[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: 0,0:00:02.27,0:00:15.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，今晚第二个小时我们将讨论圣餐争议，我们已\N经到了学期中无法总是严格按时间顺序进行的阶段。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay, so in our second hour tonight we're going to talk about the Eucharist controversy, and we are at the point in the semester where we aren't always able to go strictly chronologically anymore.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:15.24,0:00:32.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你知道，我尽可能地把基督教历史当作一个故事来讲述，按时间\N顺序进行，但对某些事情，我们必须更多地从主题角度处理，这\N意味着当我们触及某个主题时，我们几乎要回到最初来看待它。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You know, I like as much as possible to treat the history of Christianity like we're telling a story and go chronologically, but  With certain things, we have to deal with it more topically, which means when we hit the topic, we're going to have to go back and look at it almost from the beginning.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:32.63,0:00:40.45,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是我们现在要做的，关于圣餐的概念和圣餐的神学。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And that's what we're going to do now, with the concept of the Eucharist and the theology of the Eucharist.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:40.45,0:00:42.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我想让你们知道，我使用圣餐这个词。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Just so you know, I use the word Eucharist.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:42.67,0:00:45.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你们不必非要这么称呼它。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You're not required to call it that.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:45.31,0:00:49.81,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}其他合法的名称包括圣餐或主的晚餐。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Other legitimate names for it would be Holy Communion or the Lord's Supper.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:51.59,0:00:52.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我只是使用……\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I'm just using the...
Dialogue: 0,0:00:54.91,0:00:58.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}希腊语中使用的是什么词？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What was the word used in Greek?
Dialogue: 0,0:00:58.35,0:01:02.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你们知道，圣餐的意思是感恩或类似的意思。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Eucharist, as you know, means Thanksgiving or something like that.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:02.97,0:01:11.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在早期教会，它被理解为感恩礼仪，除此之外还有其他含义。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In the early church, it was understood as a liturgy of Thanksgiving, among other things.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:12.67,0:01:24.09,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，当我们谈论基督的身体这个词时，这个短语可以有三种不同的含义，这并非巧合。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, when we talk about the term body of Christ, it's not a coincidence that the phrase can mean three different things.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:25.14,0:01:36.42,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}基督的身体可以指耶稣的人性，耶稣基督的实际身体，从这个意义上说，可以指他的人性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The body of Christ can mean the humanity of Jesus, the literal body of Jesus Christ, and in that sense can refer to his human nature.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:37.66,0:01:49.33,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}基督的身体可以指教会，使用保罗书信中的比喻，即教会是一个身体，基督是我们的头。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The body of Christ can mean the church, using the metaphor from the Pauline letters that the church is a body and Christ is our head.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:50.62,0:02:02.10,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而且基督的身体还可以指圣餐中的饼，因此在圣餐中我们庆祝基督的身体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And then the body of Christ can also refer to the Eucharistic element of the bread, and so within the Eucharist we celebrate the body of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:02.10,0:02:10.65,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以基督的身体这个短语可以有所有这些不同的\N含义，这并非巧合，因为它们都是相互关联的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so that phrase, body of Christ, can have all of those different connotations, and that's not a coincidence because they're all connected.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:12.44,0:02:17.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣餐的目标不仅仅是个人救恩。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The goal of the Eucharist is not simply individual salvation.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:17.40,0:02:21.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它不仅仅是我与我的耶稣建立联系的方式。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's not just a way that I connect me and my Jesus.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:22.09,0:02:28.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣餐的目标是使我们成为基督的身体，即教会。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The goal of the Eucharist is to make us into the body of Christ as the Church.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:28.13,0:02:31.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以从非常真实的意义上说，你就是你所吃的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So in a very real sense, you are what you eat.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:31.83,0:02:36.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为你吃基督的身体，你就成为基督的身体，即教会。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because you eat the body of Christ, and you become the body of Christ, the Church.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:38.13,0:02:40.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，我们要回到起点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, we're going to go back to the beginning.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:40.75,0:02:48.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们将讨论不同的基督教作家如何理解和描述圣餐。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We're going to talk about how the different Christian writers understood and wrote about the Eucharist.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:48.15,0:02:50.61,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，我们要回到安提阿的伊格那丢。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, we're going to go back to Ignatius of Antioch.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:50.61,0:02:52.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}还记得伊格那丢吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Remember Ignatius?
Dialogue: 0,0:02:52.79,0:02:54.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我是一个致力于合一的人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I am a man set on unity.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:54.34,0:02:55.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}记得吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Remember that?
Dialogue: 0,0:02:55.100,0:02:57.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对他来说，合一……\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, for him, unity...
Dialogue: 0,0:02:59.64,0:03:02.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}记住，你知道，你们当时并没有真正的教堂建筑。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Remember, you know, you don't really have church buildings.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:02.00,0:03:06.06,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你们没有年会或总会。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You don't have annual conferences or general conferences.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:06.06,0:03:12.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，你知道，用卫理公会的说法，教会内部的联系性在哪里？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, you know,  Where is the, to use a United Methodist phrase, where is the connectionalism within the church?
Dialogue: 0,0:03:12.83,0:03:14.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它在圣餐桌上。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's at the table of the Eucharist.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:14.79,0:03:20.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在早期教会，从许多方面来说，教会是由圣餐桌定义的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And in the early church, in many ways, church is defined by the table.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:20.67,0:03:24.37,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那些在教会中的人就是聚集在圣餐桌旁的人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Those who are in the church are those who gather at the table.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:25.31,0:03:35.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在记住，伊格那丢是在反驳或对抗幻影说者，或早期诺斯替主义者，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now remember, Ignatius was arguing against, or confronting, the docetics, or the early Gnostics, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:03:36.91,0:03:52.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在他反对幻影说的论述中，我们发现，嗯，他们中的许多人可能根本\N不举行圣餐，但那些举行的人不使用酒，因为他们不相信基督有血。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In his arguments against Docetism, we find out that, well, many of them probably didn't do a Eucharist at all, but those who did, didn't use wine because they didn't believe Christ had any blood.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:52.34,0:04:06.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，没有血，我的意思是，如果基督是幻影，那么他就没有肉体和血，\N所以没有肉体和血，就没有圣餐，或者圣餐显然只有饼和水，没有酒。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, no blood, I mean, if Christ is a phantom, then he has no flesh and blood, so no flesh and blood, no Eucharist, or a Eucharist that apparently was bread and water, no wine.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:07.94,0:04:23.69,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，伊格那丢反对这一点的论述是，他将圣餐的饼与基督的肉\N体联系起来，因为他强调基督有真实的肉体，有真实的人性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, Ignatius' argument against this, and in arguing against that, he connects the bread of the Eucharist with the flesh of Christ, because he's emphasizing that Christ has real flesh, had a real humanity.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:23.91,0:04:31.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以圣餐的肉体就是道成肉身的肉体，是悬挂在十字架上的肉体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the flesh of the Eucharist is the flesh of the Incarnation, is the flesh that hung on the cross.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:32.67,0:04:40.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}伊格那丢说，圣餐的元素包含，这里他用了包含这个词，基督的身体和血。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Eucharistic elements, Ignatius says, contain, here he uses the word contain, the body and blood of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:42.74,0:04:48.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}记住，伊格那丢认为统一的圣餐对于统一的教会是必要的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Remember, Ignatius believes that a unified Eucharist is necessary for a unified church.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:48.60,0:04:54.87,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是为什么他一再强调，你知道，你们不应该在没有主教的情况下举行未经授权的聚会。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This is why he goes on and on about, you know, you should not have unauthorized meetings without the bishops.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:55.33,0:04:55.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}为什么？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Why?
Dialogue: 0,0:04:55.75,0:05:00.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为那是一个分离的圣餐，如果他们在举行圣餐的话。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because that's a separated Eucharist, if they're doing the Eucharist.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:00.61,0:05:08.21,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，如果你有一个未经主教授权的圣餐，那就是一个与教会其他部分脱节的圣餐。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, if you have a Eucharist that's not authorized by the bishop, it's a Eucharist that's disconnected from the rest of the church.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:08.69,0:05:14.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，统一的教会需要统一的圣餐，一张桌子。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, a unified church requires a unified Eucharist, one table.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:16.84,0:05:34.29,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，当我们进入护教士的时代，圣餐继续与道成肉身联系在一起\N，道在道成肉身中所取的肉体就是我们在圣餐中所领受的肉体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, as we go into the time of the apologists, then, the Eucharist continues to be connected to the Incarnation, the same flesh that  The Logos took on in the Incarnation is the flesh we receive in the Eucharist.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:34.73,0:05:40.17,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为记住在约翰福音第一章，道成了肉身。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because remember in John chapter 1, the Word became flesh.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:40.17,0:05:50.87,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以如果道成了肉身，那么在圣餐中，饼和酒就成为基督的肉和血，他的身体和血。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So if the Word became flesh, then in the Eucharist, the bread and wine become Christ's flesh and blood, his body and blood.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:50.87,0:06:01.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这种「成为」的语言从道成肉身的概念转移到了圣餐。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So this becoming language comes to be transferred from  The concept of the Incarnation to the Eucharist.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:01.40,0:06:03.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}约翰福音第一章非常重要。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}John chapter 1 is huge.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:03.46,0:06:13.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}约翰福音第六章也很重要，生命之粮的讲论，耶稣自己描述他的肉为真正的食物。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Also big is John chapter 6, the Bread of Life discourse, where Jesus himself describes his flesh as true food.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:14.08,0:06:17.89,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我的肉是真正的食物，我的血是真正的饮料。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}My flesh is true food, my blood is true drink.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:19.75,0:06:31.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}殉道者游斯丁说，圣餐的食物成为道成肉身的耶稣的肉和血。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Justin Martyr,  The food of the Eucharist becomes the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:31.22,0:06:35.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以再次，这里有「成为」的语言，也有与道成肉身的联系。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So again, there's that becoming language and there's the connection to the incarnation.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:35.94,0:06:41.42,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这发生在设立的话语，祝圣的话语中。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This happens at the words of institution, the words of consecration.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:42.82,0:07:00.72,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当我们来到爱任纽时，在二世纪末，爱任纽仍在反驳……所以他继续使用\N这种「成为」的语言，因为他想强调基督的真实人性和他的真实肉体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}When we get to Irenaeus then, now at the end of the second century, Irenaeus is still arguing against  So he continues using this language of becoming because he wants to emphasize the real humanity of Christ and his real flesh.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:00.72,0:07:05.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}饼和酒成为基督的身体和血。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:05.58,0:07:09.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这是一个奇迹。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so this is a miracle.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:09.16,0:07:16.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你会记得爱任纽喜欢使用预表论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And you'll remember that Irenaeus likes to use typology.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:18.54,0:07:32.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在预表论中，有一个预表可以是某事物的预示或象\N征，然后有一个本体，就是预表所指向的现实。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And in typology, there is a type that can be a foreshadowing or a symbol of something, and then there is the antitype that is the reality to which the type points.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:32.96,0:07:36.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}预表指向本体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The type points to the antitype.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:36.35,0:07:39.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但本体是更深层的现实。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the antitype is the deeper reality.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:40.97,0:07:45.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在圣餐的奇迹中，预表成为本体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In the miracle of the Eucharist, the type becomes the anti-type.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:45.36,0:07:49.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它不仅仅是指向它或预示它，而是成为它。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It doesn't just point to it or foreshadow it, it becomes it.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:50.10,0:08:14.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，我们已经稍微讨论过这个，但在旧约中有一些预表被用来预示教会的圣餐\N圣事，比如旷野中的吗哪，从天而降的饼，从磐石流出的水，新约中也有预表。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, we've talked about this a little bit, but there are types in the Old Testament that are used to foreshadow the church's sacrament of the Eucharist, like the manna in the desert, the bread from heaven, the water from the rock,  There is a New Testament type as well.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:14.28,0:08:45.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}迦拿的婚宴，水变酒的奇迹，然后是新约中不同的饼和鱼增多的记载，给众人吃饱的奇迹。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The wedding at Cana, the changing of water into wine,  and then the different accounts of the multiplication of the loaves and fish, the feeding of the multitudes in the New Testament.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:45.38,0:08:55.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，这些又成为预示教会圣事的新约预表，同\N样，正如这些是奇迹，教会的圣事也是奇迹。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So again, these become New Testament types that foreshadow the church's sacrament, and again, as these are miraculous, so is the church's sacrament.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:55.53,0:09:02.37,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，这都很好，但当特土良出现时，他必须用拉丁语来表达这些。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, that's all well and good, but when Tertullian comes along, he's got to do this in Latin.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:04.70,0:09:09.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你已经知道拉丁语不如希腊语精确。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You already know that Latin is not as precise a language as Greek.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:11.48,0:09:20.51,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以当他谈到爱任纽的预表论问题时，他必须使用拉丁语术语。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so when he talks about this issue of typology from Irenaeus, he's got to use Latin terms.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:20.59,0:09:33.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以在拉丁语中，特土良用来表达预表概念的术语是……饼是象征性地存在的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So in Latin, the term that Tertullian uses for the concept of a type  The bread is figuratively present.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:58.47,0:10:00.