when the Bishop of Alexandria changes, it goes from Orthodox to Monothecite. Dialogue: 0,0:46:50.96,0:47:05.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为对于像狄奥斯科鲁这样的人来说，再次，如果你看这里，任何在\N基督的神人两性之间有太多区别的东西都会看起来像是四位一体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because for somebody like Theosaurus, again, if you look over here, anything that has too much distinction between The divine human natures in Christ is going to look like a four-person trinity. Dialogue: 0,0:47:05.12,0:47:07.02,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是这些人的担忧。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That's the concern from these guys. Dialogue: 0,0:47:07.02,0:47:13.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这些人在看这里，事实上，这些人在看中间，他们说，你有一个四位一体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}These guys are looking over here, in fact, these guys are looking at the middle, and they're saying, you have a trinity of four persons. Dialogue: 0,0:47:13.46,0:47:16.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣父、圣灵，然后是基督的两性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Father, Holy Spirit, and then the two natures of Christ. Dialogue: 0,0:47:16.71,0:47:19.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是他们的担忧。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And that's their concern. Dialogue: 0,0:47:19.11,0:47:24.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，狄奥斯科鲁严重倾向于那一端。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, theosaurus leans heavily on that end. Dialogue: 0,0:47:25.77,0:47:32.13,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}大约在同一时间，一位新主教来到安提阿，他的名字是弗拉维安。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}At about the same time, A new bishop comes to Antioch, his name is Flavian. Dialogue: 0,0:47:33.11,0:47:35.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，就像听起来那样。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, just like it sounds. Dialogue: 0,0:47:35.65,0:47:37.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}弗拉维安。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Flavian. Dialogue: 0,0:47:37.74,0:47:38.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他是正统派。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He's Orthodox. Dialogue: 0,0:47:38.84,0:47:45.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以现在我们在亚历山大有一位单性论主教，在安提阿有一位正统派主教。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So now we have a monasticized bishop in Alexandria, and an Orthodox bishop in Antioch. Dialogue: 0,0:47:46.42,0:47:54.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们之间会有争议，他们也会向罗马主教求助。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And they will have their issue with each other, and they also will appeal to the bishop of Rome. Dialogue: 0,0:47:54.86,0:47:57.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}只是现在罗马的主教是利奥。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Except now the Bishop of Rome is Leo. Dialogue: 0,0:47:57.74,0:48:04.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}利奥一世，也被称为利奥大帝，他也在你的讲义中间部分。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Leo I, also known as Leo the Great, and he's on your handout in the middle as well. Dialogue: 0,0:48:04.20,0:48:11.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他是下一个推进正统立场的人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He's the next one that carries the Orthodox position forward. Dialogue: 0,0:48:11.37,0:48:29.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}利奥从440年到461年担任罗马主教。他在这场争议中写了一封支持弗\N拉维安的信，这封信被称为他的教义信，T-O-M-E，利奥的教义信。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Leo was Bishop of Rome from 440 to 461. And he wrote a letter in support of Flavian in this controversy, And this letter is known as his Tome, T-O-M-E, Leo's Tome. Dialogue: 0,0:48:31.34,0:48:34.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在这封教义信中，他做了几件事。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And in the Tome, he does a couple of things. Dialogue: 0,0:48:35.12,0:48:59.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他做的一件事是采用语言，现在记住，他是罗马的主教，所以他是西方人，所以\N他采用了从特土良和诺瓦提安那里得到的语言，然后也从西里尔那里，你有永恒\N生成，你有同质性，你有位格联合，你在这封教义信中有所有正统的部分。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}One thing he does is he takes language, now remember, he's a bishop of Rome, so he's a Westerner, so he takes language that he's getting from Tertullian and Novatian, and then also from Cyril, You've got eternal generation, you've got consubstantiality, you've got hypostatic union, you've got all of the orthodox pieces right in this tome. Dialogue: 0,0:49:01.05,0:49:02.21,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是他做的一件事。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So that's one thing he does. Dialogue: 0,0:49:02.21,0:49:10.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他做的另一件事是，他写这封信时好像他有权威告诉其他主教该做什么和该相信什么。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The other thing he does is he writes it as though he has the authority to tell these other bishops what to do and what to believe. Dialogue: 0,0:49:10.26,0:49:15.29,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他写这封信时好像他代表彼得说话，因为他是罗马的主教。