[Script Info] Title: Merged Subtitles ScriptType: v4.00+ WrapStyle: 0 ScaledBorderAndShadow: yes Collisions: Normal PlayResX: 384 PlayResY: 288 [V4+ Styles] Format: Name, Fontname, Fontsize, PrimaryColour, SecondaryColour, OutlineColour, BackColour, Bold, Italic, Underline, StrikeOut, ScaleX, ScaleY, Spacing, Angle, BorderStyle, Outline, Shadow, Alignment, MarginL, MarginR, MarginV, Encoding Style: Default, Sarasa UI SC, 14, &H00FFFFFF, &H000000FF, &H00000000, &H80000000, 0, 0, 0, 0, 100, 100, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 10, 10, 10, 1 [Events] Format: Layer, Start, End, Style, Name, MarginL, MarginR, MarginV, Effect, Text Dialogue: 0,0:00:01.99,0:00:10.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，欢迎回到「基督教思想史实践一」，我们继续讲述第三世纪的故事。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay, so welcome back to History of Christian Thoughts in Practice 1, and we are continuing the story of the 3rd century. Dialogue: 0,0:00:10.24,0:00:12.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那么欢迎回到第三世纪。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So welcome back to the 3rd century. Dialogue: 0,0:00:12.38,0:00:21.45,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}上周我们通过特土良进入了第三世纪，现在我们\N将继续前进，我不得不说这是我最喜欢的世纪。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}With Tertullian last week, we entered the 3rd century, and now we're going to keep going, and I guess I have to say this is my favorite century. Dialogue: 0,0:00:21.45,0:00:38.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}今晚第一个小时，我们将讨论第三世纪的三位一体和基督论辩论，正统与\N异端之争。然后在第二个小时，我们将讨论接下来两位重要的神学家。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So in the first hour tonight, we're going to talk about The Trinitarian and Christological Debate in the Third Century, Orthodoxy vs. Heresy, and then in the second hour we're going to talk about our next two important theologians. Dialogue: 0,0:00:38.61,0:00:47.72,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那么让我们进入第三世纪关于神学和基督论的争议。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So let's get into the controversies over theology, over Christology in the third century. Dialogue: 0,0:00:47.72,0:00:54.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你们已经通过阅读特土良的作品对此有所了解，所以我将在此基础上继续讲解。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now you've already gotten a taste of this because you read Tertullian, so I'll be kind of following up on that as I go. Dialogue: 0,0:00:54.52,0:01:08.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但我希望你们回想一下你们所知道的关于第一和第二世纪的情况，第\N一和第二世纪的辩论主要是关于基督的位格和基督的两性，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But what I want you to do is think Back to what you know about the 1st and 2nd century, the debates in the 1st and 2nd century were primarily over the person of Christ and the two natures of Christ, right? Dialogue: 0,0:01:08.63,0:01:12.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他是人性的，是神性的，还是两者兼具？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Is he human, is he divine, or is he both? Dialogue: 0,0:01:13.29,0:01:17.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你们知道正统的答案是两者兼具，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And you know that the orthodox answer to the question is both, right? Dialogue: 0,0:01:17.86,0:01:21.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，当我们进入第三世纪，辩论的焦点稍有转移。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, as we move into the third century, the debate shifts a bit. Dialogue: 0,0:01:21.62,0:01:35.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以现在不再那么关注基督的两性，而是更多地\N关注基督与神的关系，特别是与圣父神的关系。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so it's not so much about the person of Christ in terms of the two natures, but now it's more about the person of Christ in terms of his relationship to God, or specifically God the Father. Dialogue: 0,0:01:35.01,0:01:41.89,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换句话说，如果我们从三位一体的角度来思考，耶稣如何融入作为三位一体的神？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So in other words, if we think about it in a Trinitarian sense, how does Jesus fit into God as the Trinity? Dialogue: 0,0:01:41.89,0:01:45.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣父和圣子之间的关系是什么？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What is the relationship between the Father and the Son? Dialogue: 0,0:01:46.80,0:01:54.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在某些方面，我们将看到的是对诺斯底主义的反应。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, in some ways, what we're going to see is a reaction against Gnosticism. Dialogue: 0,0:01:54.75,0:02:03.51,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你们记得诺斯底主义回答了这个问题，你知道，你\N怎么能声称自己是一神论者，同时又崇拜耶稣呢？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You remember that Gnosticism answered the question, you know, how can you claim to be a monotheist and worship Jesus too? Dialogue: 0,0:02:03.51,0:02:09.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}诺斯底主义对这个问题的回答是，嗯，你知道，一神论被高估了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Gnosticism's answer to the question was, well, you know, monotheism is overrated. Dialogue: 0,0:02:09.23,0:02:11.06,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们为什么需要成为一神论者呢，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Why do we need to be monotheists, right? Dialogue: 0,0:02:11.06,0:02:15.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我的意思是，诺斯底主义是多神论的一种形式。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I mean, Gnosticism was a version of polytheism. Dialogue: 0,0:02:16.04,0:02:28.10,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那么，如果你反对这种观点，如果你说多神论根本不\N在考虑范围内，不是一个选项，对此的反应是什么？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, if you react against that, if you say that polytheism is just off the table, it is not an option, what is the reaction to that? Dialogue: 0,0:02:28.10,0:02:32.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对此的反应是激进的一神论，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The reaction to that is radical monotheism, right? Dialogue: 0,0:02:32.34,0:02:43.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但我们今晚要看到的是，在这里的第三世纪，激\N进的一神论采取了我们称之为君主论的形式。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But what we're going to see tonight, in the third century here, is that radical monotheism takes the form of what we call monarchianism. Dialogue: 0,0:02:44.00,0:02:53.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，君主论，你可以在这里看到君主这个词。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, monarchianism, you can see the word monarch in here. Dialogue: 0,0:02:53.92,0:02:55.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}什么是君主？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What is monarch? Dialogue: 0,0:02:55.47,0:02:59.17,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}「Mono」意为一，「arc」来自「arcade」，意为统治者、领导者，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Mono, one, arc, from arcade, ruler, leader, right? Dialogue: 0,0:02:59.17,0:03:03.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，君主制是一个单一统治者的统治。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, a monarchy is the rule of one, singular ruler. Dialogue: 0,0:03:03.91,0:03:12.29,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，君主论强调神的唯一性，神作为君主，神作为单一的存在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, monarchianism is an emphasis on the oneness of God, God as monarch, God as singular. Dialogue: 0,0:03:12.81,0:03:20.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，君主论强调三位一体的唯一性或统一性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, monarchianism is an emphasis on the oneness or the unity of the Trinity. Dialogue: 0,0:03:20.85,0:03:25.37,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}然而讽刺的是，君主论有两种形式。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Ironically though, there are two forms of monarchianism. Dialogue: 0,0:03:25.63,0:03:30.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一种在这个连续体的一端，或者说在每个极端。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}One on each side of this continuum, or on each extreme. Dialogue: 0,0:03:30.92,0:03:34.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那么，我想我们从这里开始吧。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, let's start over here, I guess. Dialogue: 0,0:03:36.66,0:03:46.65,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们将看到的是，你可能记得在第一世纪我们有犹太主义者，在第二世纪我们有埃比昂派。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And what we're going to see is that you may remember in the 1st century we had the Judaizers, in the 2nd century we had the Edianites. Dialogue: 0,0:03:46.65,0:03:57.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}埃比昂派在第三世纪的遗产就是有时被称为动力君主论的东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The legacy of the Edianites into the 3rd century is what is sometimes called dynamic monarchy. Dialogue: 0,0:04:00.71,0:04:11.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换句话说，这是一种特殊的君主论，是埃比昂派的遗产，这意味着它是一种嗣子论的形式。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, in other words, it's a particular brand of monarchianism that is the legacy of the Evianites, which means it is a form of adoptionism. Dialogue: 0,0:04:14.28,0:04:38.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当我谈论这个时，我更喜欢使用嗣子论这个词，部分原因是动力君主论这个词太长，另一部\N分原因是在你将读到的许多资料中，作者们会单独使用君主论这个词来指两种极端形式中的\N一种，但他们不会告诉你是哪一种，所以他们只是说君主论，好像你应该知道是哪一种。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And I prefer the term adoptionism when I'm talking about this, partly because dynamic monarchianism is just too long, but also partly because in a lot of the sources you'll read, authors will use the term monarchianism alone To mean one or the other of the two extreme forms, but they won't tell you which, so they just say monarchism, like you're supposed to know which one it is. Dialogue: 0,0:04:39.32,0:04:43.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们通常指的是那一种，但问题是这不够具体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Often they mean that one, but the point is that it's not specific enough. Dialogue: 0,0:04:43.45,0:04:47.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在这种情况下，我们谈论的是动力君主论或嗣子论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In this case, we're talking about dynamic monarchism or adoptionism. Dialogue: 0,0:04:47.85,0:04:56.19,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}正如你已经知道的，嗣子论基本上说神是一位，因为耶稣不是神。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And as you already know, adoptionism basically says that God is one because Jesus is not God. Dialogue: 0,0:04:56.19,0:04:57.