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但成为基督的身体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But becomes the body of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:00.59,0:10:07.31,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}酒是象征性地存在的，但成为基督的血。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The wine is present figuratively, but becomes the blood of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:07.43,0:10:14.37,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}用特土良的话说，饼和酒变成基督的身体和血。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In Tertullian's words, the bread and wine turn into the body and blood of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:14.37,0:10:22.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以再次，如果你愿意这么说的话，相似的标记成为更深层的现实。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So again, the similar sign, if you will, becomes the deeper reality.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:22.97,0:10:25.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}象征成为更深层的现实。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The figure becomes the deeper reality.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:26.96,0:10:30.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，特土良还引入了记念的概念。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, Tertullian also brings in the concept of remembering.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:30.58,0:10:35.29,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，你听过这句话，记念你的洗礼并心存感恩，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, you have heard the phrase, remember your baptism and be thankful, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:10:35.29,0:10:38.29,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}有时我们会更新洗礼誓约或其他类似的事。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Sometimes we do renewals of baptismal vows or whatever.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:38.29,0:10:40.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}记念你的洗礼并心存感恩。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Remember your baptism and be thankful.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:40.47,0:10:45.100,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对特土良来说，圣餐是关于记念十字架并心存感恩。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, for Tertullian, the Eucharist is about remember the cross and be thankful.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:47.24,0:10:51.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这很像旧约对逾越节的理解。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And it's very much like the Old Testament understanding of the Passover.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:51.56,0:11:00.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}旧约对逾越节的理解是，过去的历史成为现在的奥秘。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Old Testament understanding of the Passover is one in which presence,  Past history becomes present mystery.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:00.14,0:11:03.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你可以看出这不是我编的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You can tell I didn't make that up.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:03.61,0:11:06.51,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}过去的历史成为现在的奥秘。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Past history becomes present mystery.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:06.51,0:11:15.42,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，在逾越节中，出埃及的过去历史成为现在庆祝逾越节的奥秘。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, in the Passover, the past history of the Exodus becomes the present mystery of the celebration of Passover.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:16.44,0:11:18.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}过去变成现在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The past is made present.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:18.62,0:11:21.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}过去成为现在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The past becomes present.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:21.64,0:11:25.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是特土良理解圣餐的方式。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And this is how Tertullian understood the Eucharist.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:25.36,0:11:31.37,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}基督的受难是成为现在奥秘的过去历史。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The passion of Christ is the past history that becomes a present mystery.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:31.45,0:11:39.65,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，受难本身被呈现出来，以便对桌前的信徒产生效力。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so the passion itself is made present in order to be made effective for the believers at the table.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:41.51,0:11:44.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，我将继续往下讲。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Alright, I'm just going to keep kind of moving through.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:44.85,0:11:47.89,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果你有问题，想要打断我问些什么，你可以这样做。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If you have questions, you want to stop me and ask something, you can do that.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:47.89,0:11:52.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但我将继续讲述历史，以赶上我们之前讲到的地方。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But I'm going to keep moving through history to catch up to where we've been.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:53.98,0:11:54.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}西普里安。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Cyprian.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:55.02,0:11:56.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}迦太基主教西普里安。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:56.40,0:11:57.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}还记得他吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Remember him?
Dialogue: 0,0:11:57.20,0:11:59.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}三世纪的迦太基主教？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Third century Bishop of Carthage?
Dialogue: 0,0:12:09.21,0:12:13.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}西普里安在批评领养说者。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Cyprian is  Critiquing Adoptionists.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:14.05,0:12:22.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}领养说者实际上从与幻影说者相反的立场出发，但最终达到了相同的结果。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And the adoptionists actually  Start out at the opposite pole from the docetics, but end up at the same place.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:22.90,0:12:25.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换句话说，他们的圣餐中没有酒。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In other words, no wine in their Eucharist.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:25.74,0:12:28.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果他们举行圣餐的话，他们不使用酒。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If they do Eucharist at all, they don't use wine.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:28.38,0:12:37.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}领养说者显然不使用酒，因为他们不相信基督的血在任何意义上都有救赎作用。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The adoptionists apparently didn't use wine because they didn't believe that Christ's blood was salvific in any sense.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:37.47,0:12:42.37,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们相信他有血，因为他是人，但他们不相信他是神。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They believed he had blood, because he was human, but they did not believe he was divine.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:44.75,0:12:47.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以他们显然不使用酒。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So they apparently didn't use wine.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:48.68,0:13:08.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们拒绝使用酒的表面理由是，在迫害期间，如果你周日早晨去敬拜，但之后还要去\N工作，你在黎明时分去喝一点酒，你不希望之后上班时让老板闻到你呼吸中的酒味。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The stated reason for their refusal to use wine was that during the persecutions, if you go to worship early on a Sunday, but then have to go to work, you go at dawn and drink a little bit of wine, you don't want to go  Have your boss smell the wine on your breath when you show up for work later.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:08.97,0:13:11.81,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这是一种借口。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so that was sort of the excuse.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:12.15,0:13:18.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}显然，在迫害期间，早晨呼吸中的酒味会暴露身份。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Wine on your breath in the morning would be a giveaway, apparently, during the persecution.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:18.14,0:13:25.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但我认为西普里安看穿了这一点，真正的原因是因为不同的基督论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But I think Cyprian sees through this, and the real reason is because of the different Christology.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:25.74,0:13:27.98,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他的血没有救赎作用。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}His blood is not salvific.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:27.98,0:13:34.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是否也与采用圣餐来追求完美有关？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Would it also have been related to the adoption of communion to be working towards perfection?
Dialogue: 0,0:13:34.33,0:13:40.65,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这可能都与此有关。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It could be all tied up with that.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:40.69,0:13:53.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}再次，如果领养说者将耶稣理解为仅仅是人而不是\N神，我们假设他们会淡化圣餐中的任何奇迹元素。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Again, if adoptionists understand Jesus as merely human and not divine, any sort of miraculous element in the Eucharist would be de-emphasized by them, we assume.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:55.66,0:14:02.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}西普里安通过讨论圣事来论证，水是洗礼圣事的元素。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Cyprian argues by talking about the sacraments, water is the element for the sacrament of baptism.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:02.59,0:14:16.06,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}酒是圣餐圣事的元素，所以有效的圣餐必须有酒，因为酒是变成基督的血的东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Wine is the element for the sacrament of the Eucharist, and so a Eucharist validly done has to have wine, because wine is what turns into the blood of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:16.06,0:14:23.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}西普里安说，除非杯中含有酒，否则基督的血不可能在杯中。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Cyprian said the blood of Christ cannot be in the cup,  Unless it contains wine.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:23.96,0:14:39.41,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在有趣的是，西普里安用了一个不同的术语来表达同样的想法，特土良\N用的是figura或figure，而西普里安用的是symbol。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now the interesting thing is that Cyprian used a different term for the same kind of idea where Tertullian used figura or figure, Cyprian used the term symbol.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:42.07,0:14:50.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以对西普里安来说，酒是象征……嗯，因为错误的象征不会产生正确的效果。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so for Cyprian the wine is the symbol  Well, because the wrong symbol won't have the right effect.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:50.79,0:15:17.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}试着不要假设这意味着我们想到象征时所想的，因为\N我们经常想到象征时，它与「仅仅」这个词相连。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Try not to assume this means what we think of when we think of symbol, because often when we think of symbol,  It's connected to the word only.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:17.52,0:15:19.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它仅仅是一个象征。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's only a symbol.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:21.14,0:15:28.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对西普里安来说，它不仅仅是一个象征，好像它是象征性的，意味着它没有……\N{\an2\fs10\i1}For Cyprian, it's not only a symbol as if it's symbolic in the sense that it has no...
Dialogue: 0,0:15:28.52,0:15:33.19,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这样说吧。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Put it this way.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:33.19,0:15:40.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果我们说某物只是一个象征，我们暗示你可以\N用其他象征替代它，只要它对你有意义就行。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If we say something is only a symbol, we imply that you can substitute out some other symbol and as long as it has meaning for you, that would be fine.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:40.25,0:15:42.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但这不是他们在这里所说的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But that's not what they're saying here.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:43.76,0:15:49.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就像约翰福音使用「记号」这个词的方式。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's like the way the Gospel of John uses the word sign.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:50.02,0:15:54.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这些是指向更深层现实或更大现实的记号。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}These are the signs that point to a deeper reality or a greater reality.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:54.71,0:16:00.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以对西普里安来说，如果你有错误的记号或错\N误的象征，你就不会得到正确的更深层现实。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So for Cyprian, if you have the wrong sign or the wrong symbol, you're not going to get the right deeper reality.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:01.49,0:16:08.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，饼和酒被描述为预表、象征或记号。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so the bread and wine are described as figures or symbols or signs.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:08.75,0:16:16.37,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它们指向一个更大或更深层的现实，特别是基督的身体和血。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Which point to a greater or deeper reality, specifically the body and blood of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:17.17,0:16:26.21,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但再次强调，它们不仅仅是指向或在人的心中唤起更深层的现实。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But again, it isn't simply that they point to or that they evoke in one's mind the deeper reality.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:26.21,0:16:32.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在某种意义上，它们实际上成为或转变为更深层的现实。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It is that they actually become or turn into the deeper reality in some sense.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:33.68,0:16:35.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这究竟意味着什么，我们将会深入探讨。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What exactly that means, we're going to get into.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:35.62,0:16:42.41,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但在这一点上，这些作者承认正在发生某种奇迹就足够了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But at this point, it's enough for these authors to acknowledge that something miraculous is going on.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:43.47,0:16:56.100,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}重要的是圣餐与道成肉身之间的密切联系，以及与教会之间的联系。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And the importance is the close connection between the Eucharist and the Incarnation on one hand, and the Church on the other.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:57.26,0:17:01.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以再次强调，基督的身体，基督的身体，基督的身体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So again, body of Christ, body of Christ, body of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:01.08,0:17:12.18,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}道成肉身，圣餐，基督的身体在饼中，基督的身体在教会中。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Incarnation, the Eucharist,  The body of Christ is in the bread, and the body of Christ is in the church.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:13.30,0:17:21.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这种相交的概念，如果你称之为圣餐，如果你不思\N考它，它就会成为那些可能失去其意义的词之一。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This idea of communion, if you call it holy communion, it's one of those words that can lose its meaning if you don't think about it.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:21.35,0:17:25.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}相交全是关于合一，不是吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Communion is all about unity, isn't it?
Dialogue: 0,0:17:25.79,0:17:27.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它是关于共产主义的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's about a communalism.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:29.73,0:17:34.93,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对这些早期作者来说，相交对救恩是必不可少的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}For these early writers, communion is essential for salvation.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:35.86,0:17:44.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这里的假设是，离开圣餐就很难或不可能得救。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The assumption here is that it would be difficult or impossible to be saved apart from the Eucharist.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:44.50,0:17:50.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}救恩不会发生在你作为一个独行侠基督徒的身上。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Salvation doesn't happen on your own as a lone ranger Christian.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:51.58,0:17:53.66,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}通过并在圣餐桌上。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Through and at the table.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:53.76,0:18:01.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，因为圣餐桌是你领受基督的身体并成为基督的身体的地方。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, because the table is where you receive the body of Christ and become the body of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:01.11,0:18:10.51,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是为什么，你知道，正是这些人，特土良和\N西普里安，如此坚持认为教会之外没有救恩。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so this is why, you know, exactly these people, Tertullian and Cyprian, were so adamant that there is no salvation outside the church.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:11.27,0:18:18.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}西普里安甚至说，谁不以教会为母，就不能以神为父。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Cyprian went so far as to say, whoever does not have the church for a mother cannot have God for a father.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:19.13,0:18:22.05,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}谁不以教会为母，就不能以神为父。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Whoever does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:22.05,0:18:22.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}为什么？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Why?