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He writes it as if he speaks for Peter, because he's the bishop of Rome. Dialogue: 0,0:49:16.77,0:49:27.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}事实上，他甚至声称对其他大都市主教有权威。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And, in fact, claims authority even over the other metropolitans. Dialogue: 0,0:49:27.00,0:49:30.10,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，有一个主教会议，你知道，这只是一件小事。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, there was a synod, you know, this is just a minor thing. Dialogue: 0,0:49:30.18,0:49:42.05,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}449年在以弗所举行了一次主教会议，基本上是狄奥斯科鲁\N主持，他们收到了利奥的教义信，但它甚至从未被阅读过。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}There was a synod held in Ephesus in 449, where Basically, Theosaurus was in charge, and they received Leo's Tome, but it was never even read. Dialogue: 0,0:49:42.43,0:49:46.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而且，我不知道，也许他们没有人能读懂拉丁文，我不知道。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And, I don't know, maybe they didn't have anyone who could read Latin, I don't know. Dialogue: 0,0:49:46.34,0:50:05.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但那是449年。到了第二年，这封教义信已经被翻译，并为451年的\N第四次大公会议，迦克墩会议做好了准备。好的，我要给自己腾些空间。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But that was 449. By the next year, the Tome had been translated and would be ready for the Fourth Ecumenical Council, the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Alright, I'm going to make myself some space here. Dialogue: 0,0:50:09.89,0:50:13.51,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，这不是嵌套式的，所以我就在这里画一条线。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Alright, this is not nest-oriented, so I'll just make a line here. Dialogue: 0,0:50:18.66,0:50:25.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}迦克墩会议，有一个地方叫迦克墩，离君士坦丁堡不远。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Council of Chalcedon, there is a place called Chalcedon, it's not far from Constantinople. Dialogue: 0,0:50:26.08,0:50:31.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}迦克墩会议，时间是451年。再次强调，这是\N另一个日期，无论大家关心与否都应该知道。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Council of Chalcedon, the year was 451. Again, another date, everyone should know whether they care or not. Dialogue: 0,0:50:32.07,0:51:20.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而且，嗯，由新皇帝召集，他的名字是，我甚至犹豫要不要告诉你，呃，他的名字是马\N尔西安，不要与二世纪的异端马吉安混淆，那个是M-A-R-C-I-O-N，这个\N人是M-A-R-C-I-A-N，他是皇帝，不是什么大事，但是，嗯，但无论如何\N，再次，我只是没注意到这些大公会议是如何由皇帝召集的，因为当它们不是由皇帝召\N集时，你最终会得到449年的主教会议，被称为强盗会议，因为基本上在强盗会议上\N，狄奥斯科鲁掌权，在那次会议上他们说欧迪奇是个伟大的人，而利奥被逐出教会。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And, um, convened by the new emperor, whose name was, I even hesitate to tell you, uh, his name was Marcion, not to be confused with the Marcion, the heretic from the second century, he was M-A-R-C-I-O-N, this guy is M-A-R-C-I-A-N, he was the emperor, not a big deal, but, um, but anyway, again, I just didn't notice how these ecumenical councils are convened by emperors, because when they're not, You end up with the synod of 449, which comes to be called the robber synod, because basically at the robber synod, Theosaurus was in charge, and at that synod they said Eutychius is a great guy and Leo is excommunicated. Dialogue: 0,0:51:20.39,0:51:22.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以他们试图将罗马主教逐出教会。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So they tried to excommunicate the Bishop of Rome. Dialogue: 0,0:51:22.75,0:51:26.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}显然，这是不会成功的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well that wasn't going to stick, obviously. Dialogue: 0,0:51:26.11,0:51:27.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以你可以看到为什么那行不通。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So you can see why that didn't work out. Dialogue: 0,0:51:27.85,0:51:36.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以为了使这些事情生效，合法的会议是由皇帝召集的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So in order to make these things stick, the legitimate councils are convened by the embers. Dialogue: 0,0:51:37.13,0:52:01.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，我们来到了451年的迦克墩会议，议程是确认前几次会议做出的决定，所以\N涅斯托利的理论将被视为异端，亚波里拿里被视为异端，欧迪奇也将被视为异端。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, we come to the Council of Chalcedon then, 451, with sort of an agenda of affirming the decisions made at the previous councils, so Nestorius is going to be, his theory is going to be considered heresy, Apollinarius is considered heresy, Eutychius is also going to be considered heresy. Dialogue: 0,0:52:01.94,0:52:02.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}为什么？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Why? Dialogue: 0,0:52:02.34,0:52:08.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为我们从一开始就知道，基督必须完全是人，也完全是神。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because of what we've known from the beginning, Christ has to be fully human and fully divine. Dialogue: 0,0:52:08.95,0:52:13.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这里的任何东西都行不通，因为基督不是完全的人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So anything over here isn't going to work because Christ isn't fully human. Dialogue: 0,0:52:14.91,0:52:29.