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}耶稣不是神性的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Jesus is not divine. Dialogue: 0,0:04:58.63,0:05:03.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}记住，这是君主论的一种形式，意味着它强调神的唯一性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Remember, this is a form of monarchism, which means it's an emphasis on the oneness of God. Dialogue: 0,0:05:03.52,0:05:14.69,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}神是一位，嗣子论解释神的唯一性的方式是将基督的位格完全从神性方程中剔除。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}God is one, and the way that adoptionism explains the oneness of God is by taking the person of Christ out of the divine equation altogether. Dialogue: 0,0:05:14.69,0:05:16.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}神是一位，因为耶稣不是神。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}God is one because Jesus is not God. Dialogue: 0,0:05:16.97,0:05:18.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他不是神性的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He's not divine. Dialogue: 0,0:05:18.25,0:05:23.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，圣子只是一个被神收养的普通人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Son, therefore, is a mere man who is adopted by God. Dialogue: 0,0:05:23.30,0:05:26.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他的儿子身份是被收养的儿子身份。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}His Sonship is an adopted Sonship. Dialogue: 0,0:05:26.97,0:05:31.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}神的这种收养是对他完全顺服的奖赏。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And this adoption by God is a reward for his perfect obedience. Dialogue: 0,0:05:31.57,0:05:34.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你已经在埃比昂派那里看到很多这样的观点了，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You've seen a lot of this already with the Eviacs, right? Dialogue: 0,0:05:35.70,0:05:40.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}具体来说，这个奖赏就是能力。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Specifically, the reward is power. Dialogue: 0,0:05:40.36,0:05:47.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换句话说，耶稣因他完全的顺服而被赐予能力作为奖赏。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In other words, Jesus is given power as a reward for his perfect obedience. Dialogue: 0,0:05:47.25,0:05:50.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}通常，他在受洗时获得这种能力。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And he gets this power at his baptism, usually. Dialogue: 0,0:05:50.39,0:05:52.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}希腊语中「能力」这个词是什么？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And what is the word for power in Greek? Dialogue: 0,0:05:52.53,0:05:54.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}「Dunamis」，我们的「动力」一词就来源于此。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Dunamis, where we get our word dynamic. Dialogue: 0,0:05:54.57,0:05:58.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以它被称为动力君主论，因为它是能力君主论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So it is dynamic monarchianism because it's power monarchianism. Dialogue: 0,0:05:58.99,0:06:07.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换句话说，耶稣的能力不是他自己的，而是神赐给他的，是接受的能力。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In other words, the power of Jesus is not his own, it is given to him by God, it is received power. Dialogue: 0,0:06:08.62,0:06:09.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}注意这样做的结果。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Notice what this does. Dialogue: 0,0:06:09.58,0:06:16.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它使耶稣基督成为能力的接受者，而不是能力的源头。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It makes Jesus Christ the receiver of power, not the source of power. Dialogue: 0,0:06:17.14,0:06:19.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当然，一旦他接受了这能力，他就能使用它。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Certainly, once he receives it, he's able to use it. Dialogue: 0,0:06:19.86,0:06:24.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在他的事工中，他看起来似乎拥有这种能力，但这并不真正是他自己的能力。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In his ministry, he would seem like he's got this power, but it's not really his power. Dialogue: 0,0:06:24.68,0:06:27.56,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这能力本质上不属于他。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The power is not his by nature. Dialogue: 0,0:06:28.30,0:06:29.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他是接受了这能力。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He has received it. Dialogue: 0,0:06:30.01,0:06:54.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这是一种嗣子论，因为在大多数情况下，人们认为耶稣作为一个普通\N人，因完全顺服神而达到了英雄的地位，作为对此的奖赏，他在受洗时被\N提升到一个更高的状态，在这个状态中他从神那里得到了这种能力。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so this is a form of adoptionism, because in most cases the belief would be that Jesus, as a mere man, achieved heroic status as someone who was perfectly obedient to God, and as a reward for that at his baptism, he was elevated to a higher state in which he is given this power from God. Dialogue: 0,0:06:55.50,0:07:05.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为他只是一个普通人，通过成就或奖赏而获得\N了一个提升的地位，这是一种上升的基督论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because he is a mere man who achieves or is rewarded with an elevated state, this is a Christology of ascent. Dialogue: 0,0:07:09.03,0:07:12.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，如果我之前没说过，这与升天无关。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, if I haven't said this before, this has nothing to do with the ascension. Dialogue: 0,0:07:13.35,0:07:21.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是一种上升的基督论，因为耶稣基督的位格是上升的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This is a Christology of ascent because the person of Jesus Christ He goes up. Dialogue: 0,0:07:21.63,0:07:24.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换句话说，他开始时地位低，最后变得地位高。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In other words, he starts low and ends up high. Dialogue: 0,0:07:24.14,0:07:31.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他开始只是一个普通人，最后获得了这种被奖赏的、提升的地位。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He starts out as a mere human and ends up with this rewarded, elevated status. Dialogue: 0,0:07:32.30,0:07:34.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这是一种上升的基督论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So it's a Christology of ascent. Dialogue: 0,0:07:34.82,0:07:38.31,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他开始时地位低，最后作为奖赏而被提升。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He starts out low and ends up elevated as a reward. Dialogue: 0,0:07:41.28,0:07:50.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}显然，埃比昂派与这种思想之间的联系，这种思想\N的早期形式，是由一个名叫阿特蒙的人教导的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Apparently the connection between the Evianites and this kind of thinking, an early form of this, was taught by someone named Artemon. Dialogue: 0,0:07:51.13,0:07:58.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们对他知之甚少，只知道他被罗马主教泽菲林开除教籍。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We don't know very much about him, except that he was excommunicated by the Bishop of Rome, Zephyrinus. Dialogue: 0,0:07:59.95,0:08:02.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在我也能拼写泽菲林这个名字了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now I can spell Zephyrinus too. Dialogue: 0,0:08:02.01,0:08:05.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}暂时把他放在这里。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Put him over here for a moment. Dialogue: 0,0:08:07.37,0:08:09.87,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我说我能拼写泽菲林，但我撒谎了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I said I could spell Zephyrinus, but I lied. Dialogue: 0,0:08:10.47,0:08:10.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}为什么？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Why? Dialogue: 0,0:08:10.85,0:08:13.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我从不知道「为什么」是否应该先说。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I never know if the why comes first. Dialogue: 0,0:08:13.25,0:08:14.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay. Dialogue: 0,0:08:14.11,0:08:22.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以泽菲林主教，他从199年到217年担任罗\N马主教，正好是在第三世纪之交进入第三世纪。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So Bishop Zephyrinus, he was bishop of Rome from 199 to 217, so right at the turn of the 3rd century into the 3rd century. Dialogue: 0,0:08:22.67,0:08:35.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以在这期间，泽菲林因阿特蒙在罗马教导一种动力君主论或嗣子论而将他开除教籍。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So during this time, Zephyrinus excommunicated this man named Artemon for teaching a version of dynamic monarchism, or adoptionism, in Rome. Dialogue: 0,0:08:35.93,0:08:42.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在当我们进一步进入第三世纪，我们遇到了一位名叫保罗的安提阿主教。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now as we go further into the third century, we meet a bishop in Antioch named Paul. Dialogue: 0,0:08:48.21,0:09:02.42,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}安提阿的保罗，因为他是安提阿的主教，但他将被宣布为异端\N并被赶出安提阿，所以他不会得到安提阿的保罗这个称号。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Paul of Antioch, because he was Bishop of Antioch, but he's going to be declared a heretic and booted out of Antioch, so he's not going to get the title Paul of Antioch. Dialogue: 0,0:09:02.42,0:09:05.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们称他为撒摩撒他的保罗。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We call him Paul of Samosata. Dialogue: 0,0:09:05.30,0:09:29.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他是安提阿的主教，在他的主教职责中，他不仅教导嗣子论，否认基\N督的神性，而且值得称赞的是，他很一致，因为他将这种观点推到了\N逻辑结论，他试图让他所在地区的所有教会停止向基督唱赞美诗。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He was Bishop of Antioch, and in his role of Bishop, not only did he teach adoptionism, where he denied the divinity of Christ, But, to his credit, he was consistent because he took that to its logical conclusion and he tried to get all of the churches in his area to stop singing hymns to Christ. Dialogue: 0,0:09:30.29,0:09:39.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果你相信这一点，那么耶稣就不是神性的，他\N不应该被崇拜，你也不应该向基督唱赞美诗。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If you believe this, then Jesus is not divine and he shouldn't be worshiped and you shouldn't be singing hymns to Christ. Dialogue: 0,0:09:39.94,0:09:52.