Dialogue: 0,0:18:23.07,0:18:25.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为教会是圣餐所在之处。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because the Church is where the Eucharist is.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:25.88,0:18:30.02,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以如果你在教会之外，你就在圣餐之外。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So if you're outside the Church, you're outside the Eucharist.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:30.22,0:18:35.06,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是为什么逐出教会是如此严重的事。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And that's why excommunication was such a heavy matter.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:36.42,0:18:38.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，继续往下说。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Alright, moving along.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:38.48,0:18:40.06,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}米兰的安布罗修。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Ambrose of Milan.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:40.06,0:18:49.37,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在你记得米兰的安布罗修，因为他是米兰的主教，是奥古斯丁的导师。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now you remember Ambrose of Milan because he was the bishop of Milan who was the mentor of Augustus.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:51.23,0:18:54.61,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我们要谈谈安布罗修，然后我们要谈谈奥古斯丁。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so we're going to talk about Ambrose, and then we're going to talk about Augustine.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:55.31,0:19:09.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}米兰的安布罗修使用figura这个词，即预表，他在处理记号的概念。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Ambrose of Milan uses the word figura, figure, and he's working with the concept of signs.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:09.44,0:19:19.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以基本上他是说饼和酒是预表，指向身体和血的更深层现实。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so basically he's saying that the bread and wine are figures,  Which point to the deeper reality of the body and blood.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:20.05,0:19:24.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}再次强调，我使用「指向」这个短语，但它不仅仅是这样。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And again, I'm using the phrase point to, but it's more than that.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:24.75,0:19:29.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在祝圣时，记号成为现实。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The sign becomes the reality at the consecration.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:29.91,0:19:32.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}记号成为现实。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The sign becomes the reality.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:33.98,0:19:38.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我们仍在延续爱任纽关于「成为」的语言。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So again, we're still picking up on this language from Irenaeus about becoming.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:38.74,0:19:41.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}饼成为基督的身体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The bread becomes the body of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:41.33,0:19:43.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}酒成为基督的血。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The wine becomes the blood of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:43.62,0:19:49.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}元素的转变，元素被转变为身体和血。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And the conversion of the elements, the elements are converted into the body and blood.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:49.98,0:19:53.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但这并不是真正的物质转变。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But this is not really a material conversion.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:53.70,0:19:57.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这不是关于事物的物质性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's not about the physicality of the thing.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:57.59,0:20:01.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}饼和酒的物质性仍然存在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The physicality of the bread and wine remains.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:02.35,0:20:16.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是潜在的现实成为身体和血，这些是你只能用属灵的眼睛，用信心的眼睛才能看到的东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It is the underlying reality  It is the underlying reality that become the body and blood, and those are the things that you can only see with spiritual eyes, with the eyes of faith.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:16.70,0:20:26.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你的肉眼，你的人眼，仍会看到饼和酒，但用信心的眼睛你能看到基督的身体和血。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Your physical eyes, your human eyes, will still see bread and wine, but with the eyes of faith you can see the body and blood of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:29.72,0:20:36.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}开始从你所知道的本质这个词的含义来思考这个问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Begin to think of this in terms of what you know about what the word essence means.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:37.58,0:20:46.45,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这些元素有一种不变的物质可触性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That there is a material tangibility to these elements that does not change.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:47.39,0:20:50.29,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但元素的本质发生了变化。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the essence of the elements changes.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:50.29,0:20:54.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}饼的本质成为基督的身体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The essence of the bread becomes the body of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:54.67,0:20:57.17,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}酒的本质成为基督的血。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The essence of the wine becomes the blood of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:57.50,0:20:59.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是安布罗修所说的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So that's what Ambrose is saying.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:59.14,0:21:03.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}再次说明，如果你面前有那个图表，如果没有，你可以稍后看看。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And again, if you have that chart in front of you, if you don't, you can look at it later.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:03.30,0:21:14.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但如果你面前有那个图表，你会注意到它说饼和酒\N是预表，饼和酒成为身体和血，记号成为现实。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But if you have that chart in front of you, you'll notice that it says that the bread and wine are figures, the bread and wine become the body and blood, the sign becomes the reality.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:14.85,0:21:20.73,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，饼和酒是预表，基督的身体和血是现实。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, the bread and wine are the figures, the body and blood of Christ are the reality.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:20.73,0:21:29.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，安布罗修的学生奥古斯丁会稍微不同地表述。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, Ambrose is a student, Augustine,  is going to say it a little bit differently.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:29.62,0:21:33.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但在历史的这个时点，没有人认为这是一个争议。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But at this point in history, nobody thinks it's a controversy.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:33.74,0:21:35.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}没有人认为他们在互相争论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}No one thinks they're arguing against each other.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:35.85,0:21:41.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们基本上假设他们是一致的，只是表达方式略有不同。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They're basically assuming that they agree, but they're expressing it a little bit differently.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:41.31,0:21:47.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但是奥古斯丁，现在记住，奥古斯丁写了太多东西，你无法真正将他归类。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But Augustine, now remember, Augustine wrote so much that you can't really put him in a box.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:47.81,0:21:50.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他以不同的方式使用语言。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He uses the language different ways.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:50.82,0:22:10.65,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但有时他以相反的方式使用拉丁语。有时他用figu\Nra这个词来表示记号，就像特土良和安布罗修那样。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But sometimes he used the Latin language the opposite way  Sometimes he used the word figure-up to mean the sign, the same way Tertullian did and Ambrose.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:10.65,0:22:16.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}其他时候他用figura这个词来描述基督的身体和血。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Other times he used the word figure-up to describe the body and blood of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:17.75,0:22:20.29,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以很难确定他的立场。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so it's a little bit hard to pin him down.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:20.29,0:22:29.65,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但无论如何，这些元素仍然是成为现实的记号，更深层的属灵现实。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But either way, the elements are still the signs which become the reality, the deeper spiritual reality.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:29.65,0:22:33.56,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}记号是可以被感官感知的东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The signs are the things that are accessible to the senses.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:34.46,0:22:38.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现实在奥秘中，不能被感官感知。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The reality is in the mystery and not accessible to the senses.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:39.20,0:22:45.06,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以基督的身体和血是更大的现实，但它们不是有形的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the body and blood of Christ are the greater reality, but they're not tangible.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:46.18,0:23:08.05,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}就像水洗是内在恩典的外在记号一样，圣餐也是外在记号，\N即饼和酒，而内在的现实或本质的现实是基督的身体和血。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So just like water baptism is an outward sign of an inward grace, so the Eucharist is an outward sign, the bread and wine, and there's the inward reality or the reality of the essence in the body and blood of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:08.45,0:23:14.87,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以注意，安布罗修和奥古斯丁都在说基督的身体和血是现实。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So notice, both Ambrose and Augustine are saying that the body and blood of Christ are the reality.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:15.57,0:23:24.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而饼和酒是成为现实的记号、象征或预表。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And that the bread and wine are the sign or the symbol or the figure that become the reality.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:24.40,0:23:26.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}记得柏拉图吧，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Remember your Plato, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:23:26.38,0:23:35.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}柏拉图有这样的想法，物质世界实际上比精神世界更不真实。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Plato had this idea that the physical world is actually less real than the spiritual world.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:35.60,0:23:41.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}精神领域实际上比有形世界更真实。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That the realm of the spirit is actually more real than the tangible world.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:41.71,0:23:45.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们习惯于认为如果某物是有形的，它就是真实的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We're used to thinking that if something is tangible, it's real.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:45.64,0:23:54.10,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但柏拉图说，如果它是有形的，它只是精神领域中更真实事物的影子。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But Plato has said that if it's tangible, it's only a shadow of the thing that's more real in the spiritual realm.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:54.10,0:24:12.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是我们在这里讨论的内容，有形的饼和酒元素实际上是这个更大现实的\N记号或影子，如果你愿意这么说的话，但那个更大的现实是不可触摸的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And that's kind of what we're working with here, that the tangible elements of bread and wine are actually a sign or a shadow, if you will, of this greater reality, but that greater reality is not tangible.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:14.79,0:24:23.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以没有人说圣事只是一个象征，但他们用象征这个词实际上是在谈论饼和酒。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So no one is saying that the sacrament is only a symbol, but they're using the word symbol to actually talk about the bread and wine.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:25.34,0:24:31.87,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以在这一点上，这不是一个争论，实际上是关\N于奥古斯丁有时用不同的词来表达同样的事情。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So at this point it's not an argument, it's really about sometimes Augustine uses different words to say the same thing.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:32.45,0:24:45.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但他们都在说记号或象征成为现实，他们都在说这是一\N个奇迹，就像约翰福音中耶稣的奇迹被称为记号一样。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But they're both saying that the sign or the symbol becomes the reality, and they're both saying that it's a miracle, the way the miracles of Jesus are called signs in the Gospel of John.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:46.36,0:24:51.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，这不被认为是像奥古斯丁和伯拉纠那样的辩论或其他什么。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, this is not considered a debate like Augustine and Pelagius or anything like that.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:52.24,0:24:58.61,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}没有正式的教义，没有人被认为是异端，它就是它本来的样子。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}There was no formal dogma, no one was considered a heretic, it just sort of was what it was.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:59.41,0:25:03.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}直到9世纪，它才成为一个争议。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It wasn't until the 9th century that it became a controversy.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:04.63,0:25:13.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在9世纪或导致9世纪的过程中发生了两件事，使它成为一个争议，并引发了质疑。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And two things happened in the 9th century, or leading up to the 9th century, that turned it into a controversy and sort of called the question.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:16.75,0:25:23.66,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}发生的第一件事是北欧的传教化，基督教化。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The first thing that happened is the missionization, the Christianization of Northern Europe.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:25.73,0:25:45.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在北欧，异教比许多其他地方存在得更久，人们有一种集体记忆，认为祭司等同于巫师。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In Northern Europe, where paganism held on longer than many other places, you have a background where people have a collective memory of a tradition where priest equals wizard.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:46.00,0:25:49.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，我可能过于简化了，但请跟着我的思路。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, I may be oversimplifying that, but go with me.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:51.40,0:25:55.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}事实上，你可以想到福音书中的博士，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And, in fact, you can think of the Magi from the Gospels, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:25:55.82,0:25:57.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那些琐罗亚斯德教的祭司。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Zoroastrian priests.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:57.96,0:26:02.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你注意到Magi这个词是我们magic（魔法）这个词的来源吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And did you notice that the word Magi is where we get our word magic?
Dialogue: 0,0:26:03.56,0:26:04.31,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:26:04.87,0:26:05.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yes.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:05.71,0:26:10.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，魔术师，就像Magi，魔术师，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, for magician, like Magi, magician, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:26:10.27,0:26:24.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，在北欧，你有类似的情况，他们的传统包括这样的观念，即邪教的祭司拥有力量。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, in Northern Europe, you have a similar kind of situation where their tradition includes this idea that the priests of the cult  It has powers.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:26.14,0:26:33.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以现在想象，基督徒进去说，好的，我们有这个伟大的宗教，你们都应该加入。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So imagine now, Christians go in and they say, okay, we've got this great religion, you should all join.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:33.42,0:26:36.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}然后他们说，嗯，我们崇拜树。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And then they say, well, we worship the tree.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:36.67,0:26:43.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}传教士尽可能敏感地说，把斧头递给我。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And the missionary, with all the sensitivity that he can muster, says, hand me the axe.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:44.64,0:26:46.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们崇拜树，看着我。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We worship the tree, watch me.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:46.12,0:26:50.02,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我要砍倒这棵树，我们看看是否会有闪电击中我。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I'm going to cut down the tree and we'll see if lightning strikes me dead.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:50.02,0:26:54.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}于是我们砍倒了树，没有闪电，所以人们就皈依了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so we cut down the tree, no lightning, and so the people convert.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:54.22,0:26:57.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}再次说明，这也是过于简化了，但你明白了这个意思。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And again, that also is an oversimplification, but you get the idea.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:57.96,0:27:06.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以现在你有这样一种情况，这些皈依基督教的人来参加弥撒，他们看到了什么？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So now that you have a situation where there are these people who have been converted to Christianity,  They come to Mass, and what do they see?