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}同时，基督位格内人性和神性的联合必须是真实的联合，所以这些\N东西不够统一，但它不能统一到创造出某种第三种东西的程度。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}At the same time, the union of humanity and divinity within the person of Christ has to be a real union, so this stuff is not unified enough, but it can't be so unified that it creates some third thing. Dialogue: 0,0:52:29.90,0:52:33.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以在会议上，利奥的教义信被宣读了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So at the Council, Leo's Tome was read. Dialogue: 0,0:52:35.25,0:52:52.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}根据你读到的不同记录，一些会议记录说他们读了教义信，所有人一\N致站起来欢呼，说，你知道，彼得通过利奥说话了，所有人都同意。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Depending on which account you read, some of the minutes from the Council say that they read the Tome and everyone all in unison stood up and cheered and said, you know, Peter has spoken through Leo and everyone all agreed. Dialogue: 0,0:52:52.82,0:52:55.06,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，也许确实发生了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yeah, maybe that happened. Dialogue: 0,0:52:55.52,0:53:10.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}其他版本的故事是这样的，嗯，他们真的不想同意，因为他们不想屈服于利奥的权\N威，或者看起来像是屈服，但最后他们意识到他说的是对的，是他们想要走的路。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Other versions of the story are like, well, they really didn't want to agree because they didn't want to Submit to Leo's authority, or seem like they were, but in the end they realized that what he was saying was right, was the way they wanted to go. Dialogue: 0,0:53:11.03,0:53:15.89,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，在教义信中，我只是指出这一点，我想你们会读到的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, in the tome, I'll just point this out, I think you're going to read it. Dialogue: 0,0:53:15.89,0:53:17.69,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我想那在你们的阅读清单上。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I think that's on your reading list. Dialogue: 0,0:53:17.69,0:53:18.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它不是很长。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's not very long. Dialogue: 0,0:53:18.83,0:53:34.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但我想指出的是利奥说基督是一个位格有两性的方式，他实\N际上说的是在两性中，但官方语言将是一个位格有两性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But what I want to point out is the way Leo says that Christ is one person in two natures, he actually says in both natures, but the official language is going to be one person in two natures. Dialogue: 0,0:53:35.92,0:53:41.18,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，就像很多时候一样，小词真的很重要。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, just like a lot of times, the small words are really important. Dialogue: 0,0:53:41.34,0:53:47.06,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为如果他们说一个位格由两性组成，你会同意的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because if they were to say one person out of two natures, you would agree with that. Dialogue: 0,0:53:47.06,0:53:52.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}哦是的，他是由两性组成的一个位格，但在联合之后只有一性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Oh yeah, he's one person made out of two natures, but after the union there's only one nature. Dialogue: 0,0:53:53.11,0:54:01.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以它必须措辞使两性即使在联合之后，即使在道成肉身之后，仍保持其区别。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So it has to be worded so that the two natures retain their distinction Even after the union, even after the incarnation. Dialogue: 0,0:54:01.92,0:54:05.18,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以是一个位格有两性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So one person in two natures. Dialogue: 0,0:54:05.22,0:54:12.18,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这个小短语排除了两个极端。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And this little phrase rules out both extremes. Dialogue: 0,0:54:12.42,0:54:22.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为「有两性」排除了过度的合一，「一个位格」排除了过度的区分。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because the in two natures rules out the heavy unity, the one person rules out the heavy distinction. Dialogue: 0,0:54:22.84,0:54:25.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}至少这是它被理解的方式。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}At least that's the way it's understood. Dialogue: 0,0:54:27.68,0:54:45.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，利奥的措辞被采纳，并与其他已经存在一段\N时间的表达方式一起，被收集成一种信仰声明。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, Leo's phrase is taken up and, along with other ways of saying it that have been around for a while, are sort of collected into a kind of a statement of faith. Dialogue: 0,0:54:45.65,0:54:56.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但这并不是真正的信经，因为在迦克墩会议上，他们明确表示他们不打算写一个新的信经。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But it's not really a creed, because at the Council of Chalcedon, they were deliberate that they were not intending to write a new creed. Dialogue: 0,0:54:56.34,0:55:00.