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以当安提阿以外的人得知这位主教禁止他所在地\N区的基督徒唱这些基督赞美诗时，争议就出现了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the controversy emerges when people outside of Antioch get wind of the fact that this bishop is forbidding the Christians in his area from singing these Christ hymns. Dialogue: 0,0:09:54.10,0:10:02.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}显然，撒摩撒他的保罗教导说基督是受启发和受膏的，但不是神性的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Apparently Paul of Samosa taught that Christ was inspired and anointed, but not divine. Dialogue: 0,0:10:03.69,0:10:13.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他接受圣灵，从神那里接受恩典，但他不赐予圣灵，也不赐予恩典。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He receives the Holy Spirit, and he receives grace from God, but he doesn't give the Holy Spirit, nor does he give grace. Dialogue: 0,0:10:13.92,0:10:19.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换句话说，再次强调，基督成为接受者，而不是给予者。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In other words, again, Christ becomes the receiver, not the giver. Dialogue: 0,0:10:19.59,0:10:22.31,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是接受者，而不是源头。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The recipient, not the source. Dialogue: 0,0:10:22.75,0:10:24.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这就成了区别。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so that becomes the difference. Dialogue: 0,0:10:25.68,0:10:33.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}据我们所知，撒摩撒他的保罗是最后一个试图否认基督先存性的人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}As far as we know, Paul of Samosata is the last person to try to get away with denying the pre-existence of Christ. Dialogue: 0,0:10:34.00,0:10:36.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，你们都知道约翰福音1:1，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, you all know John 1.1, right? Dialogue: 0,0:10:36.44,0:10:39.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}太初有道，道与神同在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God sent. Dialogue: 0,0:10:39.83,0:10:54.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}「太初有道」这段经文通常被解释为说道（即道，神性的基督）是先存的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In the beginning was the Word is a passage, a verse, that was normally interpreted as saying that the Word, the Logos, the divine nature of Christ, was pre-existent. Dialogue: 0,0:10:54.72,0:10:57.10,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}甚至在创造之前就存在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}existed before even creation. Dialogue: 0,0:10:57.10,0:11:03.56,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我的意思是，这就是第四福音书以与创世记开头相同的词语开始的要点，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I mean, this is the point of starting out the Fourth Gospel with the same words that start Genesis in the beginning, right? Dialogue: 0,0:11:04.38,0:11:09.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而且它几乎普遍被这样解释。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And it became pretty much universally interpreted that way. Dialogue: 0,0:11:09.78,0:11:22.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，稍后会有一个问题，即他到底有多永恒，但在大多数情\N况下，你知道，到这时大多数人会同意基督的神性是先存的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, there's going to be a question later on exactly how eternal is He, but for the most part, you know, most would, by this time, would agree that the divine nature of Christ was preexistent. Dialogue: 0,0:11:22.73,0:11:28.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但如果你不相信基督有神性，那么他就不可能是先存的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But if you don't believe Christ has a divine nature, then he can't be pre-existent. Dialogue: 0,0:11:28.27,0:11:32.51,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，撒摩撒他的保罗否认基督的先存性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, Paul of Samosa denies the pre-existence of Christ. Dialogue: 0,0:11:32.79,0:11:43.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但他是最后一个，因为在他之后，嗣子论者将不得不试图为某种形式的先存性做出让步。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But he's the last one, because after him, the adoptionists are going to have to try and make allowances for some sort of pre-existence. Dialogue: 0,0:11:44.38,0:11:52.89,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但基本上保罗说的是，神的道实际上只是神的旨意的另一个名称。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But basically what Paul said was that the Word of God is really just another name for the will of God. Dialogue: 0,0:11:53.31,0:12:00.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而既然基督遵循神的旨意，那就是它的意思。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And since Christ follows the will of God, that's what that means. Dialogue: 0,0:12:00.39,0:12:32.10,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但他确实说，与之前的一些嗣子论不同，他说他可以接受童贞女生子的观念，因为神在\N他的预知中，提前知道耶稣会完全顺服，遵循神的旨意，接受收养的奖赏等。所以在神\N的预知中，神为这位将来有一天会达到完美并被赐予能力的人预定了童贞女生子。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But he did say, unlike some of the previous adoptions, He did say that he could accept the idea of a virgin birth because God, in God's foreknowledge, knew ahead of time that Jesus would be perfectly obedient, follow the will of God, receive the reward of adoption, etc. So in God's foreknowledge, God ordained a virgin birth for this one who would one day achieve perfection and be rewarded with power. Dialogue: 0,0:12:33.02,0:12:45.46,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以无论如何，你再次看到嗣子论者如何试图解释那些与他们的基督论不太吻合的经文。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So anyway, again, you see how the adoptions are having to sort of try to explain these passages that don't quite fit with their Christology. Dialogue: 0,0:12:46.88,0:13:02.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}撒摩撒他的保罗本人在268年的安提阿会议上被定为异端，但直到27\N2年他们才能摆脱他。最后他们之所以能摆脱他，只是因为皇帝介入了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Paul of Samosa himself was condemned as a heretic at a council in Antioch in 268, but they couldn't get rid of him until 272. And they finally only got rid of him because the emperor stepped in. Dialogue: 0,0:13:02.73,0:13:05.93,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在记住，在这个时候，皇帝不是基督徒。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now remember, at this time, the emperor is not a Christian. Dialogue: 0,0:13:06.13,0:13:13.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以一个异教皇帝不得不介入并说，这里发生了什么，并试图维持和平。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So a pagan emperor has to step in and say, what's going on here, and try to keep the peace. Dialogue: 0,0:13:13.47,0:13:23.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这确实是他的动机，就是维持和平，并使用警察或类似警察的力量移除了撒摩撒他的保罗。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And that was his motivation, really, was to keep the peace, and removed Paul of Samosa using the police or whatever they had that was like police. Dialogue: 0,0:13:26.50,0:13:34.05,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以无论如何，你可以理解我们在前几个世纪已经看到\N的东西现在已经演变成了这种第三世纪的嗣子论形式。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So anyway, you get the idea that what we've already seen in the first couple of centuries has evolved now into this third century form of adoptionism. Dialogue: 0,0:13:46.79,0:13:50.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这本质上是一种上升的基督论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That is essentially a Christology of ascent. Dialogue: 0,0:13:50.07,0:13:57.02,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}基督是一个被神收养的人，并因此被赐予了这种提升的地位作为奖赏。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Christ is a man who is adopted by God and who is rewarded with this elevated status. Dialogue: 0,0:13:57.08,0:14:10.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以按本性他只是我们中的一员，但通过他的顺服，他被提升到一个\N高于我们其他人的地位，但他实际上并没有做任何我们做不到的事。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So by nature he's just one of us, but by his obedience that he's elevated to a status that raises him above the rest of us, but he hasn't really done anything that any of us couldn't do. Dialogue: 0,0:14:12.90,0:14:26.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对此，主流教会，大多数主教会说，在涉及圣父和圣子之间的关系时，这是不充分的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In response to this, the mainstream church, the majority of the bishops would have said that when it comes to the relationship between the Father and the Son, this is not adequate. Dialogue: 0,0:14:26.62,0:14:32.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这在圣父和圣子之间有太多的分离。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This has, between the Father and the Son, too much separation. Dialogue: 0,0:14:32.98,0:14:35.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而且圣父和圣子之间的统一性不够。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And not enough unity between the Father and Son. Dialogue: 0,0:14:35.97,0:14:47.66,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这种基督论对耶稣说「父比我大」感到非常舒服。\N但对耶稣说「我与父原为一」却没有公正对待。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This kind of Christology is perfectly comfortable with Jesus saying the Father is greater than I. But doesn't do justice to Jesus' saying, the Father and I are one. Dialogue: 0,0:14:47.66,0:14:49.66,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那么统一性在哪里？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so where's the unity? Dialogue: 0,0:14:49.90,0:14:59.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以对主流教会来说，仅仅通过将耶稣从神性方程中剔除来回答这个问题是不够的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so for the mainstream church, simply answering the question by taking Jesus out of the divine equation doesn't do it. Dialogue: 0,0:14:59.26,0:15:32.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对嗣子论者来说，如果你考虑在创造者和被造物之间画一条线，让我们暂时在这里\N这样做，如果这是你的分界线，线上的一切都是创造者，线下的一切都是被造物，\N那么，每个人都会同意圣父神在线上，每个人也都会同意人类在线下，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}For the adoptionists, if you were to think about drawing a line between creator and created, let's do this over here temporarily, If this is your dividing line, and everything above the line is creator, and everything below the line is created, well, everybody would agree that God the Father goes above the line, and everyone would agree that humanity goes below the line, right? Dialogue: 0,0:15:33.42,0:15:41.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但嗣子论者也把圣子，可能还有圣灵，放在线下。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the adoptionists are putting sons, and probably the Holy Spirit, below the line as well. Dialogue: 0,0:15:42.35,0:15:44.73,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而对正统派来说，这当然是行不通的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Whereas, of course, the Orthodox, it's not going to work. Dialogue: 0,0:15:44.73,0:15:47.