Dialogue: 0,0:27:07.14,0:27:43.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们看到一个穿着他们从未见过的奇怪长袍的人，可能还戴着奇怪的帽子，\N说着拉丁语，做着看似魔术的事，把饼和酒变成基督的身体和血。他们举起\N圣体，用拉丁语说出耶稣的话，他说，这是我的身体，hocus, co\Nrpus, maus, hocus, corpus, maus, \Nhocus, hocus，然后hocus, hocus，魔术。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They see a man wearing funky robes that they've never seen before, maybe even a funky hat, speaking Latin, doing what appears to be a magic trick, turning bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ,  And they hold up the host, and they speak the words in Latin, the words of Jesus, where he says, this is my body, hocus, corpus, maus, hocus, corpus, maus, hocus, hocus, and hocus, hocus, magic trick.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:45.20,0:27:52.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}有些人会想知道我们是否需要稍微澄清一下这里发生的事。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Some people are going to wonder whether we need to clarify what's going on here a little bit.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:53.46,0:28:04.19,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}另一件将要发生的事是，随着欧洲成为一个帝国，特别是\N在查理大帝统治下，将会出现一个标准化礼仪的运动。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The other thing that's going to happen is that as Europe becomes an empire, under Charlemagne especially, there will be a movement towards the standardization of liturgy.
Dialogue: 0,0:28:04.19,0:28:10.13,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换句话说，如果欧洲要成为一个帝国，我们最好都以相同的方式进行礼仪。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In other words, if Europe's going to be an empire, we better all do liturgy the same.
Dialogue: 0,0:28:10.13,0:28:15.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这些事情汇集在一起，引发了质疑。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Those things kind of come together to call the question.
Dialogue: 0,0:28:23.19,0:28:33.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们来到9世纪，有两位重要的神学家写了关于圣餐的文件，你将要阅读这些文件。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We come to the ninth century and two important theologians who have written documents on the Eucharist that you're going to read.
Dialogue: 0,0:28:34.14,0:28:40.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}第一位是一个叫拉德伯特的人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And the first one is a guy named Rad Burtis.
Dialogue: 0,0:28:47.16,0:28:48.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，拉德伯特。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yeah, Rad Burtis.
Dialogue: 0,0:28:50.62,0:28:58.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}拉德伯特大约在860年去世，所以你可以看到我们现在在时间线上的位置。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Radford has died about the year 860, so you can see where we are in the timeline now.
Dialogue: 0,0:28:58.56,0:29:10.65,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他是科比修道院的一名修士，C-O-R-B-I-E，后来他成\N为了修道院院长，他写了一份名为《论主的身体和血》的文件。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He was a monk at the monastery of Corbie, C-O-R-B-I-E, later he became the abbot, and he wrote a document called On the Body and Blood of the Lord.
Dialogue: 0,0:29:11.15,0:29:12.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}《论主的身体和血》。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}On the Body and Blood of the Lord.
Dialogue: 0,0:29:13.35,0:29:19.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他在831年写的，844年修订，以防你在记分。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Wrote it in 831, revised it in 844, in case you're keeping score.
Dialogue: 0,0:29:20.15,0:29:22.49,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}《论主的身体和血》。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}on the body and blood of the Lord.
Dialogue: 0,0:29:22.49,0:29:26.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}基本上，拉德伯特只是阐述了我们刚刚讨论的内容。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And basically, Radbertus just lays out what we've just been talking about.
Dialogue: 0,0:29:26.68,0:29:32.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他遵循护教士、爱任纽、特土良，以及大部分安布罗修的观点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He follows the apologists, and Irenaeus, and Tertullian, and for the most part Ambrose.
Dialogue: 0,0:29:33.70,0:29:40.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他说在祝圣时，饼和酒的元素成为基督的身体和血。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And he says that at the consecration, the elements of bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:29:40.96,0:29:43.18,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一个奇迹正在发生。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And a miracle is taking place.
Dialogue: 0,0:29:43.91,0:29:45.61,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这不是魔术。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And it's not a magic trick.
Dialogue: 0,0:29:46.33,0:29:51.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这不像通灵会，不是说如果有人不相信它就不会发生。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's not like a seance, like if anybody doesn't believe it won't happen.
Dialogue: 0,0:29:51.55,0:29:56.66,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}奇迹的发生不需要参与者的信心。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It does not require the faith of the participants for the miracle to occur.
Dialogue: 0,0:29:56.66,0:30:08.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当然，参与者的信心对于奇迹的有效性和恩典的接受是必\N要的，但总的来说，奇迹发生仅仅是因为话语被说出。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Of course, the faith of a participant is necessary for the miracle to be effective, for the grace to be received, but in general the miracle happens simply because the words are said.
Dialogue: 0,0:30:09.89,0:30:20.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以他说，基督的身体和血隐藏在饼和酒的形象之下。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so he says, the body and blood  The body and blood of Christ are hidden underneath the figures of bread and wine.
Dialogue: 0,0:30:21.03,0:30:28.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以再次强调，饼和酒是形象，身体和血隐藏在形象之下。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So again, bread and wine are the figures, and the body and blood are hidden under the figures.
Dialogue: 0,0:30:29.43,0:30:31.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}饼和酒作为形象存在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The bread and wine are there as figures.
Dialogue: 0,0:30:31.80,0:30:34.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它们是象征性地存在的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They are figuratively present.
Dialogue: 0,0:30:35.50,0:30:39.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但身体和血是真实存在的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the body and blood are there in truth.
Dialogue: 0,0:30:40.16,0:30:41.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}真实地。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Truly.
Dialogue: 0,0:30:41.14,0:30:42.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它们是真实存在的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They are truly present.
Dialogue: 0,0:30:42.89,0:30:46.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在他正在直接引用生命之粮的讲论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now here he's working right off the bread of life discourse.
Dialogue: 0,0:30:46.42,0:30:50.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我的身体是真正的食物，我的血是真正的饮料。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}My body is true food, my blood is true drink.
Dialogue: 0,0:30:51.98,0:31:05.93,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}约翰福音6章55节。所以在祝圣之后，有身体\N和血的真实存在，但不再有饼和酒的真实存在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}John 6, 55. So after the consecration, there is the true presence of the body and blood, but no longer the true presence of the bread and wine.
Dialogue: 0,0:31:05.93,0:31:17.89,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}饼和酒仍然作为形象存在，但实质或本质，元素的本体已经变成了基督的身体和血。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The bread and wine are still there as figures, but the substance or the essence  The body of the elements has changed into the body and blood of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:31:18.41,0:31:29.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而且基督的身体必须是从马利亚所生并悬挂在十字\N架上的同一个身体，否则它对信徒就不会有效。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And that body of Christ must be the same body that was born of Mary and hung on the cross, or it can't be effective for believers.
Dialogue: 0,0:31:30.03,0:31:36.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它不是有形地存在，但它本质上是存在的，在其本质中存在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's not tangibly present, but it is essentially present, present in its essence.
Dialogue: 0,0:31:36.59,0:31:43.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是有形和物质与事物的本质或实质之间的区别。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This is the difference between what is tangible and material versus what is the essence or substance of a thing.
Dialogue: 0,0:31:44.81,0:31:55.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这整个奇迹之所以可能，记住，这不仅是从马利亚所生并悬\N挂在十字架上的基督的肉体，而且是复活的基督的身体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This whole miracle is possible because, remember, this is not only the flesh of Christ that was born of Mary and hung on the cross, but it is the body of Christ that was raised.
Dialogue: 0,0:31:55.24,0:32:01.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为它是复活的身体，所以这个奇迹发生了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so because it's the resurrected body, this miracle takes place.
Dialogue: 0,0:32:01.44,0:32:10.61,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，再次强调，真实存在并不意味着有形或物质存在，而是意味着本质存在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, again, true presence does not mean tangible or physical presence, but it means essential presence.
Dialogue: 0,0:32:12.91,0:32:18.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}基本上，这将成为变质说的概念，但我们还没有这个词。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And basically, this is going to be the concept of transubstantiation, but we don't have that word yet.
Dialogue: 0,0:32:19.31,0:32:20.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我们会讲到那里。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So we'll get there.
Dialogue: 0,0:32:21.49,0:32:24.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，这就是拉德伯特所说的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, this is what Radvertis says.
Dialogue: 0,0:32:24.90,0:32:48.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}法兰克人的国王，查理大帝的孙子，名叫秃头查理，后来他会成为神圣罗马帝\N国皇帝，秃头查理，我不知道这个名字是字面意思还是讽刺，我真的不知道。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And the king of the Franks, grandson of Charlemagne, whose name is Charles the Bald, later he would be the Holy Roman Emperor,  Charles the Bald, I have no idea if that name is literal or ironic, I have no idea.
Dialogue: 0,0:32:48.48,0:32:51.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不，不，这是一个描述。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}No, no, it's a description.
Dialogue: 0,0:32:51.11,0:32:53.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}秃头查理。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Charles the Bald.
Dialogue: 0,0:32:56.23,0:33:04.33,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}秃头查理读了拉德伯特关于主的身体和血的文件，就像你将要读的那样，他不太确定。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Charles the Bald read Radford as his document on the body and blood of the Lord, as you will, and he wasn't sure.
Dialogue: 0,0:33:04.86,0:33:12.33,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他认为这可能过分强调了与基督物质身体的联系。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He thought maybe this overemphasized the connection with Christ's physical body.
Dialogue: 0,0:33:12.55,0:33:23.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以他提出了一个问题，基督的身体和血在圣餐中是真实存在还是以奥秘的方式存在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so he posed the question, whether the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist are present in truth or in a mystery.
Dialogue: 0,0:33:24.38,0:33:25.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}到底是哪一种？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Which is it?
Dialogue: 0,0:33:28.18,0:33:31.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是真实的还是奥秘的？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In truth or in a mystery?
Dialogue: 0,0:33:32.32,0:33:41.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，剧透警告，我要直接告诉你，这有点像问你，你喜欢乡村还是你带午餐？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, spoiler alert, I'm going to tell you right up front, it's a little bit like asking you, do you prefer the country or do you bring your lunch?
Dialogue: 0,0:33:47.24,0:33:51.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但请跟随我的思路，因为这就是他提出问题的方式。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But go with me here, because this was the way he posed the question.
Dialogue: 0,0:33:51.29,0:33:57.41,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}基督的身体和血是真实存在还是以奥秘的方式存在？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Are the body and blood of Christ present in truth or in a mystery?
Dialogue: 0,0:33:58.65,0:34:08.13,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，回应拉德伯特的是另一位修士，也在科比修道院，名叫拉特拉姆努斯。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, responding to Radhartus is another monk, also at the monastery of Corby, named Radtranus.
Dialogue: 0,0:34:09.30,0:34:13.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}顺便说一下，如果你们中有人有双胞胎，这些是给双胞胎起名的好名字。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And by the way, if any of you have twins, these are great names for twins.
Dialogue: 0,0:34:13.80,0:34:23.81,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我总是谈论从早期教会历史中可以得到多么好的婴\N儿名字，有人曾回应说，你为什么讨厌我的孩子？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I always talk about what great baby names you can get out of early church history, and someone once responded with, why do you hate my children?
Dialogue: 0,0:34:26.01,0:34:46.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好吧，也许你不会给你的孩子起名拉德伯特和拉特拉姆努斯，但拉\N特拉姆努斯是拉德伯特的同时代人，大约在868年晚几年去世，\N所以秃头查理委托拉特拉姆努斯写一篇回应拉德伯特文件的文章。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, alright, maybe you won't name your kids Rad-Verdus and Rad-Tramnus, but Rad-Tramnus is a contemporary of Rad-Verdus, died a few years later about 868, and so Charles the Bald commissioned Rad-Tramnus to write a response to Rad-Verdus' document.
Dialogue: 0,0:34:46.79,0:34:52.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}拉特拉姆努斯写了一份文件，巧妙地取名为《论主的身体和血》。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And Ratramnus wrote a document, cleverly titled, On the Body and Blood of the Lord.