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为整个事情的部分目的是加强已经完成的内容。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because part of the whole deal was to reinforce what had already been done. Dialogue: 0,0:55:00.85,0:55:07.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，我们已经有了尼西亚和君士坦丁堡的信经，没有必要再写一个新的信经。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, we already have the creed from Nicaea and Constantinople, there's no need to write another creed. Dialogue: 0,0:55:07.15,0:55:10.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以你所拥有的是所谓的迦克墩定义。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So what you have is what's called the Chalcedonian definition. Dialogue: 0,0:55:11.23,0:55:14.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它是一种信仰声明，但不是信经。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's something of a statement of faith, but it's not a creed. Dialogue: 0,0:55:14.92,0:55:19.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它只是用来定义正统的基督论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's just meant to define Orthodox Christology. Dialogue: 0,0:55:20.16,0:55:22.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一个位格有两性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}One person in two natures. Dialogue: 0,0:55:24.91,0:55:35.18,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它进一步澄清，两性，两性的联合不能有任何混淆或改变。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And it further clarifies that the two natures, the union of the two natures cannot have any confusion or change. Dialogue: 0,0:55:35.92,0:55:41.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，两性不能被混淆或改变，也不能创造出第三种东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, the two natures can't be confused or changed or create a third thing. Dialogue: 0,0:55:42.83,0:55:45.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但它们也不能被分开。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But they also can't be separated. Dialogue: 0,0:55:48.03,0:56:01.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，无论你如何构想这个，无论你如何理解或解\N释这个，它不能被解释为减少基督的人性或神性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, however you conceive of this, however you understand this or interpret this, It cannot be interpreted in a way that diminishes either the humanity or the divinity of Christ. Dialogue: 0,0:56:02.53,0:56:22.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这个联合是反对涅斯托利主义的真正的位格联合，但人性是反对亚波里拿里和单性\N论的完全人性，因此基督有真正的人的灵魂，或者说灵魂、意志、心智，所有这些。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the union is a real personal union against Nestorianism, but the humanity is a full humanity against Apollodarius and Monocotianism, so that Christ has a real human soul, or soul, will, mind, all that. Dialogue: 0,0:56:24.30,0:56:29.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}欧迪奇，实际上并不在场，被定罪了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Eutyches, who wasn't actually there, was condemned. Dialogue: 0,0:56:30.16,0:56:35.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}狄奥斯科鲁被逐出教会，并被废除主教职位。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Theosaurus was excommunicated and deposed from his see as bishop. Dialogue: 0,0:56:35.68,0:56:41.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而且，正如我所说，这两个极端都被宣布为异端。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And, as I said, both of these extremes are declared heresy. Dialogue: 0,0:56:41.78,0:56:56.98,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，在过去，失败者会悄悄离开，也许稍后会试图重组\N并试图回来，或者据我们所知，他们会从舞台上消失。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, in the past, the losers would just sort of skulk away and maybe try to regroup later and try to come back or or they would disappear from the scene as far as we can tell. Dialogue: 0,0:56:57.30,0:56:58.100,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但那些日子已经过去了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But those days are gone. Dialogue: 0,0:57:00.08,0:57:12.29,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为在大公会议上，这是第一次，失败者真的说，好吧，我们带着我们的球回家了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because for the first time at an ecumenical council, really, the losers said, fine, we're taking our ball and going home. Dialogue: 0,0:57:12.45,0:57:32.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以单性论者从教会分裂出去，单性论者主要由埃及人代表，\N所以是亚历山大、埃塞俄比亚，主要是埃及和埃塞俄比亚。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so the monophysites split from the church and The monasticites were primarily represented by the Egyptians, so Alexandria, Ethiopia, primarily Egypt and Ethiopia. Dialogue: 0,0:57:34.32,0:57:47.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}涅斯托利派也说，好吧，我们不需要你们，他们离开并从教\N会分裂出去，进入波斯，有时他们受到迫害，有时则没有。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Nestorians also said, fine, we don't need you, and they left and split from the church and went into Persia, where sometimes they were persecuted, sometimes they were not. Dialogue: 0,0:57:50.26,0:57:56.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}虽然一些涅斯托利派会接受利奥的教义信为权威，但他们认为它还不够深入。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Although some Nestorians would have accepted Leo's Tome as authoritative, they thought it didn't go far enough. Dialogue: 0,0:57:56.77,0:58:19.