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}正统派会说，不，我们希望这条线在这里。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Orthodox are going to say, no, we want the line to go here. Dialogue: 0,0:15:47.28,0:15:50.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，你明白了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, you get the idea. Dialogue: 0,0:15:50.88,0:15:53.61,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}到目前为止，对嗣子论有什么问题吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Any questions about adoptionism at this point? Dialogue: 0,0:15:53.61,0:15:56.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，这边。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yes, over here. Dialogue: 0,0:16:00.82,0:16:07.21,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我太懒了，没有实际重写圣子和圣灵在那条线上面。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I was too lazy to actually rewrite Son and Holy Spirit above that line. Dialogue: 0,0:16:07.21,0:16:15.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以要点是，对主流教会来说，圣父、圣子和圣灵都在线上，属于创造者的领域。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the point would be that for the mainstream church, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all above the line in the realm of Creator. Dialogue: 0,0:16:16.42,0:16:18.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而人类则在这里下面的被造物中。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And then humanity is down here in creation. Dialogue: 0,0:16:18.48,0:16:23.45,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，从这个意义上说，圣子成为我们中的一员。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, in that sense, well, the Son became one of us. Dialogue: 0,0:16:23.45,0:16:25.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他本性上不是我们中的一员。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He's not one of us by nature. Dialogue: 0,0:16:25.57,0:16:27.37,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他原本不是我们中的一员。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He's not originally one of us. Dialogue: 0,0:16:27.37,0:16:28.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这边有问题吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Question over here? Dialogue: 0,0:16:28.03,0:16:32.81,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不，是安提阿的皇帝被派来移除保罗的吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}No, was the emperor of Antioch sent in to remove Paul? Dialogue: 0,0:16:32.81,0:16:36.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他当时被开除教籍了吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Was he excommunicated then or not? Dialogue: 0,0:16:36.95,0:16:38.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}保罗被开除教籍是什么意思？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What is Paul excommunicated? Dialogue: 0,0:16:38.99,0:16:43.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，他被宣布为异端的同时也被开除教籍了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yeah, he would have been excommunicated at the same time that he was declared a heretic. Dialogue: 0,0:16:43.78,0:16:46.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，他们只是无法摆脱他。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yeah, they just couldn't get rid of him. Dialogue: 0,0:16:46.00,0:16:48.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}罗马帝国的皇帝。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The emperor of the Roman Empire. Dialogue: 0,0:16:57.29,0:16:58.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，很好。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay, good. Dialogue: 0,0:16:58.53,0:16:59.21,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}到目前为止还不错。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So far so good. Dialogue: 0,0:16:59.21,0:17:46.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，在另一个极端，我们有另一种形式的君主论，因为在这里黑板的这一边，在这\N另一个极端，我们也将看到对神的唯一性的强调，但它将导致一种不同的君主论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, On the other extreme, we have another form of monarchianism, because on this side of the board here, on this other extreme, we're also going to see an emphasis on the oneness of God, but it's going to lead to a different kind of monarchianism. Dialogue: 0,0:17:46.20,0:17:49.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不过，在我写下这个之前，我必须指出这一点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Before I write that down, though, I have to point this out. Dialogue: 0,0:17:50.54,0:18:11.33,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当我们看第一和第二世纪时，我们看到了幻影说，我们看到了马吉\N安派，我们看到了诺斯底主义，而我将在这里写下的并不完全是诺\N斯底主义的直接演变，因为记住，诺斯底派从教会中分离出去。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}When we look at the first and second centuries, we saw Docetism, we saw the Marcionites, we saw Gnosticism, And what I'm going to put over here is not exactly a direct evolution of Gnosticism, because remember, the Gnostics separated out from the Church. Dialogue: 0,0:18:11.33,0:18:13.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们离开了，他们被赶出去了，这不太清楚。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They left, they were kicked out, it's not clear. Dialogue: 0,0:18:13.79,0:18:22.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但无论发生了什么，诺斯底派从教会中分离出来\N，写了自己的福音书，并走上了自己的道路。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But whatever happened, the Gnostics separated themselves from the Church, wrote their own Gospels, and sort of went their own way. Dialogue: 0,0:18:22.93,0:18:31.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在他们的位置上，留下的是一些不同的东西，但在某种程度上又相似。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In their place, what is left behind is something different Yet, in a certain way, similar. Dialogue: 0,0:18:32.06,0:18:40.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们通常称之为形态论君主论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And we usually refer to this as modalistic monarchianism. Dialogue: 0,0:18:45.07,0:18:48.09,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我对此的简称是形态论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And my shorthand for this is modalism. Dialogue: 0,0:18:49.85,0:18:51.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以你可以直接称之为形态论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So you can just call it modalism. Dialogue: 0,0:18:53.28,0:19:00.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但它是一种君主论的形式，因为它强调神的唯一性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But it is in a form of monarchyism because it's emphasizing the oneness of God. Dialogue: 0,0:19:00.92,0:19:11.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但从这个意义上说，它有点像这里的对立面，因为嗣子论者说神\N是一位是因为耶稣不是神，而形态论者是这样回答这个问题的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But in this sense, it's kind of the opposite of this over here because where the adoptionists said God is one because Jesus is not God, the modalists answered the question this way. Dialogue: 0,0:19:11.52,0:19:16.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们说神是一位，因为耶稣是伪装的圣父。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They said God is one because Jesus is the Father in disguise. Dialogue: 0,0:19:18.05,0:19:19.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以你看到它是如何相反的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So you see how it's the opposite. Dialogue: 0,0:19:20.97,0:19:35.89,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗣子论者对耶稣说「父比我大」感到非常舒服，但\N他们对耶稣说「我与父原为一」会感到不舒服。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The adoptionists are perfectly comfortable with the saying of Jesus, the Father is greater than I, but they wouldn't be comfortable with the saying when Jesus says the Father and I are one. Dialogue: 0,0:19:35.91,0:19:59.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而这里的情况恰恰相反，因为形态论者会对耶稣说「我与父原为一」\N感到非常舒服，他们不会对耶稣说「父比我大」感到不舒服。所以这\N里发生的是，圣父和圣子不仅仅是统一的一，而是完全相同的一。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And what you have over here is the opposite, because the modalists would be perfectly comfortable with Jesus' saying the Father and I are one, They would not be uncomfortable with Jesus saying the Father is greater than I. So what's happening over here is that the Father and the Son become not simply one as in unified, but one as in identical. Dialogue: 0,0:20:04.14,0:20:07.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这不像诺斯底派那样是多神论的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So this is not polytheistic like the Gnostics. Dialogue: 0,0:20:07.24,0:20:17.19,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是激进的一神论，但一神论到了一个程度，在\N某种意义上，它实际上不再是三位一体的了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This is radically monotheistic, but monotheistic to the point that it's no longer, in a sense, it's no longer Trinitarian, really. Dialogue: 0,0:20:18.89,0:20:21.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以再说一次，这不是诺斯底派的遗产。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So again, this is not the legacy of the Gnostics. Dialogue: 0,0:20:21.57,0:20:23.100,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们没有拒绝旧约。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They did not reject the Old Testament. Dialogue: 0,0:20:23.100,0:20:38.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们没有拒绝旧约的神等等。但他们确实与幻影说或诺斯底的\N基督论有亲和性，所以我稍后会讲到这一点，你会看到的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They did not reject the Old Testament God, etc. But they do have an affinity with a docetic or a Gnostic Christology, and so I'll get to that in a minute and you'll see it. Dialogue: 0,0:20:38.07,0:20:45.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但基本上，形态论者说的是神是一位，因为耶稣是伪装的圣父。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But basically, what the modalists are saying is that God is one because Jesus is the Father in disguise. Dialogue: 0,0:20:45.16,0:20:49.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣子是圣父的化身。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Son is the Father incarnate. Dialogue: 0,0:20:50.14,0:20:53.06,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这意味着他并不真正是人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Which means He's not really human. Dialogue: 0,0:20:55.32,0:21:12.81,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}简单地说是神的神圣儿子，或神圣的神，就是神，我很难准确表\N达，他只是采取了某种人的形式或外表的神，但并不真正是人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Simply the divine son of God, or the divine God, simply God, who I'm having trouble trying to articulate, he's simply God who takes on a kind of a human form or appearance, but is not really human. Dialogue: 0,0:21:12.81,0:21:25.