Dialogue: 0,0:34:53.05,0:34:54.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}同样的标题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Same title.
Dialogue: 0,0:34:54.16,0:34:59.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，在你将要在补充书中阅读的翻译中，他们给了它一个不同的标题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, in the translation that you're going to read in the supplemental book, they give it a different title.
Dialogue: 0,0:34:59.64,0:35:18.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但基本上，拉特拉姆努斯写作时好像他在反驳拉德伯特，但他并不是真的在反驳拉德\N伯特，他是在反驳对拉德伯特的讽刺漫画，因为他在反驳拉德伯特从未说过的事情。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But basically, Ratramnus writes as though he's  He seems to be arguing against Radbertus, but he's not really arguing against Radbertus, he's arguing against the caricature of Radbertus, because he's arguing against things Radbertus never says.
Dialogue: 0,0:35:20.28,0:35:26.31,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}最后，拉特拉姆努斯基本上说的几乎和拉德伯特完全一样。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And in the end, Radtramnus basically says almost the exact same stuff as Radbertus.
Dialogue: 0,0:35:26.89,0:35:34.45,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但他不舒服的是，就像秃头查理一样，是拉德伯特对耶稣历史身体的强调。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But what he was uncomfortable with, like Charles de Paul, was Radbertus' emphasis on Jesus' historical body.
Dialogue: 0,0:35:35.43,0:36:01.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，他从奥古斯丁使用不同语言的地方开始，试图基本上说f\Nigure这个词不应该用于饼和酒，而应该用于身体和血。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So,  He picked up where Augustine used the language differently and tried to basically say that the word figure should be used not of the bread and wine, but of the body and blood.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:02.34,0:36:08.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以他说基督的身体和血是存在的，但是是象征性地存在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So that he said that the body and blood of Christ is present,  but figuratively.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:08.72,0:36:13.46,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在注意，这里的「象征性地」不是「真实地」的反义词。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now notice here figuratively is not the opposite of truly.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:13.70,0:36:17.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对他来说，「象征性地」是「字面上」的反义词。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Figuratively for him is the opposite of literally.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:17.92,0:36:19.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这就是拉特拉姆努斯的想法。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So here's what Radtramus is thinking.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:19.95,0:36:24.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，我可以触摸和品尝饼和酒。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, I can touch and taste the bread and wine.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:24.57,0:36:27.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以它们是字面上存在的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So they are present literally.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:27.35,0:36:32.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，基督的身体和血不是字面上存在，而是象征性地存在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Therefore the body and blood of Christ are present not literally but figuratively.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:35.47,0:36:41.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以他在那里使用figure这个词，指的是隐藏或遮蔽的东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so the figure, so he's using the word figure there as the thing which is hidden or veiled.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:41.70,0:36:45.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以他说的基本上和拉德伯特一样。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So he's saying kind of the same thing as Brad Burns.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:45.38,0:36:51.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}身体和血隐藏在饼和酒之下或被饼和酒遮蔽。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The body and blood are hidden under or veiled behind the bread and wine.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:53.02,0:36:56.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}问题是，真实的定义是什么？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The issue is, what is the definition of true?
Dialogue: 0,0:36:58.45,0:37:00.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}真实的定义是什么？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What is the definition of true?
Dialogue: 0,0:37:00.97,0:37:19.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为对拉德伯特来说，真实是更深层的现实。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because for  For Radbertus, true is the deeper reality.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:19.94,0:37:25.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对拉特拉姆努斯来说，真实是字面上的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}For Rattranus, true is the literal.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:25.26,0:37:30.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在字面层面上存在的，你可以用感官感知到的东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What exists on the literal level that you can access with your senses.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:32.56,0:37:37.72,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，拉特拉姆努斯并不是说属灵的存在不那么真实。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, Travis is not saying that the spiritual presence is any less real.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:38.38,0:37:40.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他只是说它以奥秘的方式存在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He's just saying it's there as a mystery.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:40.70,0:37:42.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这取决于信心。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It depends on faith.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:42.43,0:37:44.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你用信心的眼睛看到它。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You see it with the eyes of faith.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:45.35,0:37:51.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但对他来说，真实存在的是饼和酒，因为它们是有形的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But for him, it's the bread and wine that are there in truth, because they're tangible.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:51.63,0:37:53.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}身体和血是以象征的方式存在的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The body and blood are there in a figure.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:54.81,0:37:58.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，让我看一下我的图表。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, let me just glance at my chart here.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:58.27,0:38:11.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果你在跟随，你可以在图表上看到，你知道，拉德\N伯特在右列，饼和酒是象征，身体和血是真实的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If you're following along,  You can see on the chart that, you know, Radbertus is on the right column, the bread and wine are the figure, the body and blood are true.
Dialogue: 0,0:38:13.42,0:38:18.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对拉特拉姆努斯来说，饼和酒是真实的，而身体和血是象征。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}For Radtramnus, the bread and wine are true, and the body and blood are the figure.
Dialogue: 0,0:38:18.82,0:38:36.41,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，你看到他们如何不同地使用语言，但他们都在说基督的身体和血是存在的，以\N一种奥秘的、神秘的方式存在，这种方式可以通过信心接触到，但不能通过感官。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, you see how they're using language differently, but they're both saying that the body and blood of Christ are present,  In a mystery, in a mystical way that is accessible to faith, but not to the senses.
Dialogue: 0,0:38:37.29,0:38:43.49,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}只是对拉特拉姆努斯来说，真实的是字面上的，或表面上的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's just that for Radtrandan, what is true is what is literal, or on the surface.
Dialogue: 0,0:38:44.65,0:38:50.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}属灵的存在并不是不真实，只是因为它不在表面上所以不被称为真实。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The spiritual presence is no less real, it just isn't called true because it's not on the surface.
Dialogue: 0,0:38:55.28,0:39:09.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，他们都在说有一个变化，他们都在说元素的本质变成了\N基督身体和血的本质，但他们对「真实」这个词的使用不同。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, they're both saying that there's a change, they're both saying that the essence of the elements become the essence of the body and blood of Christ, but they're using the word true differently.
Dialogue: 0,0:39:10.48,0:39:19.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们都声称忠实地呈现了奥古斯丁和安布罗修的教导。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And both of them will claim to be faithfully presenting what both Augustine and Ambrose taught.
Dialogue: 0,0:39:20.11,0:39:31.31,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们都将圣餐与约翰福音第6章的生命之粮讲论\N联系起来。他们都在说在圣餐中发生了奇迹。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Both of them are connecting the Eucharist to the Bread of Life discourse in John 6. Both of them are saying that something miraculous happens in the Eucharist.
Dialogue: 0,0:39:32.55,0:39:39.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们都会说有形的、物质的部分没有改变，但改变的是潜在的本质。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Both of them would say that the tangible, physical part does not change, but it's the underlying essence that changes.
Dialogue: 0,0:39:40.86,0:39:52.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们都会说，当耶稣说「你们要常在我里面，我也常在你们里面」时\N，这就是耶稣如何常在我们里面，通过在圣餐中将他接入我们自己。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And both of them would say that when Jesus said, remain in me and I will remain in you, that this is how Jesus remains in us, by taking him into ourselves in the Eucharist.
Dialogue: 0,0:39:52.75,0:40:01.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}问题在于figura（象征）和veritas（真实）这两个术语。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The problem is with the terms figura and veritas, truth.
Dialogue: 0,0:40:02.91,0:40:08.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}什么是象征性存在的，什么是真实存在的？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What is there figuratively and what is there in truth?
Dialogue: 0,0:40:08.53,0:40:14.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对拉德伯特来说，真实的是潜在的本质。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}For Radvernus, what is true is that which is the underlying essence.
Dialogue: 0,0:40:15.64,0:40:23.65,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对拉特拉姆努斯来说，真实的是表面上的、明显的、可以通过感官感知的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}For Radtramnus, what is true is that which is on the surface and plain and accessible to the senses.
Dialogue: 0,0:40:26.81,0:40:35.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以他们都接受基督的身体和血确实存在的观点，但问题是他们如何定义真实？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So they would both accept the idea that  The body and blood of Christ are really there, but the question is how do they define truth?
Dialogue: 0,0:40:39.34,0:40:44.19,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们都不会说它只是象征性的或类似的东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Neither of them would say that it's only symbolic or anything like that.
Dialogue: 0,0:40:44.19,0:40:46.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}仍然有奇迹发生。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}There's still a miracle taking place.
Dialogue: 0,0:40:46.25,0:40:57.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以问题是，在回答秃头查理的问题时，基督的\N身体和血是真实存在还是以奥秘的方式存在？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the problem is that in answer to the question to Charles Duval, are the body and blood of Christ present in truth or in a mystery?
Dialogue: 0,0:40:57.64,0:40:59.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}拉德伯特会说两者都是。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Radvertis would say both.
Dialogue: 0,0:41:00.84,0:41:06.41,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}基督的身体和血是真实存在的，也是以奥秘的方式存在的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The body and blood of Christ are present in truth and in a mystery.
Dialogue: 0,0:41:07.17,0:41:13.17,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}拉特拉姆努斯会说，只是奥秘，因为真实的是字面上的和有形的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Radtramnis would say, mystery only, because what is true is the literal and tangible.
Dialogue: 0,0:41:13.97,0:41:20.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但两人都同意存在一个属灵的现实，这是一个奥秘，即基督身体和血的存在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But both would agree that there is a spiritual reality that is a mystery that is the presence of the body and blood of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:41:20.67,0:41:23.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它们只是无法通过感官感知。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They're just not accessible to the senses.
Dialogue: 0,0:41:25.86,0:41:40.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}拉特拉姆努斯会说它只是一个真理或只是一个奥秘。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Ragtranus would say it's only a truth or only a mystery.
Dialogue: 0,0:41:41.26,0:41:45.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在他们的有生之年，这两种观点都没有被视为异端。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Neither of these were considered heresy within their lifetimes.
Dialogue: 0,0:41:46.30,0:41:58.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但后来，拉特拉姆努斯的文件会重新浮出水面，当时人\N们甚至不记得是谁写的了，但后来它会被视为异端。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But later on, Ragtranus, his document will resurface when  they don't even remember who wrote it anymore, but it will be considered heresy later.
Dialogue: 0,0:41:59.35,0:42:04.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我现在需要跳到11世纪继续这个故事。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So I need to jump now to the 11th century and continue the story.
Dialogue: 0,0:42:08.19,0:42:13.33,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在我们快进到11世纪之前，关于拉德伯特和拉特拉姆努斯有什么问题吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Any questions about Radbertus and Radtramnus before we fast forward to the 11th century?
Dialogue: 0,0:42:15.70,0:42:19.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Alright.
Dialogue: 0,0:42:19.28,0:42:20.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}11世纪。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}11th century.
Dialogue: 0,0:42:22.59,0:42:23.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}贝伦加。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Berengar.
Dialogue: 0,0:42:24.86,0:42:26.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}图尔的贝伦加。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Berengar of Tours.
Dialogue: 0,0:42:28.18,0:42:30.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他也在图表上。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And again, he is on the chart as well.
Dialogue: 0,0:42:32.54,0:42:35.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，同样是图尔，但没有关系。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, same Tours, but not related.
Dialogue: 0,0:42:39.21,0:42:47.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以图尔的贝伦加读了拉特拉姆努斯和拉德伯特的\N文件，但他不知道是谁写的拉特拉姆努斯的文件。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So Berengar of Tours reads both Radtramnus and Radvertus, but again, he doesn't know who wrote the Radtramnus document.
Dialogue: 0,0:42:47.53,0:42:51.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他读了这两份文件，他更喜欢拉特拉姆努斯的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He reads them both, and he likes Radtramnus better.
Dialogue: 0,0:42:52.83,0:43:01.37,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他向他的朋友，坎特伯雷的兰弗朗克倾诉。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And he confides in his friend, Lanfranc of Canterbury.
Dialogue: 0,0:43:01.37,0:43:09.19,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他打电话给老兰弗朗克说，你知道，我真的更喜欢这另一份文件。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He calls up old Lanfranc and says, you know, I really like this other document better.