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，这里的大讽刺是，本来旨在通过在正统信仰周围设立\N坚实界限来维护教会统一的权威，最终导致了统一的崩溃。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, the big irony here is that the very authority that was meant to preserve the unity of the Church by having solid boundaries around Orthodoxy, ultimately the unity broke down. Dialogue: 0,0:58:19.59,0:58:24.66,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是教会第一次真正的分裂，至今仍然存在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And this is the first real split of the church that's still in existence today. Dialogue: 0,0:58:25.24,0:58:33.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，在我们休息之前的最后几分钟里，我会告诉你们一些关于这些不同群体的情况。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, I'm going to tell you a little bit about these different groups just within the last couple of minutes we have before we take a break. Dialogue: 0,0:58:33.48,0:58:38.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但让我在这里停下来，问问到目前为止对历史情况有什么问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But let me stop there and ask if there are questions so far on the historical situation. Dialogue: 0,0:58:38.94,0:58:39.72,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，阿德里安。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yeah, Adrian. Dialogue: 0,0:58:39.72,0:58:44.72,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，这更多的是一个……我们什么时候开始得到……\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, this is just more of a... When did we start getting... Dialogue: 0,0:58:45.22,0:58:47.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们事先宣布的人的信件。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Letters from the people that they declare ahead. Dialogue: 0,0:58:47.90,0:58:52.17,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我假设没有涅斯托利的信，没有……的信\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I'm assuming there's no letters by Nestorius, there's no letters by... Dialogue: 0,0:58:52.17,0:58:54.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，有的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yeah, there are. Dialogue: 0,0:58:54.11,0:58:58.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你可以读到西里尔和涅斯托利之间的一些通信。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You can read some of the correspondence between Cyril and Nestorius. Dialogue: 0,0:58:58.23,0:59:01.81,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一些这样的资料仍然存在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Some of that stuff still exists. Dialogue: 0,0:59:01.81,0:59:03.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yes? Dialogue: 0,0:59:03.49,0:59:12.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当他们说一个人有两性时，你认为是两个存在，还是一个位格？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}When they say one human in two natures, how about, do you think there are two beings, or one with one person? Dialogue: 0,0:59:13.08,0:59:19.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，基本上，正统的理解是基督的位格有两性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, basically, the orthodox understanding is that the person of Christ has two natures. Dialogue: 0,0:59:19.94,0:59:22.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}每一性都有一个意志，或一个心智。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Each nature has a will, or a mind. Dialogue: 0,0:59:22.90,0:59:26.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}心智和意志在某种程度上是同一件事。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Mind and will are kind of the same thing. Dialogue: 0,0:59:26.39,0:59:38.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}除了神性的心智或意志，因为记住，那是与整个三位一体\N相同的神性，所以那是整个三位一体相同的心智和意志。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Except, the mind slash will of the divine nature, because remember, that's the same divinity as the whole trinity, So that is the same mind and will of the whole Trinity. Dialogue: 0,0:59:38.74,0:59:43.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以不是说圣父有一个意志，圣灵有另一个不同的意志，而圣子……\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So it's not like the Father has a will, the Holy Spirit has a different will, and the Son... Dialogue: 0,0:59:44.10,0:59:51.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}三位一体有一个意志，但在基督的位格内，有两个意志。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}There's one will for the Trinity, but within the person of Christ, there's two wills. Dialogue: 0,0:59:51.40,0:59:54.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}神性的意志就是三位一体的那一个意志。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The will of the divine nature being the one will of the Trinity. Dialogue: 0,0:59:54.26,0:59:55.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这说得通吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Does that make sense? Dialogue: 0,0:59:57.60,1:00:16.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这有点像耶稣在园中说，不要照我的意思，只要照你的意思，你可以把它理\N解为圣子对圣父说话，但从技术上讲，把它理解为人性对神性说话也同样正确。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So it's sort of like when Jesus is in the garden saying, not my will, but your will be done, You can think of that as the Son speaking to the Father, but technically it's just as correct to think of it as the human nature talking to the divine nature. Dialogue: 0,1:00:30.25,1:00:43.51,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，我只是说，在这些争议时期，当主教们试图召开\N会议时，会议似乎没有权力使他们的宣告真正生效。