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这就是与幻影说有某种亲和性的地方，因为幻影说和\N诺斯底派否认基督的人性，说他只是看起来或似乎是人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so this is where there's kind of an affinity with Docetism, because the Docetics and the Gnostics Jesus denied the humanity of Christ, saying that he only appeared or seemed to be human. Dialogue: 0,0:21:25.26,0:21:40.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}即使那些相信耶稣有有形的物质形态的诺斯底派，仍然\N否认耶稣完全的人性，使他成为不完全是人的东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Even those Gnostics who believed that Jesus had a tangible physical material form still denied the full humanity of Jesus and made him something less than human. Dialogue: 0,0:21:41.65,0:21:47.65,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以任何没有离开教会的幻影说或诺斯底派可能都会落入这个阵营。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So any docetics or Gnostics that didn't leave the church probably would have fallen into this camp. Dialogue: 0,0:21:47.65,0:21:48.49,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那边有问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Question back there. Dialogue: 0,0:21:48.49,0:21:51.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，他们在这个时候确实有福音书，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay, they do have the Gospels at this point, right? Dialogue: 0,0:21:51.54,0:21:52.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，他们有。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They do, yes. Dialogue: 0,0:21:52.68,0:21:57.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们如何解释他在客西马尼园的恐惧以及在十字架上的陈述？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}How would they explain his fear at the Garden of Gethsemane for the statements on the cross? Dialogue: 0,0:21:57.99,0:21:59.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，嗯，很多那样的事情...\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yeah, well, a lot of that stuff... Dialogue: 0,0:22:02.20,0:22:19.06,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}可能会被寓言化或以寓言方式解释，或以某种方式解释，类似于诺斯底\N派可能会做的那样，或者会被解释为耶稣有意给我们一个实物教训。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Would have probably been allegorized or interpreted allegorically or interpreted in a way, something like what the Gnostics might have done, or would have been interpreted as Jesus sort of intentionally giving us an object lesson. Dialogue: 0,0:22:19.30,0:22:25.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，你知道，当耶稣祷告，当圣子向圣父祷告\N时，如果圣子就是圣父，那这到底是怎么回事？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, you know, when Jesus prays, when the Son prays to the Father, if the Son is the Father, well, what's that all about? Dialogue: 0,0:22:25.88,0:22:31.10,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，答案可能会是类似这样的，他这样做只是为了教我们如何祷告。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, the answer would probably be something like, he was just doing that to teach us how to pray. Dialogue: 0,0:22:31.34,0:22:33.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你知道，诸如此类的事情。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You know, things like that. Dialogue: 0,0:22:33.97,0:22:44.61,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，几乎在某些时候，耶稣几乎变得有点不诚实，你知道，他做\N的事情只是为了我们的利益，但这些事情并不是真实的，你知道。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, almost, Jesus almost becomes sort of dishonest at some point, you know, where he's doing things that are just for our benefit, but things that aren't really real, you know. Dialogue: 0,0:22:47.39,0:22:54.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以在形态论中，神的三位一体并不是真实的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So with modalism then, the threeness of God is not real. Dialogue: 0,0:22:54.97,0:23:03.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它只是看待一位神或神的一个位格的三种不同方式。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's only three different ways of looking at the one God, or the one person of God. Dialogue: 0,0:23:03.34,0:23:14.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}形态论者说的另一种方式是，这不是三个位格中的一位神，而是一位有三个名字的神。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Another way that the modalists said it is that this is not one God in three persons, this is one God with three names. Dialogue: 0,0:23:15.96,0:23:27.87,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这三个名字通常通过工作描述或活动模式来描述，这就是我们得到形态论这个名称的原因。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And the three names were often described by job description, or by mode of activity, which is where we get the name modalism. Dialogue: 0,0:23:27.91,0:23:45.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这三个名字描述的是神活动的模式，或神的功能，就好像神有三顶\N不同的帽子，根据神在任何特定时间所做的工作而戴上不同的帽子。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the three names are describing the mode of God's activity, or God's function, as if God has There are three different hats that God wears depending on the job God is doing at any given time. Dialogue: 0,0:23:45.17,0:23:49.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当神想要成为创造者时，他戴上圣父的帽子。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}When God wants to be Creator, He puts on the Father hat. Dialogue: 0,0:23:49.44,0:23:52.100,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当神想要成为救主时，他戴上圣子的帽子。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}When God wants to be the Savior, He puts on the Son hat. Dialogue: 0,0:23:53.48,0:23:57.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当神想要成为圣化者时，他戴上圣灵的帽子。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}When God wants to be the Sanctifier, He puts on the Spirit hat. Dialogue: 0,0:23:57.16,0:24:01.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}或者你可以把它想象成一位神戴的三个不同的面具。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Or you can think of it as three different masks worn by the one God. Dialogue: 0,0:24:05.17,0:24:11.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这一位神一次只能戴一个面具。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The one God can only be wearing one of those masks at a time. Dialogue: 0,0:24:11.21,0:24:14.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以当神是圣父时，他同时不是圣子和圣灵。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So when God is Father, He is not at the same time Son and Spirit. Dialogue: 0,0:24:16.37,0:24:17.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一次只能是一个。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Only one at a time. Dialogue: 0,0:24:17.07,0:24:19.65,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这有点像彼得·帕克和蜘蛛侠。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's kind of like Peter Parker and Spider-Man. Dialogue: 0,0:24:19.65,0:24:22.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们不能同时出现在同一个房间里，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They can't both be in the same room at the same time, right? Dialogue: 0,0:24:22.57,0:24:24.33,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为只有一个。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because only one of them. Dialogue: 0,0:24:24.33,0:24:25.73,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以就是这样。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So it's like that. Dialogue: 0,0:24:25.73,0:24:27.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一次一个。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}One at a time. Dialogue: 0,0:24:28.59,0:24:36.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}另一种看待它的方式是根据时间顺序来区分神的名字。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Another way to look at it is to separate out the names for God based on a chronology. Dialogue: 0,0:24:36.43,0:24:39.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换句话说，在旧约中，神是圣父。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In other words, in the Old Testament, God is Father. Dialogue: 0,0:24:40.26,0:24:45.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在新约中，你知道，在耶稣的生平中，神是圣子，就是这样。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In the New Testament, you know, during the life of Jesus, God is Son, and that's it. Dialogue: 0,0:24:45.20,0:24:49.02,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而现在，在教会的生命中，神是圣灵，就是这样。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And now, during the life of the Church, God is Spirit, and that's it. Dialogue: 0,0:24:49.42,0:24:52.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，你知道，再次强调，一次只有一个。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, you know, again, only one at a time. Dialogue: 0,0:24:52.61,0:25:02.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，这种基督论的批评者，对这种看法的批评者说，等一下，你这里有个问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, the critics of this Christology, of this way of looking at it, said, well, wait a minute, you've got a problem here. Dialogue: 0,0:25:04.00,0:25:14.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果你说圣子就是圣父，圣父和圣子是同一个，如果\N你这么说，那么你不是把圣父放在十字架上了吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If you say that the Son is the Father, and that the Father and the Son are one and the same, if you say that, then haven't you put the Father on the cross? Dialogue: 0,0:25:15.15,0:25:19.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这不是意味着你让圣父神死在十字架上了吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Doesn't that mean you've got God the Father dying on the cross? Dialogue: 0,0:25:23.10,0:25:35.42,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这正好说明了我所说的，他们与幻影说有相似之处，因为\N他们对这种批评的回答是十字架受难实际上是一种幻觉。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It tells you exactly what I was talking about, where they have affinities with Docetism, because their answer to that critique was that the crucifixion is really an illusion. Dialogue: 0,0:25:35.90,0:25:37.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这就暴露了问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So this is the giveaway. Dialogue: 0,0:25:37.04,0:25:43.46,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是你知道他们实际上不相信耶稣基督真实或完全的人性的地方。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This is where you know that they really don't believe in a true or full humanity of Jesus Christ. Dialogue: 0,0:25:43.58,0:25:45.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他并不真正是人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He wasn't really human. Dialogue: 0,0:25:45.14,0:25:46.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他并没有真正受苦。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He didn't really suffer. Dialogue: 0,0:25:47.38,0:25:55.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为再次强调，你知道，如果你说圣父和圣子是同一个，那么你就是在说圣父受苦了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because again, you know, if you say that the Father and Son are one and the same, then you are saying that the Father suffered. Dialogue: 0,0:25:55.01,0:25:57.21,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这有一个专门的名称。