Dialogue: 0,0:43:09.27,0:43:16.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我真的认为这另一份文件，指的是拉特拉姆努斯的文件\N，我真的认为这另一份文件更忠实于奥古斯丁的观点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I really think this other document, meaning the Retramnus document, I really think this other document is more faithful to Augustine.
Dialogue: 0,0:43:16.53,0:43:19.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但再次强调，他甚至不知道是谁写的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But again, he doesn't even know who wrote it.
Dialogue: 0,0:43:23.21,0:43:43.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}贝伦加将其解释为，是的，有一个转变，元素的本质或实质\N成为基督的身体和血，但饼和酒的本质不能就这样消失。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Berengar is interpreting it as if it says, yes, there's a conversion, the essence or the substance of the elements become the body and blood of Christ, but the essence of bread and wine can't just go away.
Dialogue: 0,0:43:43.30,0:43:50.18,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以他推测饼和酒的实质仍然存在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So he speculated that the substance of the bread and wine remain.
Dialogue: 0,0:43:50.84,0:44:06.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换句话说，基督身体和血的本质或实质是存在的，但\N饼和酒的本质或实质并没有消失，它们也仍然存在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So in other words,  The essence or substance of the body and blood of Christ are present, but the essence or substance of the bread and wine don't just go away, they are still present as well.
Dialogue: 0,0:44:06.76,0:44:15.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这实际上将被称为共质说，而不是变质说。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This will actually come to be called, not transubstantiation, but consubstantiation.
Dialogue: 0,0:44:21.86,0:44:34.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}再次说明，我有点超前了，但共质说的观点是，当圣餐完成\N后，你所拥有的是饼和酒的元素以及基督身体和血的本质。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Again, I'm getting ahead of myself, but consubstantiation is the idea that when the Eucharist is all said and done, what you have is the essence of both the elements of bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:44:35.08,0:44:38.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，是贝伦加提出了这个观点？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, Berengar came up with that?
Dialogue: 0,0:44:38.16,0:44:42.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，贝伦加通过阅读拉特拉姆努斯的文件提出了这个观点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yes, Berengar comes up with this from reading Red Tramp.
Dialogue: 0,0:44:42.90,0:44:45.98,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他是第一个使用共质说这个词的人吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Is he the first one to use the word consubstantiation?
Dialogue: 0,0:44:45.98,0:44:47.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不，他甚至没有使用这个词。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}No, he doesn't even use that word.
Dialogue: 0,0:44:47.48,0:44:50.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我会说这个词后来才出现，但他已经有了这个想法。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I would say that will become that later, but he's got the idea.
Dialogue: 0,0:44:52.16,0:44:58.66,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以记住我说他向他的朋友兰弗朗克倾诉，给他写了一封\N信说，我真的喜欢这份文件，我认为这就是它所说的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So remember I said he confided in his friend, Lanfranc, sends him a letter and says, I really like this document and I think this is what it's saying.
Dialogue: 0,0:44:58.66,0:45:03.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}兰弗朗克把这封信交给了教宗，让他陷入了麻烦。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And Lanfranc gives the letter to the Pope and got him in trouble.
Dialogue: 0,0:45:04.31,0:45:18.21,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，贝伦加在大约1051年被定为异端。在1059\N年的一次会议上他受到质询，他和那份文件随后被定罪。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so Berengar is condemned as a heretic in about the year 1051.  And it was confronted at a council in 1059, and he and the document were then condemned.
Dialogue: 0,0:45:18.21,0:45:27.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这份文件现在被定罪了，你知道，这是在拉特拉姆努斯写它近200年后。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the document gets condemned now, you know, almost 200 years after Radtramnus wrote it.
Dialogue: 0,0:45:30.07,0:45:35.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它们被称为第四次拉特兰会议的异端吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They were called heresies of the fourth Lateran council?
Dialogue: 0,0:45:35.26,0:45:36.66,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}拉特兰会议。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Lateran council.
Dialogue: 0,0:45:36.66,0:45:38.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，正是第四次拉特兰会议。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yes, the fourth Lateran council, exactly.
Dialogue: 0,0:45:39.79,0:45:42.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们对此有什么问题？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What was the problem they had with that?
Dialogue: 0,0:45:42.55,0:45:57.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，问题是它似乎没有足够强调与人性耶稣的物质身体的联系。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, the problem is that it doesn't seem to go far enough to emphasize the connection with the physical body of the human Jesus.
Dialogue: 0,0:45:57.64,0:46:02.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换句话说，记住，这从一开始就是拉特拉姆努斯的担忧。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In other words, remember, that was Radtramnus' concern from the beginning.
Dialogue: 0,0:46:02.74,0:46:09.37,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}拉特拉姆努斯认为拉德伯特过分强调耶稣的物质身体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Radtramnus thought Radvertis had gone too far towards the emphasis of the physical body of Jesus.
Dialogue: 0,0:46:09.55,0:46:18.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以现在，读到贝伦加的观点，他们说，哦，我们正在失去与人性耶稣的物质身体的联系。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So now, reading Berenard, they're saying, uh-oh, we're losing the connection to the physical body of the human Jesus.
Dialogue: 0,0:46:18.52,0:46:20.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那么，他们怎么做？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, what do they do?
Dialogue: 0,0:46:20.28,0:46:48.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，教宗的一位枢机主教，顺便说一下，这位枢机主教是翁贝托或洪贝尔。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, one of the Pope's cardinals  This cardinal, by the way,  Umberto or Humbert.
Dialogue: 0,0:46:48.66,0:46:51.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们稍后会再次遇到他，这就是为什么我在答案中提到他。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We're going to meet him again later, that's why I put in the answer.
Dialogue: 0,0:46:51.32,0:47:13.17,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}洪贝尔枢机主教为贝伦加写了一份忏悔书让他签署，这份忏悔书走向了\N另一个极端，说当我们领受圣餐时，我们实际上是在咀嚼基督的肉。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Cardinal Humbert writes a confession for Baradar to sign that goes to the other extreme of the biblical, saying that when we receive the Eucharist, we are literally chewing the flesh of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:47:14.78,0:47:17.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你知道，所以他走向了那个极端。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And, you know, so he goes way to that extreme.
Dialogue: 0,0:47:18.80,0:47:31.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但是，你知道，教会正在寻找那个中间道路，所以，你知道\N，一个极端可能是，我猜，与基督的物质身体没有联系。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But, you know, the church is looking for that middle way, and so, you know, one extreme would be, I guess, no connection with Christ's physical body.
Dialogue: 0,0:47:31.34,0:47:37.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}另一个极端是与基督的物质身体联系过多，以至于你在咀嚼圣餐饼时还在想着它。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The other extreme would be too much connection to Christ's physical body so that you're thinking about it while you're chewing the wafer.
Dialogue: 0,0:47:37.71,0:47:38.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right?
Dialogue: 0,0:47:44.26,0:47:51.100,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，兰弗朗克出现了，他写了一份名为《论身体\N和血》的文件，他在其中遵循了拉德伯特的观点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, Len Frank comes along and he writes a document called On the Body and Blood, where he follows Brad Birdis.
Dialogue: 0,0:47:51.100,0:47:56.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，你可以这样看待它。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, you could just kind of look at it like this.
Dialogue: 0,0:47:56.40,0:48:01.46,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，但他后来成为了候选人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yeah, but he was a candidate later.
Dialogue: 0,0:48:01.46,0:48:02.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well.
Dialogue: 0,0:48:06.32,0:48:30.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，兰弗朗克在这里所做的很重要，因为在我们深入中世纪哲学\N之前，这是极其重要的，因为他为公教会对圣餐的官方理解奠定了\N基础，这一点你可能已经知道，将成为新教改革中的一个问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, what L'Enfant does here is important, because before we get too deep into medieval philosophy, and this is extremely important, because he sets the stage  for the official Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, which, as you probably already know, will be one of the issues in the Protestant Reformation.
Dialogue: 0,0:48:30.32,0:48:33.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}也许从路德的角度来看不是那么多，但后来会是。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Maybe not so much from Luther's perspective, but later.
Dialogue: 0,0:48:33.60,0:48:36.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以你需要理解它。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So you need to understand it.
Dialogue: 0,0:48:36.30,0:48:40.10,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这真的为托马斯·阿奎那将要做的事情奠定了基础。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And this really sets the stage for what Thomas Aquinas will do.
Dialogue: 0,0:48:41.14,0:49:03.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}基本上，兰弗朗克所做的是他明确区分了元素的外在属性或方\N面（这些是有形的和可以通过感官感知的）和事物的本质。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And basically, what Lanfranc does is he makes clear the distinction between  The external attributes or aspects of the elements that are tangible and accessible to the senses and the essence of the thing.
Dialogue: 0,0:49:04.32,0:49:08.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}希望在接下来的15分钟内这一切都会变得清晰。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Hopefully this will all be clear within the next 15 minutes.
Dialogue: 0,0:49:09.45,0:49:14.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你们将能够欣喜地回家，因为我解释得如此清晰。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You'll be able to go home rejoicing over the clarity of which I explained.
Dialogue: 0,0:49:17.83,0:49:56.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，兰弗朗克区分了可感知的表面、可通过感官接触到的饼和酒\N元素的外部方面或属性，与本质、实质或潜在现实之间的区别。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, von Frank is making a distinction between the tangible surface accessible to the senses external aspects or attributes of the elements of bread and wine versus  The essence, substance, or underlying reality.
Dialogue: 0,0:49:56.59,0:50:06.31,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}看到我们要去哪里了吗，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}See where we're going with this, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:50:07.49,0:50:19.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}事实上，我应该说，后来阿奎那会澄清这一点，这就是后来被称为偶性的东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In fact, I should say that later on, Aquinas will clarify this, that  This is what will come to be called the accident.
Dialogue: 0,0:50:19.92,0:50:21.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}记得我们讨论过这个。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Remember we talked about this.
Dialogue: 0,0:50:21.40,0:50:24.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}偶性并不意味着意外发生的事情。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Accident doesn't mean something that happens by mistake.
Dialogue: 0,0:50:24.16,0:50:30.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它指的是某种与事物本质相切的东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It means something that is sort of tangential to the essence of a thing.
Dialogue: 0,0:50:30.24,0:50:44.45,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，它对事物本身来说不是必要的，而本质或实质是使事物成为事物的东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, it is not essential to the thing as it is, whereas the essence or substance is what makes a thing a thing.
Dialogue: 0,0:50:45.34,0:50:48.09,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}谢谢观看！\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Thank you for watching!
Dialogue: 0,0:51:11.78,0:51:15.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是不是外部并不完全包含内部？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's that the external doesn't exactly embrace the internal?
Dialogue: 0,0:51:15.90,0:51:16.72,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}可能是的，是的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It could be, yes.
Dialogue: 0,0:51:16.72,0:51:19.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我认为你说到点子上了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I think you're onto something there.
Dialogue: 0,0:51:21.46,0:51:34.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为我们这里讨论的是偶性和实质之间的区别，所以实质是潜在的现实。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because what we have here is the difference between the accident and the, we'll use the word substance,  And so the substance is the underlying reality.
Dialogue: 0,0:51:34.01,0:51:37.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}实质是事物的真实现实，是它的本质。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The substance is the true reality of the thing, the essence of it.
Dialogue: 0,0:51:37.92,0:51:41.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}偶性是外在表现。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The actives are the outward appearance.
Dialogue: 0,0:51:41.24,0:51:47.46,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}虽然外在表现更容易被感官感知，但它不是事物的本质。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And while the outward appearance is more accessible to the senses, it isn't the essence of the thing.
Dialogue: 0,0:51:49.10,0:51:58.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们这里所说的是，饼和酒的偶性并不改变。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What we have here then is that the accidents of bread and wine do not change.
Dialogue: 0,0:52:06.18,0:52:11.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为在祝圣之后，显然，你看到的仍然是饼和酒\N，如果你品尝它，你仍然会尝到饼和酒的味道。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because after the consecration, obviously, you're still looking at bread and wine, and if you taste it, you'll still taste bread and wine.
Dialogue: 0,0:52:11.68,0:52:19.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而且，上帝禁止，如果你拿一个跑出教堂，跑到街\N上，把它放在显微镜下，你仍然会看到饼和酒。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And, God forbid, if you grab one and run out to church and run down the street and put it under a microscope, you will still see bread and wine.