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, I'm just saying that it seems like during these times of controversy, when bishops try to convene a council, the councils don't have the authority to make their pronouncements stick, really. Dialogue: 0,1:00:43.51,1:01:01.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我的意思是，如果你在罗马，效果会好一些，因为在西方，你知道，罗马是最\N大的势力，但在东方，由主教召集的会议的权威往往限于那个主教的区域。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I mean, it sort of works a little better if you're in Rome, because in the West, you know, Rome is the biggest game in town, but in the East, The councils that are convened by bishops tend to be limited in their authority to the area of that bishop. Dialogue: 0,1:01:01.12,1:01:11.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以一个大公会议，如果要成为一个世界性的会议，对\N教会有世界性的权威，似乎需要皇帝或帝国的支持。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So an ecumenical council, if it's going to be a worldwide council, to have worldwide authority over the church, it seems to need the backing of the emperor or the empire. Dialogue: 0,1:01:11.88,1:01:16.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}至少看起来是这样。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}At least that's what it appears to be. Dialogue: 0,1:01:17.17,1:01:25.61,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}人们只是假设，每当皇帝召集时，基本上都是一样的，就\N像君士坦丁会做的那样，为了政治原因确保教会的统一。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's just assumed that whenever the emperor calls, it's pretty much the same thing, like Constantine would, to make sure the church is unified for political reasons. Dialogue: 0,1:01:25.61,1:01:30.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，有政治因素，但当然皇帝们也想参与神学事务。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yeah, and there's political, but of course the emperors want to be involved in the theological stuff too. Dialogue: 0,1:01:31.27,1:01:33.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但是，是的，没错，这一切都是为了统一。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But, yeah, right, it's all about the unity. Dialogue: 0,1:01:33.71,1:01:35.29,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}再说一次，这就是讽刺之处。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And again, that's the irony. Dialogue: 0,1:01:35.29,1:01:41.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你知道，他们正在设立这些，试图在正统信仰周围设立这些界限以维护教会的统一。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You know, they're setting these, trying to set these boundaries around orthodoxy to maintain the unity of the church. Dialogue: 0,1:01:42.54,1:01:48.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而最终，似乎统一的崩溃是不可避免的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And ultimately, it seems that it was inevitable that the unity broke down anyway. Dialogue: 0,1:01:50.26,1:01:53.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，好的，让我告诉你一些关于这些群体的情况。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, okay, let me just tell you a little bit about these groups. Dialogue: 0,1:01:53.43,1:01:54.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}让我们从这里开始。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Let's start over here. Dialogue: 0,1:01:54.43,1:01:59.45,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}涅斯托利派现在被称为东方亚述教会。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Nestorians are now known as the Assyrian Church of the East. Dialogue: 0,1:02:00.13,1:02:03.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而且他们……\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And they... Dialogue: 0,1:02:05.08,1:02:07.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们不再被视为异端了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They are not considered heretics anymore. Dialogue: 0,1:02:09.56,1:02:28.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我在这里知道的大多数内容都与罗马公教会的关系有关，但东方亚述教会自199\N4年以来已被梵蒂冈承认。若望保禄二世教宗与他们会面，他们被承认不是异端。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Most of what I know here has to do with relations with the Roman Catholic Church, but the Assyrian Church of the East has been recognized by the Vatican since 1994. Pope John Paul II had a meeting with them and they are recognized as not heretics. Dialogue: 0,1:02:28.60,1:02:40.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们同意「神的母亲」这个称号对马利亚来说是适当的，在\N这个意义上它不是异端，尽管他们保留不使用它的权利。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They, for their part, agree that the title Theotokos It is appropriate for Mary in the sense that it's not heresy, although they reserve the right not to use it. Dialogue: 0,1:02:40.47,1:02:52.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们不会称马利亚为「神的母亲」，但他们理解它的含\N义，并且明白如果其他基督徒想这样做，那不是异端。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They won't call Mary Theotokos, Mother of God, but they get what it means and they understand that it's not heresy if some other Christians want to do that. Dialogue: 0,1:02:54.07,1:03:01.05,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}单性论者最终就是我们可能称为科普特教会的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Monophysites are ultimately what we might refer to as the Coptic Church. Dialogue: 0,1:03:01.05,1:03:07.