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And there's a name for that. Dialogue: 0,0:25:59.17,0:26:03.31,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣父受苦的概念被称为圣父受难说。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The concept that the Father suffered is called patricationism. Dialogue: 0,0:26:05.14,0:26:09.81,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而且，呃，「Patri」来自「Father」（父亲），\N「passion」（受难）、「suffer」（受苦）。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And, uh, Patrick from Father, Passion, Suffer. Dialogue: 0,0:26:09.81,0:26:13.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，圣父受苦，即圣父受难说。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, the suffering of the Father, Patrick Passionism. Dialogue: 0,0:26:15.42,0:26:25.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以再次强调，批评者，主流正统派的批评者会说，等一\N下，你说圣父和圣子是同一个，现在你让圣父受苦了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So again, the critics, the mainstream Orthodox critics would say, wait a minute, you say the Father and Son are one and the same, now you're making the Father suffer. Dialogue: 0,0:26:25.28,0:26:29.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而他们的回答会是，嗯，受苦是一种幻觉。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And their answer is going to be, well, the suffering is an illusion. Dialogue: 0,0:26:29.11,0:26:30.29,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这不是真实的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's not real. Dialogue: 0,0:26:30.63,0:26:38.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以再次强调，这就是我们知道在他们的理解中，基督的人性不是真实的原因。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so again, that's how we know that in their understanding, Christ's humanity is not real. Dialogue: 0,0:26:38.43,0:26:40.37,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这本身就是一种幻觉。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That itself is an illusion. Dialogue: 0,0:26:40.51,0:26:47.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，你刚刚读了特土良反对普拉克西亚的文件。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, You just read Tertullian's document against Praxeas. Dialogue: 0,0:26:47.86,0:26:52.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在那份文件中，他所针对的异端就是形态论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And in that document, modalism is the heresy that he's addressing. Dialogue: 0,0:26:52.18,0:26:56.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我希望你先读那份文件，因为我希望你理解三位一体的语言。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I wanted you to read that document first, because I wanted you to get the Trinitarian language. Dialogue: 0,0:26:56.36,0:27:03.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但他在那份文件中所对抗的异端是形态论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the heresy that he's confronting in that document is modalism. Dialogue: 0,0:27:03.23,0:27:13.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}正如我提到的，普拉克西亚，我们并不真正知道他是谁。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And as I mentioned, Praxeas So, Fraxius, we don't really know who he was. Dialogue: 0,0:27:13.07,0:27:40.21,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}事实上，有一些猜测认为这甚至不是一个真实的人，或者\N是某人的化名，比如可能是罗马的某位主教或类似的人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In fact, there's some speculation that it's a It's not even a real person, or that it's a pseudonym for someone else, like maybe even one of the bishops of Rome or something like that. Dialogue: 0,0:27:41.45,0:27:47.02,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但看起来，普拉克西亚是一位认信者。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But it appears, though, that Praxeas was a confessor. Dialogue: 0,0:27:47.76,0:27:54.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}认信者是在迫害时期公开承认信仰的人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And the confessors were the people who had confessed their faith during times of persecution. Dialogue: 0,0:27:56.44,0:27:59.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这给了他们一定程度的权威。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And this gives them a certain measure of authority. Dialogue: 0,0:27:59.62,0:28:01.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们稍后会更多地讨论这个。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We're going to talk about this more later. Dialogue: 0,0:28:01.64,0:28:15.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但重点是，如果普拉克西亚是一个因信仰被罗马当局监禁的人\N，这就给了他一定程度的权威，在基督教社区中给了他地位。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the point is that if Fractius is a guy who has been imprisoned for his faith by the Roman authorities, that gives him a certain measure of authority, that gives him status in the Christian community. Dialogue: 0,0:28:15.25,0:28:18.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以人们听他的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so people listen to him. Dialogue: 0,0:28:20.09,0:28:33.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而且显然，根据特土良的说法，他从亚洲来到西方，来到罗马，这里的\N亚洲是罗马帝国的一部分，包括比我们现在所说的亚洲更广阔的地区。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And apparently, according to Tertullian, He came to the West, to Rome, from Asia, which is a part of the Roman Empire that includes a lot more than what we would call Asia. Dialogue: 0,0:28:33.55,0:28:40.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}可能甚至包括小亚细亚，也就是我们现在称为土耳其的地方。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Perhaps even Asia Minor, which is what we call Turkey now. Dialogue: 0,0:28:40.53,0:28:52.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以他带着这个版本的神学来到这里，他受到了质\N疑，起初似乎为了与社区和解而放弃了这种观点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So he comes with this version of theology, and he was confronted And it first seems to have recanted in order to be reconciled to the community. Dialogue: 0,0:28:55.08,0:29:06.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但这里似乎有些事情发生，罗马的主教们并没有\N真正对抗这种异端，因为他们试图避免分裂。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But there seems to be something going on here where the bishops of Rome are not really confronting this heresy because they're trying to avoid schism. Dialogue: 0,0:29:06.83,0:29:09.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们试图避免教会分裂。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They're trying to avoid the church splitting. Dialogue: 0,0:29:09.71,0:29:13.31,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们今天晚些时候会讨论希波吕托。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And we're going to talk later today about Hippolytus. Dialogue: 0,0:29:13.57,0:29:20.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他非常批评罗马的主教们，认为他们对形态论异端态度软弱。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And he was very critical of the bishops of Rome for being what he thought was soft on the heresy of modalism. Dialogue: 0,0:29:20.71,0:29:28.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}事实上，他甚至称罗马的主教们为形态论者，因为他们没有更快地驱逐形态论者。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In fact, he even called the bishops of Rome modalists for not being quicker to expoliticate the modalists. Dialogue: 0,0:29:28.84,0:29:37.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}罗马的主教们并不真的是形态论者，但显然他们宁愿犯这边的错误，而不是那边的错误。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The bishops of Rome were not really modalists, but apparently they would rather err toward this side than that side. Dialogue: 0,0:29:39.09,0:29:47.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对特土良来说，普拉克西亚最糟糕的地方可能不是他是形态论者，而是他反对孟他努派。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}For Tertullian, the worst thing about Praxeus was not that he was a modalist, probably, but that he was an anti-Montanist. Dialogue: 0,0:29:47.89,0:30:06.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在记住，孟他努派是特土良所关联的灵恩派团体，他喜欢他们，但普拉克西亚不\N喜欢他们，而且看起来是普拉克西亚说服了罗马的主教们将孟他努派视为异端。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now remember, the Montanists, this is the charismatic group that Tertullian associated with, and he liked them, but Praxeus didn't like them, and it appears that Praxeus was the one who was able to talk the bishops of Rome into considering the Montanists as heretics. Dialogue: 0,0:30:07.62,0:30:14.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这里的问题将是，你知道，谁会被认为更像异端，孟他努派还是形态论者？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the question here was going to be, you know, who was going to be considered more of a heretic, the Montanists or the Modalists? Dialogue: 0,0:30:14.55,0:30:23.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以特土良憎恨普拉克西亚，因为他能够说服罗马的主教们反对孟他努派。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so Tertullian hated Praxeas because he was able to convince the bishops of Rome to go against the Montanists. Dialogue: 0,0:30:23.43,0:30:32.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}事实上，这可能就是特土良与罗马主教们决裂，离开罗马回到迦太基的原因。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In fact, this may be the very reason why Tertullian had a falling out with the bishops of Rome and left Rome and went back to Carthage. Dialogue: 0,0:30:33.76,0:30:40.13,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，根据特土良的说法，普拉克西亚教导说圣父是由童贞女所生的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, according to Tertullian, Praxeas taught that the Father was born of a virgin. Dialogue: 0,0:30:40.44,0:30:45.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换句话说，圣父为自己把自己变成了圣子。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In other words, the Father made Himself into a Son for Himself. Dialogue: 0,0:30:45.30,0:30:46.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是形态论者所教导的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This is what the modalists are teaching. Dialogue: 0,0:30:46.86,0:30:48.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是普拉克西亚所教导的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This is what Crackby is taught. Dialogue: 0,0:30:48.84,0:30:53.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣父为自己把自己变成了圣子。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Father made Himself into a Son for Himself. Dialogue: 0,0:30:53.24,0:30:55.61,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此圣父受苦并死亡。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so the Father suffered and died. Dialogue: 0,0:30:55.94,0:30:59.19,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在这部分可能是特土良的评论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now that part may be Tertullian's commentary. Dialogue: 0,0:30:59.71,0:31:09.