Dialogue: 0,0:52:21.60,0:52:28.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}虽然，如果引座员尽职地攻击你，你可以强行把它拿出来。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Although, if the ushers are doing their job to attack you, you can force it out.
Dialogue: 0,0:52:29.30,0:52:37.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但饼和酒的实质被转变为基督的身体和血的实质。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the substance of bread and wine  is converted into the substance of the body and blood of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:52:37.48,0:52:50.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以基督的身体和血隐藏在饼和酒的形式或形象之下，但实质，事物的本质发生了变化。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the body and blood of Christ are hidden under the form or the figure of bread and wine, but the substance, the essence of the thing changes.
Dialogue: 0,0:52:50.26,0:53:06.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这种看法在某年被确认为圣餐的官方解释。所以变质说的教义是这样的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This way of looking at it was affirmed as the official interpretation of the Eucharist in the year  So the doctrine of transubstantiation is this.
Dialogue: 0,0:53:26.96,0:53:30.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}实质发生变化，而偶性不变。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}that the substance changes while the accidents do not.
Dialogue: 0,0:53:31.41,0:53:39.61,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}基督的身体和血的实质被认为在饼和酒的偶性之下。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And the substance of the body and blood of Christ are said to be under the accidents of bread and wine.
Dialogue: 0,0:53:39.61,0:53:47.21,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，隐藏在下面，被遮蔽在下面，无论你怎么说，它们都在饼和酒的偶性之下。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, hidden under, veiled under, however you want to say it, they are under the accidents of bread and wine.
Dialogue: 0,0:53:47.21,0:53:47.65,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}问题？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Question?
Dialogue: 0,0:53:47.65,0:53:59.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不，它们只是在下面，它们只是来到下面，它们不是一直在\N那里，只有当神父从祝圣开始，因为有一个变化正在发生。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}No, they're only under, they only come under, they're not under there all the time, only when the priest  From the consecration, because there's a change taking place.
Dialogue: 0,0:53:59.38,0:54:09.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以饼和酒的实质转变为基督的身体和血的实质。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the substance of bread and wine turns into the substance of the body and blood of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:54:09.30,0:54:15.72,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}再次强调，这一切都是可能的，因为这是基督复活的身体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And again, this is all possible because this is the resurrected body of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:54:15.72,0:54:24.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以圣餐的奇迹是基督持续复活显现的一部分。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the miracle of the Eucharist is part of the ongoing resurrection appearances of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:54:26.15,0:54:32.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但用预表、记号和象征这样的词来描述基督的身体和血将被视为异端。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But it will become heretical to use words like figure, sign, and symbol about the body and blood of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:54:32.03,0:54:35.65,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你只能用这些词来谈论饼和酒。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You can only use those words to talk about the bread and wine.
Dialogue: 0,0:54:35.65,0:54:41.18,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，让我给你一个比喻，看看这对你是否有用。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, let me give you my analogy and see if this works for you.
Dialogue: 0,0:54:41.20,0:54:44.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}想象一下圣诞礼物。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Think about a Christmas gift.
Dialogue: 0,0:54:45.20,0:54:47.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你在树下有一个圣诞礼物。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You have a Christmas gift under the tree.
Dialogue: 0,0:54:49.18,0:54:54.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你看到它在那里，你知道在圣诞节早晨你会打开它。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And you see it there, and you know that on Christmas morning you're going to get to open it.
Dialogue: 0,0:54:57.07,0:55:05.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，那个圣诞节，或者让我们称它为圣诞礼物，\N因为我想把「礼物」这个词保留给里面的东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, that Christmas, or let's call it a Christmas present, because I want to reserve the word gift for the thing inside.
Dialogue: 0,0:55:05.91,0:55:11.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这个圣诞礼物由两部分组成。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}There's this Christmas present that is made up of two things.
Dialogue: 0,0:55:11.82,0:55:20.49,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}里面有礼物，然后外面有包装，包括一个盒子、包装纸和蝴蝶结。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}There is the gift that is inside, and then there is the packaging, which is a box  wrapping paper and a bow.
Dialogue: 0,0:55:21.27,0:55:26.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，在这个比喻中，把饼和酒想象成包装。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, in this analogy, think of the bread and wine like the packaging.
Dialogue: 0,0:55:29.04,0:55:46.29,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，如果你这样想，比如说在12月23日，那个礼物\N放在树下，盒子里的礼物是饼和酒，包装也是饼和酒。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, if you think about it this way, let's say on December 23rd, that present is sitting under the tree, and the gift inside the box is bread and wine, the packaging is bread and wine.
Dialogue: 0,0:55:47.01,0:55:57.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但是，在圣诞节早晨当你醒来时，有人打开了它，取出了饼和酒，\N放入了更有价值的东西，即基督的身体和血，然后又把它封上了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But, on Christmas morning when you wake up, someone has opened it, taken out the bread and wine, and put in something much more valuable, the Body and Blood of Christ, and closed it up again.
Dialogue: 0,0:55:57.74,0:56:04.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以现在你有的是饼和酒的包装，而里面的礼物已经变成了基督的身体和血。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So now what you have is bread and wine packaging with the gift inside has changed to the Body and Blood of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:56:04.50,0:56:05.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这说得通吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Does that make sense?
Dialogue: 0,0:56:05.94,0:56:16.21,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以当你用礼物和包装来思考时，理解是包装没有改变，改变的是礼物。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So when you think of it in terms of gifts and packaging, the understanding is that it is the packaging that doesn't change, it is the gift that changes.
Dialogue: 0,0:56:17.74,0:56:20.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}到目前为止，有什么问题吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, any questions about that so far?
Dialogue: 0,0:56:22.01,0:56:22.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay.
Dialogue: 0,0:56:22.99,0:56:23.89,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}到目前为止，一切顺利。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So far, so good.
Dialogue: 0,0:56:23.89,0:56:34.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是变质说，这是直到新教改革之前教会对圣餐的正统理解。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So that is transubstantiation, and that is the orthodox understanding of the Eucharist in the Church up to the Protestant Reformation.
Dialogue: 0,0:56:34.11,0:57:00.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，如果这是真的，我们在圣餐中领受的实际上确实是基督身体和血的本质，回想哥林\N多前书11章。所以，无论谁不配地吃主的饼，喝主的杯，就是犯主的身体和血的罪了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, if that's true, though, that what we receive in the Eucharist is, in fact, truly the essence of the Body and Blood of Christ,  Think back to 1 Corinthians 11. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
Dialogue: 0,0:57:00.51,0:57:05.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但人应当自己省察，然后吃这饼、喝这杯。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But a person must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
Dialogue: 0,0:57:05.71,0:57:12.93,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为人吃喝，若不分辨是主的身体，就是吃喝自己的罪了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}For he who eats and drinks eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.
Dialogue: 0,0:57:13.19,0:57:17.21,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，在你们中间有好些软弱的与患病的，睡的也不少。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}For this reason many among you are weak and sick and a number sleep.
Dialogue: 0,0:57:18.78,0:57:25.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以现在领受这些圣餐元素成为一个非常重大的责任。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So now it becomes a very heavy responsibility to receive those Eucharistic elements.
Dialogue: 0,0:57:27.17,0:57:31.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}注意，一个人必须省察自己。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Notice, a person must examine himself or herself.
Dialogue: 0,0:57:31.37,0:57:36.87,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你知道，我认为从教会开始，圣餐实际上是两个圣事合二为一。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And, you know, I argue that from the beginning of the Church, the Eucharist was really two sacraments in one.
Dialogue: 0,0:57:36.87,0:57:40.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它是忏悔和领受圣餐。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It was confession and the receipt of communion.
Dialogue: 0,0:57:40.84,0:57:46.56,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但在早期，忏悔很可能是公开的忏悔祷告，一种集体忏悔。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But in the early days, confession may very well have been a public prayer of confession, a corporate confession.
Dialogue: 0,0:57:46.56,0:57:51.66,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但关键是，你不能在没有先忏悔你的罪的情况下领受圣餐。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the point is that you don't receive the Eucharist without first confessing your sins.
Dialogue: 0,0:57:52.97,0:57:59.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这变得如此严肃，人们开始害怕领受圣餐的元素。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And it became so serious, and people  People became afraid to receive the elements.
Dialogue: 0,0:58:00.01,0:58:04.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以当我们进入中世纪，人们停止领受圣餐。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So as we move into the Middle Ages, people stopped receiving communion.
Dialogue: 0,0:58:05.75,0:58:12.69,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们开始相信，只要见证奇迹发生，在奇迹发生时在场就足够了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They started to believe that it was enough just to witness the miracle happen, to be there when it was taking place.
Dialogue: 0,0:58:12.71,0:58:18.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在某些情况下，许多人觉得只要神父在做这件事就足够了，即使没有人在场。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And in some cases, many people felt it was enough that the priest was doing it, even if no one was there.
Dialogue: 0,0:58:18.62,0:58:25.18,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以你有人捐款，我认为这将是改革者们认为是滥用的事情之一。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so you had people making donations  And this would be one of the things that I think the Reformers would feel was an abuse.
Dialogue: 0,0:58:25.18,0:58:33.37,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你有人捐款，比如，如果我非常富有，而你是我的堂区\N神父，我可以说，好的，看，我要给你一百万美元。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You had people making donations, like, if I'm super rich, and you're my parish priest, I can say, okay, look, I'm going to give you a million dollars.
Dialogue: 0,0:58:34.43,0:58:38.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当我离开后，你要每天为我的灵魂做弥撒。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}When I'm gone, you're going to say Mass for my soul every day.
Dialogue: 0,0:58:39.51,0:58:41.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是否有人出现并不重要。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Whether anybody shows up or not is not the point.
Dialogue: 0,0:58:41.62,0:58:42.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你要做这件事。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You're going to do it.
Dialogue: 0,0:58:42.54,0:58:45.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是我用我的一百万美元买的东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And that's what I'm buying with my million dollars.
Dialogue: 0,0:58:46.25,0:58:47.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这个金额是荒谬的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The amount is ridiculous.
Dialogue: 0,0:58:47.79,0:58:48.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但你明白了这个意思。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But you get the idea.
Dialogue: 0,0:58:48.91,0:59:02.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}人们感觉这可能过分强调了奇迹的方面，而淡化了参与的方面。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The feeling was that it over-emphasized maybe the miracle aspect and de-emphasized the participation aspect.
Dialogue: 0,0:59:02.24,0:59:04.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以人们停止领受圣餐。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So people stopped receiving communion.
Dialogue: 0,0:59:04.22,0:59:12.19,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}亚西西的方济各做的事情之一，我们稍后会讨论，但\N他做的事情之一是四处宣讲人们应该回到圣餐桌前。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}One of the things that Francis of Assisi did, we're going to talk about it later, but one of the things he did was go around preaching that people ought to go back to the table.
Dialogue: 0,0:59:13.69,0:59:19.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这也导致了一些做法，比如不让平信徒领受杯。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This led to things like withholding the cup from the laity as well.
Dialogue: 0,0:59:19.01,0:59:25.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为如果杯中确实包含基督的血，你不想再次洒出基督的血。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because if in fact the cup contains the blood of Christ, you don't want to spill the blood of Christ again.
Dialogue: 0,0:59:26.01,0:59:33.49,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以你有各种各样的实验在进行，比如用金吸管。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so you have  You have all kinds of experimenting going on with golden straws.
Dialogue: 0,0:59:33.49,0:59:38.81,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你不能给人们杯子，所以我们给他们吸管来喝。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You can't give the people the cup, so we'll give them a straw to drink out of.
Dialogue: 0,0:59:38.91,0:59:43.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}然后你总是看着你前面的人，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And then you're always looking who's in front of you, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:59:43.85,0:59:45.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以那不管用。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So that didn't work.
Dialogue: 0,0:59:46.99,0:59:54.100,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}最终杯子被保留给女士，所以人们只能得到饼。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Eventually the cup was held from the lady so that people were only getting the bread.
Dialogue: 0,0:59:55.84,1:00:04.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一种神学理论由此产生来解释这一点，即两种元素都存在于每一种元素中。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And a theology arose out of this to explain it, which was that both elements are present in each element.