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}科普特只是一个指埃及和埃及语的词，它是一种希腊语的衍生语。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Coptic is just a word that refers to Egypt and the Egyptian language, which is kind of a Greek derivative. Dialogue: 0,1:03:07.36,1:03:12.02,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}从技术上讲，他们现在被称为东方正教会。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Technically, they're now called the Oriental Orthodox Churches. Dialogue: 0,1:03:12.70,1:03:16.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但是，他们不承认自己是单性论者。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But, they do not claim to be monophysites. Dialogue: 0,1:03:16.54,1:03:20.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}事实上，他们会告诉你他们从来就不是单性论者。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In fact, they will tell you they were never monophysite. Dialogue: 0,1:03:20.75,1:03:22.89,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那是一个误解。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That was a misunderstanding. Dialogue: 0,1:03:23.33,1:03:41.17,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们会同意欧迪奇是异端，但他们不认为欧迪奇是他们的创始\N人，他们声称狄奥斯科鲁是他们的创始人，他们说狄奥斯科鲁\N受到了不公平的批评，因为他和西罗之间存在政治权力斗争。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They will agree that Eutychius was a heretic, But they do not claim Eutychius as their founder, they claim Dioscorus as their founder, and they say Dioscorus got a bad rap because there was this political power struggle between him and Syro. Dialogue: 0,1:03:41.19,1:03:57.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以他们完全同意亚波里拿里和欧迪奇都是异端，但他们声称狄奥斯\N科鲁被废黜的真正原因是他反对罗马主教，所以那是一个政治问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So they fully agree that both Apollodarius and Eutychius were heretics, but they claim Dioscorus was really deposed because he opposed the bishop of Rome, and so there was that political thing. Dialogue: 0,1:03:57.94,1:04:04.98,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，今天他们不会喜欢被称为单性论者。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, today they would not appreciate being called monophysites. Dialogue: 0,1:04:06.06,1:04:20.56,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们基本上同意迦克墩定义，并同意基督有完全的人\N性，在基督的位格中有两个意志，人性的和神性的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They basically agree to the Chalcedonian definition, and they agree that Christ has a full humanity, that there are two wills in the person of Christ, the human and divine. Dialogue: 0,1:04:22.82,1:04:26.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但他们更愿意称自己为「mia-physites」。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But they prefer to call themselves neophysites. Dialogue: 0,1:04:30.04,1:04:47.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，如果指控他们是单性论者，意味着一个意志，他们更愿意称自己为「mia\N-physites」，或者说他们的基督论是「mia-physite」。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, if the accusation was that they were monophysites, meaning one will, they prefer to call themselves neophysites, or that their Christology is neophysite. Dialogue: 0,1:04:47.71,1:04:54.66,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}「Mia」是「一」的意思，所以不是「mon\No」（单一的），而是「mia」（一个）。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Nea is the word for one, so instead of being one will, it's one will. Dialogue: 0,1:04:54.86,1:05:08.42,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，你可能认为这没有什么不同，但确实有区别，因为「mono」\N的意思是「唯一的一个」，而「mia」被理解为「一个复合的」。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, you might think that's not different, but it is, because the word mono means, like, only one, whereas mia is taken to mean one composite will. Dialogue: 0,1:05:08.42,1:05:21.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换句话说，这是他们表达的方式，我们仍然喜欢强调两个意\N志的联合，以至于我们想谈论基督的一个位格有一个本性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, in other words, it's their way of saying, we still like to emphasize the union of the two wills to the point where we want to talk about The one person of Christ is having one nature. Dialogue: 0,1:05:21.46,1:05:23.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对不起，我一直在说一个意志，但实际上是本性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I'm sorry, I keep saying one will, but it's really nature. Dialogue: 0,1:05:23.76,1:05:25.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那是我的错。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That's my bad. Dialogue: 0,1:05:26.13,1:05:28.45,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一个本性，一个本性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}One nature, one nature. Dialogue: 0,1:05:28.97,1:05:30.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我一直在说这个意志的事。