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但重点是，对形态论者来说，圣父、圣子和圣灵\N是，用特土良的话说，完全相同的一个位格。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the point is that for the modalists, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are, to use to quote Tertullian, the very selfsame person. Dialogue: 0,0:31:10.09,0:31:13.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以神是一个有三个名字的位格。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So God is one person with three names. Dialogue: 0,0:31:15.55,0:31:17.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}神是一个有三个名字的位格。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}God is one person with three names. Dialogue: 0,0:31:17.25,0:31:26.98,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}就像我说的，旧约、新约教会，另一种看待它的方\N式是，在道成肉身之前，神是圣父或基督之灵。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Like I was saying, Old Testament, New Testament church, another way to look at it is that before the Incarnation, God is the Father or the Christ Spirit. Dialogue: 0,0:31:28.28,0:31:34.13,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在耶稣事工的道成肉身时期，神是圣子或耶稣。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}During the time of the Incarnation in Jesus' ministry, God is the Son or Jesus. Dialogue: 0,0:31:34.74,0:31:38.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}然后在那之后，神是圣灵。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And then after that, God is the Holy Spirit. Dialogue: 0,0:31:39.88,0:31:54.66,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但再次强调，这个想法是神真的只是一个位格，为\N不同的时期或神所做的不同工作戴上不同的面具。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But again, the idea is that it's really just this one personality of God who puts on different masks for the different times or for the different jobs that God is doing. Dialogue: 0,0:31:56.47,0:32:02.33,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在普拉克西亚之后，另一个名叫诺伊图的形态论者来到罗马。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}After Praxeas, another modalist came to Rome named Noemis. Dialogue: 0,0:32:03.95,0:32:09.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你们将要读的，这周要读的文件之一是一份名为《反对诺伊图》的文件。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And you're going to read, one of your documents for this coming week is a document called Against Noetius. Dialogue: 0,0:32:12.89,0:32:19.89,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他也是在3世纪之交来到罗马，不久之后就被开除教籍。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He arrived in Rome also right around the turn of the 3rd century and was excommunicated shortly after that. Dialogue: 0,0:32:21.11,0:32:40.46,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}虽然被开除教籍后，他继续教导他的基督教版本，因为你知道，在那个时候，任何人\N都可以挂牌自称哲学家，教授他们想教的任何东西作为哲学，并建立一个哲学学校。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Although, after being excommunicated, he continued teaching his version of Christianity because, you know, at that time, anybody could hang a shingle and call themselves a philosopher and teach whatever they want as a philosophy and set up a philosophical school. Dialogue: 0,0:32:40.57,0:32:53.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，诺伊图建立了自己的哲学学校，在那里他教授他认\N为是基督教的一个版本，但与罗马主教所做的相对立。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, Noegis sets up his own philosophical school where he's teaching what he considers a version of Christianity, but in opposition to what the Bishop of Rome is doing. Dialogue: 0,0:32:55.09,0:33:00.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}再次强调，你们将要读希波吕托的一份名为《反对诺伊图》的文件。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And again, you're going to read a document by Hippolytus called Against Noetis. Dialogue: 0,0:33:00.53,0:33:15.100,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}希波吕托在几个地方谈到这一点，希波吕托说形态论的异端实际上来自东方，来自一元论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And Hippolytus says, in a couple of places Hippolytus talks about this, Hippolytus says that the heresy of modalism, It really comes from the East and it comes from monism. Dialogue: 0,0:33:15.100,0:33:18.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在我知道我给你们所有这些N开头的词。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now I know I'm giving you all these N words. Dialogue: 0,0:33:21.10,0:33:22.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一元论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Monism. Dialogue: 0,0:33:26.77,0:33:28.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}什么是一元论？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What's monism? Dialogue: 0,0:33:29.36,0:33:33.02,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这里有人看过一部叫《星球大战》的电影吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Has anyone here seen a movie called Star Wars? Dialogue: 0,0:33:33.60,0:33:38.42,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你记得那部电影中叫做「原力」的东西吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Do you remember that little thing in that movie called The Force? Dialogue: 0,0:33:39.18,0:33:44.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你记得卢克问欧比旺·肯诺比，这个原力是什么东西吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And do you remember when Luke asks Obi-Wan Kenobi, what is this Force thing? Dialogue: 0,0:33:44.28,0:33:57.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他解释说原力是将一切联系在一起的东西，最终的\N想法是一切都是一体的，所有事物都是相连的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And he explains that the Force is the thing that binds everything together and that ultimately the idea is that everything is one and all things are connected. Dialogue: 0,0:33:58.02,0:33:59.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是一种一元论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That's a form of monism. Dialogue: 0,0:33:59.94,0:34:05.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一元论是一种认为万物皆一的哲学。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Monism is a philosophy that says that all is one. Dialogue: 0,0:34:06.46,0:34:22.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，注意这如何成为幻影说和诺斯底主义的对立面，因为\N幻影说和诺斯底主义将他们的神学建立在二元论的基础上。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, notice how this is sort of the antithesis of the Docetics and the Gnostics, because the Docetics and the Gnostics base their theology on dualism. Dialogue: 0,0:34:22.49,0:34:27.13,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}极端的二元论说你有灵和物质，两者不能接触。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Extreme dualism says you've got spirit and you've got matter and the two can't touch. Dialogue: 0,0:34:28.02,0:34:33.46,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一元论完全否认灵与物质之间的区别。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Motivism completely denies the distinction between spirit and matter. Dialogue: 0,0:34:33.68,0:34:36.89,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一切都是相连的，一切都是一体的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Everything is connected and everything is one. Dialogue: 0,0:34:38.17,0:34:46.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好吧，如果你相信一切都是相连的，一切都是一体的，并\N且如果你将这应用于神，那么你就不能在神性中有区分。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, if you believe everything is connected and everything is one, and if you apply that to God, then you can't have distinctions within the Godhead. Dialogue: 0,0:34:46.99,0:34:53.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}神是一位，圣父就是圣子，圣子就是圣灵，圣灵就是圣父，等等。我看到这边有人举手吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The God is one, and the Father is the Son, and the Son is the Spirit, and the Spirit is the Father, etc. Did I see a hand over here? Dialogue: 0,0:34:53.74,0:34:54.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}有问题吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Question? Dialogue: 0,0:34:54.20,0:34:54.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yes. Dialogue: 0,0:34:59.46,0:35:01.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这与印度教有什么区别？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What is the difference between this and Hinduism? Dialogue: 0,0:35:01.36,0:35:11.42,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，实际上有几个东方宗教与一元论相似，但我不\N敢深入讨论，因为我不是那些东方宗教的专家。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, there are actually several Eastern religions that are similar to monism, but I hesitate to go too far into that because I'm not an expert on those Eastern religions. Dialogue: 0,0:35:13.26,0:35:23.06,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在某种程度上，你知道，不同的东方宗教教导一种万物相连的哲学，它就是这样的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}To the extent that, you know, different Eastern religions teach a sort of, you know, everything is connected philosophy, it is like that. Dialogue: 0,0:35:23.06,0:35:34.61,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}再次强调，这就是希波吕托所说的，形态论实际上\N是这种东方一元论被引入西方并应用于基督教。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And again, this is what Apollos is saying, is that modalism is really this Eastern monism imported to the West and applied to Christianity. Dialogue: 0,0:35:35.13,0:35:43.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，你知道，尽管在某种程度上，它与二元论有显著的不同。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, you know, even though, in a way, It's strikingly different from dualism. Dialogue: 0,0:35:43.43,0:35:50.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你最终会到达同一个地方，而你到达的地方就是基督没有真正的人性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You end up at the same place, and the place you end up at is Christ has no real humanity. Dialogue: 0,0:35:51.39,0:35:52.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这边有个问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Question over here. Dialogue: 0,0:35:52.15,0:35:57.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，他们是否仍然使用一些诺斯底主义的福音书，还是不用？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, do they still use some of the Gospels of the Gnostic Statism, or not? Dialogue: 0,0:35:57.79,0:36:03.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}哦，你是说在这个时候，他们是否使用诺斯底派的资料？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Oh, you mean at this time, are they using Gnostic sources? Dialogue: 0,0:36:03.91,0:36:05.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}可能不会。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Probably not. Dialogue: 0,0:36:05.35,0:36:06.65,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，可能不会。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yeah, probably not. Dialogue: 0,0:36:06.65,0:36:11.05,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但是，我的意思是，没有办法确定。