Dialogue: 0,1:00:04.88,1:00:12.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以不是说要得到基督的身体你必须有饼，要得到血你必须有酒，每一个都是分开的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So it's not as though to get the body of Christ you must have the bread, and to get the blood you must have the wine, and each is separate.
Dialogue: 0,1:00:12.77,1:00:15.65,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而是两种元素都存在于每一种中。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But that both elements are present in each.
Dialogue: 0,1:00:15.65,1:00:19.87,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以如果你只得到两者中的一个，你仍然得到了身体和血。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So if you only get one of the two, you're still getting both the body and blood.
Dialogue: 0,1:00:19.87,1:00:27.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果你观察罗马天主教弥撒，或者当然其他的，他们实际上会把一些面包屑放入酒中。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And if you will watch in a, like in a Roman Catholic Mass, or of course others,  they will actually put a couple of crumbs of the bread into the wine.
Dialogue: 0,1:00:27.42,1:00:32.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但关键是，即使你只得到饼，你仍然得到了基督的身体和血。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the point is that if you only get the bread, you're still getting both the body and the blood of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,1:00:32.84,1:00:43.31,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}同样，如果你只得到酒，假设你对麸质过敏或其他原\N因，你只得到酒，你仍然得到了基督的身体和血。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And by the same token, if you only got the wine, suppose if you have allergies to gluten or whatever, you only get the wine, you are still getting both the body and the blood of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,1:00:43.31,1:00:44.93,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你没有错过任何东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You're not missing out on anything.
Dialogue: 0,1:00:45.59,1:00:54.10,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}中世纪作为对此的回应而出现的另一件事是我们有时称之为目视圣餐。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The other thing that emerges in the Middle Ages as a response to this is  What we sometimes refer to as ocular communion.
Dialogue: 0,1:00:54.10,1:01:04.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这很重要的原因是因为它有助于你理解新教改革。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The reason why this is important is because it helps you understand the Protestant Reformation.
Dialogue: 0,1:01:04.14,1:01:05.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}目视圣餐。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Ocular communion.
Dialogue: 0,1:01:18.60,1:01:19.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是什么意思？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What does this mean?
Dialogue: 0,1:01:19.36,1:01:20.56,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}有人知道吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Anybody know?
Dialogue: 0,1:01:21.98,1:01:24.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}用眼睛领受圣餐，对的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Communion with your eyes, right.
Dialogue: 0,1:01:24.26,1:01:29.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这导致了至今仍存在的圣体朝拜传统。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And this leads to the tradition that still exists of Eucharistic adoration.
Dialogue: 0,1:01:29.15,1:01:44.10,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换句话说，如果我们假设在圣体，即饼中，存在着基督身体的真\N实存在，那么在基督的这种存在中，人可以在基督的同在中。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In other words, if we assume that within the host, the bread, is the real, true presence of the body of Christ, then in that presence of Christ, one can  One can be in the presence of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,1:01:44.10,1:01:50.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}人可以以一种比仅仅因为基督无所不在或其他原因更强大的方式在基督的同在中。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}One can be in the presence of Christ in a more powerful way than simply just because Christ is omnipresent or whatever.
Dialogue: 0,1:01:51.28,1:02:03.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这是一个延续至今的传统，其中一个已祝圣的圣体被放置\N在基本上相当于圣物匣的东西里，但它是一个有窗户的东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so this is a tradition that continues to this day, where a consecrated Eucharistic host is placed in basically what amounts to a reliquary, but it's a thing with a window in it.
Dialogue: 0,1:02:04.13,1:02:06.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}人们在基督的同在中祷告。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And people pray in the presence of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,1:02:07.68,1:02:15.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你可能注意到，当我们去罗马时，有时人们会看到这个，但你在这里也可以到处看到。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You may have noticed that when we go to Rome sometimes people see that, but you can see it all over here as well.
Dialogue: 0,1:02:16.65,1:02:18.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}东正教也这样做吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Did the Orthodox do that?
Dialogue: 0,1:02:19.11,1:02:19.73,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我不知道。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I don't know.
Dialogue: 0,1:02:19.73,1:02:22.13,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}问题是，东正教也这样做吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The question was, do the Orthodox do that?
Dialogue: 0,1:02:22.13,1:02:23.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我不完全确定。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And I'm not entirely sure.
Dialogue: 0,1:02:23.86,1:02:25.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我需要查证一下。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I would have to check on that.
Dialogue: 0,1:02:25.82,1:02:26.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我不知道。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I don't know.
Dialogue: 0,1:02:26.22,1:02:33.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我的意思是，问题在于当人们认为这就是你所需要做的\N全部，而实际上没有人在领受，这就成了一个问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I mean, the problem was when people thought that was all you had to do, and that no one was actually receiving, and that became a problem.
Dialogue: 0,1:02:33.78,1:02:51.81,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但教会最终会呼召人们回到圣餐桌前，在1215年的第四次拉特兰会议上，第四次\N拉特兰会议确认了变质说的教义，并且还说你必须至少在复活节每年领受一次圣餐。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the Church would eventually call the people back to the table, and at the Fourth Lateran Council, in 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council affirmed the doctrine of transubstantiation,  And also says that you have to receive communion at least once a year at Easter.
Dialogue: 0,1:02:54.25,1:02:56.29,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而且你必须先去忏悔。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And you have to go to confession first.
Dialogue: 0,1:02:57.20,1:03:03.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而且你必须禁食，这包括在领受圣餐前不能有性行为。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And you have to fast, which includes no sex before receiving the Eucharist.
Dialogue: 0,1:03:04.24,1:03:09.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但再次强调，关键是仅仅观看它发生是不够的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But again, the point is that it's not enough just to watch it happen.
Dialogue: 0,1:03:10.08,1:03:17.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以即使那些今天实践圣体朝拜的人仍然领受圣餐。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so even though those people who practice Eucharistic adoration today  Still receive the Eucharist.
Dialogue: 0,1:03:17.95,1:03:20.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那不是一个替代品。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That's not a substitute.
Dialogue: 0,1:03:20.07,1:03:25.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它是一种除了常规礼仪之外的敬拜实践。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's a devotional practice that's done in addition to regular liturgy.
Dialogue: 0,1:03:27.62,1:03:31.18,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那么，有问题吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, questions?
Dialogue: 0,1:03:34.50,1:03:36.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那么，当我们洒出酒时会发生什么？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So what does happen when we spill the wine?
Dialogue: 0,1:03:36.54,1:03:39.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们把它洒在手上或地板上？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We spill it on the hands on the floor?
Dialogue: 0,1:03:40.16,1:03:43.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，嗯，有一个……在那些传统中……\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yeah, well there's a... Within the traditions that...
Dialogue: 0,1:03:46.19,1:03:49.05,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}有包括变质说的圣餐神学。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}have a Eucharistic theology that includes transextantiation.
Dialogue: 0,1:03:49.05,1:03:55.61,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果你洒出了酒，有一个处理过程，你知道，有一块布，你用布把它吸起来。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If you spill the wine, there's a process for, you know, there's a cloth, you take it up in the cloth.
Dialogue: 0,1:03:56.97,1:04:03.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但是，比如说，你知道，在罗马天主教这样的传\N统中，你不能随意倒掉已经祝圣过的多余的酒。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But like, for example, you know, in these traditions like the Roman Catholic, you can't just dump out, get extra wine that's been consecrated.
Dialogue: 0,1:04:03.64,1:04:04.100,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你不能就这样倒掉它。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You don't just dump it out.
Dialogue: 0,1:04:04.100,1:04:06.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}必须有人喝掉它。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Somebody's got to drink it.
Dialogue: 0,1:04:06.70,1:04:09.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它必须被消耗掉。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It has to be consumed.
Dialogue: 0,1:04:09.40,1:04:21.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}甚至在清洗杯子时，也有一个特殊的水槽，水直\N接流入地下而不经过下水道，因为那样会不敬。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And even for washing out the cups, there's a special sink  Where the water goes right into the ground without going through the sewer, because that would be disrespectful.
Dialogue: 0,1:04:21.85,1:04:25.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以服侍的人都经过培训。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the people who serve are all trained.
Dialogue: 0,1:04:25.03,1:04:29.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我个人不这样做。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I don't personally do that.
Dialogue: 0,1:04:29.64,1:04:36.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我猜这就是为什么有祭坛服侍，而且必须要有人为社区主持圣餐。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I guess that's why there's altar service, and one would have to church the host of the community.
Dialogue: 0,1:04:36.97,1:04:40.49,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，他们过去也会用小盘子放在你的下巴下面。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yeah, they used to do the same with the little plate and hold it under your chin.
Dialogue: 0,1:04:40.49,1:04:45.66,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我现在不太看到这种做法了，但是，是的，再次强调，你不想掉落面包屑或其他东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I don't see that much anymore, but yeah, again, you don't want to drop crumbs or whatever.
Dialogue: 0,1:04:45.66,1:04:55.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}科普特人有那些东西，几乎像手帕一样，你去的时候拿\N着，因为如果你不是科普特人，你不能看他们领受。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Coptics have those, almost like handkerchiefs that you take when you go, because if you're not Coptic, you can't view them taking it.
Dialogue: 0,1:04:55.88,1:05:06.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们会到后面去，但他们有类似手帕树的东西，你拿一个\N手帕到后面去，把它放在下面，这样就不会有东西掉落。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They go kind of behind, but they have almost like a handkerchief tree that you take a handkerchief and go in the back and you hold it underneath so nothing drops.
Dialogue: 0,1:05:08.61,1:05:19.05,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，这不是坏运气，也不是迷信，但它是meant to be consumed。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, it's not bad luck, it's not a superstition, but it's meant to be consumed.
Dialogue: 0,1:05:19.05,1:06:13.06,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，我想在这里总结一下，但我们最终得到的是教会试图在这里找到一个中间道路\N，一方面，可能被视为与基督的物质身体联系不够的共质说，或者认为在圣餐中与基\N督物质身体的联系被淡化，或者实际上转变被淡化，因为饼和酒的本质仍然存在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, I want to wrap up here, but we end up with  The church's attempt at finding a middle way here between, on the one hand, maybe what might be seen as not enough connection with Christ's physical body, the consubstantiation, or the idea that  Is that in the Eucharist the connection with Christ's physical body is downplayed or in fact the conversion is downplayed in the sense that the essence of the bread and wine remain.
Dialogue: 0,1:06:13.06,1:06:15.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以你在一边有这种观点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So you sort of have that on one side.
Dialogue: 0,1:06:15.00,1:06:33.42,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在另一边，你有与基督物质身体的极端联系，你据说在咀嚼基督的肉体。\N曾经有一段时间，天主教徒被告知不要咀嚼圣餐饼，你只需让它溶解。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}On the other side you have the extreme connection with Christ's physical body where you're supposedly chewing Christ's flesh  There was a time when Catholics were told not to chew the wafer, you just have to let it dissolve.
Dialogue: 0,1:06:33.55,1:06:37.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}再次说明，这可能在另一个方向上走得有点太远了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Again, that may be going a bit too far in the other direction.
Dialogue: 0,1:06:42.52,1:06:51.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，没错，但我的意思是，走向另一个极端某种程度上假设物质性也发生了变化。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yeah, right, but I mean the point is that going to this other extreme sort of assumes that the physicality changes too.
Dialogue: 0,1:06:51.23,1:06:55.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在你的图表上，这被称为湮灭，因为基本上饼和酒什么都没有剩下。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}On your chart it's called annihilation because basically there's nothing left of the bread and wine.
Dialogue: 0,1:06:58.02,1:07:02.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}甚至饼和酒的偶性也变成了实际的肉。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}that even the accidents of bread and wine are changed into actual flesh.
Dialogue: 0,1:07:02.94,1:07:05.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以那将是另一个极端。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So that would be the other extreme.
Dialogue: 0,1:07:05.12,1:07:08.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}然后在中间某处是变质说的观念。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And then somewhere in the middle is the idea of transubstantiation.
Dialogue: 0,1:07:08.28,1:07:27.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在当你学习历史2时，希望你的教授会讨论圣餐的理论，以及它在宗教改革中的发展\N，以及一些改革者如何选择共质说作为他们的选择。由CastingWords转录\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now when you take History 2, hopefully your professor will talk about theories of the Eucharist and where that goes in the Reformation and how some reformers went with consubstantiation as their option in  Transcription by CastingWords