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I'm on this will thing. Dialogue: 0,1:05:30.87,1:05:38.93,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以他们想说，你知道，这不仅是一个本性，而是一个复合的本性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So they want to say, you know, it's not only one nature, but it's one composite nature. Dialogue: 0,1:05:39.61,1:05:53.69,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以他们仍然想说他们更倾向于本性的联合，以至于最终他\N们想谈论一个本性，但他们也仍然承认其中有两个本性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so they still want to say that they're more comfortable with the union of natures such that Ultimately, they want to talk about one nature, but they also still admit that there's two natures in there. Dialogue: 0,1:05:53.69,1:05:55.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以两个本性仍然存在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the two natures still remain. Dialogue: 0,1:05:55.59,1:06:02.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这有点难以理解。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's a little bit hard to get your head around it. Dialogue: 0,1:06:02.11,1:06:19.56,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但这是他们表达的方式，他们认识到这其中的问题\N，但他们还没有完全准备好接受当时主流的说法。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But this is their way of saying they recognize the problems with this, but they're not quite ready to to get on board with the way the mainstream was saying it back in the day. Dialogue: 0,1:06:19.56,1:06:34.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这些群体，科普特人和亚述人，今天被称为非迦克\N墩教会，因为他们，嗯，我们不再称他们为异端了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So these groups, the Coptics and the Assyrians, today they're referred to as non-Talcedonian churches because they, well, we don't call them heretics anymore. Dialogue: 0,1:06:34.86,1:06:42.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}事实上，对于科普特人，自1973年以来梵蒂冈就承认他们不是异端。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In fact, with the Coptics, they've been recognized by the Vatican since 1973 as not a heresy. Dialogue: 0,1:06:45.27,1:07:02.46,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}自1989年以来，希腊和俄罗斯正教会也承认他们为正统。所以在整个历史的\N大背景下，这似乎是相当近期的事，但关键是我们在基督论上都达成了一致。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And they've been recognized by the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches as Orthodox since 1989. So that seems pretty recent in the grand scheme of things, but the point is that we're all agreeing on the Christology. Dialogue: 0,1:07:02.56,1:07:14.31,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，他们仍被视为非迦克墩教会，因为在迦克\N墩会议上宣布的其他一些事情他们无法接受。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, they still are considered non-Chalcedonian because there are other things that were proclaimed at the Council of Chalcedon that they can't get on board with. Dialogue: 0,1:07:15.05,1:07:29.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但关键是，现在所有这些群体在基督论上达成了\N一致，迦克墩对基督的描述定义被一致认可。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the point is that there is agreement now among all these groups on the Christology, that the Chalcedonian definition of the description of Christ is agreed upon. Dialogue: 0,1:07:29.08,1:07:32.61,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们还没有的是圣餐联合。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What we don't have yet is Eucharistic union. Dialogue: 0,1:07:32.61,1:08:02.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}罗马公教会信徒不会从亚述教会或科普特教会领受圣餐。在罗林梅多斯53号公路上有\N一座科普特教堂，有闪亮的圆顶，美丽的礼仪，基本上要花三个小时，但值得一去。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}A Roman Catholic wouldn't receive communion from an Assyrian or a There's a Coptic church on Highway 53 in Rolling Meadows, shiny dome, beautiful liturgy, pretty much set aside three hours for that, but it's worth going. Dialogue: 0,1:08:02.95,1:08:06.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但如果我去，我不会在那里领受圣餐。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But if I go, I do not receive communion there. Dialogue: 0,1:08:06.55,1:08:10.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为我们没有圣餐的合一。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}because we don't have the Eucharistic unity. Dialogue: 0,1:08:10.62,1:08:14.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但我们在基督论的定义上确实达成了一致。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But we do have unity on the definition of Christology. Dialogue: 0,1:08:14.50,1:08:19.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那么，让我看看在这一点上是否有问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, let me see if there are questions at this point. Dialogue: 0,1:08:23.22,1:08:36.05,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好好利用那份讲义，特别是5世纪基督论的讲义，因为我认\N为它很好地展示了一边是单性论基督论，另一边是故事。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Make good use of that handout, especially the 5th century Christology handout, because I think that lays it out pretty well with the monotheistic Christology on one side and the story on the other. Dialogue: 0,1:08:37.07,1:08:38.17,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}有什么问题吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Any questions? Dialogue: 0,1:08:40.28,1:08:42.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，那我们休息一下吧。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay, then let's take a break. Dialogue: 0,1:08:42.58,1:08:45.93,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在快7点50了，所以让我们8点再开始。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It is almost 4-2, so let's start up again at 8 o'clock.