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But, I mean, there's no way to know for sure. Dialogue: 0,0:36:15.72,0:36:24.73,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，我的意思是，你知道，再次强调，这里有这些相似之处，\N你知道，耶稣的位格并不真正是人，而且苦难也不是真实的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yeah, I mean, you know, again, there are these affinities where, you know, the person of Jesus is not really human and the suffering is not real. Dialogue: 0,0:36:24.73,0:36:27.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，你知道，存在这些联系。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, you know, there are those connections. Dialogue: 0,0:36:27.01,0:36:32.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}至于他们是否使用特定的诺斯底福音书或资料，可能不会。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Whether they were using the specifically Gnostic Gospels or sources, probably not. Dialogue: 0,0:36:32.48,0:36:40.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而且，无论任何特定的诺斯底资料在多大程度上教导多神论，他们都会拒绝。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And to whatever extent any particular Gnostic source teaches Apollytheism, they reject that. Dialogue: 0,0:36:41.86,0:36:45.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，让我再给你们一个形态论的特征。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay, let me give you one more modalist feature. Dialogue: 0,0:36:45.99,0:36:46.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}撒伯流。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Sibelius. Dialogue: 0,0:36:47.19,0:36:48.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}撒伯流。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Sibelius. Dialogue: 0,0:36:59.43,0:37:07.33,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}可能是诺伊图的学生，因为他像是下一代，似乎在220年代开始活动。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Possibly a student of Noenis, because he's sort of like the next generation, seems to be doing his thing in the 220s. Dialogue: 0,0:37:07.69,0:37:18.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}此外，他显然是普拉克西亚的学生，至少是间接的，因为像普拉\N克西亚一样，撒伯流基本上教导神是一个有三个名字的位格。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Also, clearly a student of Praxeas, at least indirectly, because like Praxeas, Sibelius taught basically that God is one person with three names. Dialogue: 0,0:37:20.70,0:37:36.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}撒伯流被罗马主教卡利斯都开除教籍，卡利斯都从217年到22\N2年担任罗马主教。所以你可以看到，你知道，这又是下一代了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Sibelius was excommunicated by the bishop Callistus, who was bishop of Rome from 217 to 222. And so you can see, you know, this is again kind of the next generation. Dialogue: 0,0:37:36.72,0:37:43.06,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当你稍后读到诺瓦提安时，我们会讨论他，诺瓦提安写文章反对撒伯流。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And when you read Novatian later, we'll talk about him, Novatian wrote against Sibelius. Dialogue: 0,0:37:43.06,0:37:45.42,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}诺瓦提安特别提到了他。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Novatian mentions him specifically. Dialogue: 0,0:37:45.42,0:37:57.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以你看到这里发生的是，这是你的三个主要形\N态论者，每一个都有一个主流或更正统的对手。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So you see what's happening here is that These are your three main modalists, and each one of them has a mainstream or a more orthodox opponent. Dialogue: 0,0:37:57.24,0:38:10.02,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}特土良写文反对普拉克西亚，希波吕托写文反对诺伊图，而诺瓦提安虽然没有写一\N份名为反对撒伯流的文件，但他在他关于三位一体的文件中提到了撒伯流的名字。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Tertullian wrote against Praxeus, Hippolytus wrote against Noetis, and Novatian, while he didn't actually write a document called against Sibelius, he mentions Sibelius by name in his document on the Trinity. Dialogue: 0,0:38:10.70,0:38:18.42,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}事实上，撒伯流与形态论如此紧密相连，以至于形态论的另一个名称就是撒伯流主义。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And in fact, Sibelius is so connected with modalism that another name for modalism is Sibelianism. Dialogue: 0,0:38:18.63,0:38:30.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以当你读到四世纪及以后的文件时，这些早期作者，但比\N这个时期晚的作者，实际上就把形态论称为撒伯流主义。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So when you read documents of the fourth century and later, these early writers, but later than this time, literally just refer to modalism as Sabellianism. Dialogue: 0,0:38:30.82,0:38:32.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是他们的称呼。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That's what they call it. Dialogue: 0,0:38:34.34,0:38:47.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以关于形态论，作为主流教会，大多数主教会这样看待它，\N他们会批评它，他们会说与他们对嗣子论所说的相反的话。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So with regard to modalism then, as the mainstream church, the majority of bishops would look at this, they would critique this and they would say kind of the opposite of what they said about adoptionism. Dialogue: 0,0:38:48.41,0:38:56.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}记住，嗣子论在圣父和圣子之间没有足够的统一\N性，而且区别太大，以至于成了真正的分离。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Remember, adoptionism had not enough unity between the father and son, and too much distinction so that it was a real separation. Dialogue: 0,0:38:56.77,0:38:59.13,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但对于形态论，你遇到了相反的问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But with modalism, you've got the opposite problem. Dialogue: 0,0:38:59.27,0:39:06.61,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣父和圣子之间没有足够的区别，因为除了工作描述之外，实际上没有区别。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}There is not enough distinction between the father and son, because there is no distinction, really, apart from job description. Dialogue: 0,0:39:06.99,0:39:18.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而且，如果你这样想的话，圣父和圣子之间的统一\N性太强了，因为再次强调，位格之间没有区别。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And there's, if you can think of it this way, too much unity between father and son, because again, there's no distinction between the person. Dialogue: 0,0:39:18.89,0:39:47.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，为了回应这两个极端的替代方案，正统派的立场在中间，很遗憾我这\N里没有黑板，但正统派的立场在中间，如果我有黑板的话我会写下特土良、\N希波吕托和诺瓦提安，正统派的立场是耶稣是神，即神性的，但不是圣父。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, in response to both of these alternatives on the extremes, the Orthodox position in the middle, unfortunately I don't have a chalkboard right here, but the Orthodox position in the middle, where if I had chalkboard I'd be writing, you know, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Novatian, the Orthodox position is that Jesus is God, i.e. divine, but not the Father. Dialogue: 0,0:39:47.90,0:39:51.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，对抗这些人，是的，他是神。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, against these guys, yes, He is God. Dialogue: 0,0:39:51.47,0:39:54.19,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对抗那些人，不，他不是圣父。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Against these guys, no, He's not the Father. Dialogue: 0,0:39:54.43,0:39:57.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}耶稣是神，但他不是圣父。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Jesus is God, but He is not the Father. Dialogue: 0,0:39:57.56,0:40:04.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是为什么我们开始这整个课程时要解决当我们说神时我们是什么意思的问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And this is why we began this whole class by addressing the question of what do we mean when we say God? Dialogue: 0,0:40:05.62,0:40:14.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为当你说神这个词时，如果你指的是圣父神，那么\N你就不能说耶稣是神，因为你不能说耶稣是圣父。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because when you say the word God, you mean God the Father, then you can't say Jesus is God, because you can't say Jesus is the Father. Dialogue: 0,0:40:14.55,0:40:22.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但如果你用神这个词指的是神性，神圣的，那么你可以说耶稣是神，因为耶稣是神性的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But if what you mean by the word God is divinity, divine, then you can say Jesus is God, because Jesus is divine. Dialogue: 0,0:40:22.91,0:40:33.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是我们必须保持平衡的行为，不是玩耍，而是我的意思\N是这是我们必须维持的，以避免两个极端并保持在中间。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This is the balancing act that we have to play, not play, but I mean this is what we have to maintain To avoid the two extremes and to stay in the middle. Dialogue: 0,0:40:33.48,0:40:39.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}至少这是早期主流作者的看法。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}At least this is how the early mainstream writers saw it. Dialogue: 0,0:40:39.11,0:40:45.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，我们说耶稣是神，但耶稣不是圣父。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, we say Jesus is God, but Jesus is not the Father. Dialogue: 0,0:40:45.55,0:40:56.45,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}三位一体的三个位格在我们的理解中必须保持区别，以避免形态论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The three persons of the Trinity must remain distinct in our understanding to avoid modalism. Dialogue: 0,0:40:57.05,0:41:01.09,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但他们必须保持统一，以避免嗣子论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But they must remain unified to avoid adoptionism. Dialogue: 0,0:41:01.09,0:41:09.10,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}事实上，在神的一体性中，三位一体的三个位格在所有神圣活动中是统一的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And in fact, in the oneness of God, the three Persons of the Trinity are unified in all divine activity. Dialogue: 0,0:41:09.28,0:41:21.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以讽刺的是，形态论允许的唯一区别，即功能的区别，在正统立场中是不允许的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So ironically, the one distinction that modalism allows, a distinction of function, is a distinction that's not allowed in the Orthodox position. Dialogue: 0,0:41:21.40,0:41:30.93,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你不能通过功能或工作描述来区分三位一体的三个位格。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You cannot make the distinction between the three persons of the Trinity by function or by job description. Dialogue: 0,0:41:31.17,0:41:41.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你不能说圣父是创造者，圣子是救主，圣灵是维持者或圣化者。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You cannot say the Father is creator, the Son is savior, and the Holy Spirit is sustainer or sanctifier. Dialogue: 0,0:41:41.04,0:41:52.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你不能这么说的原因是，如果你这么说，你就在暗示，当你\N说圣父是创造者时，你就在暗示圣子和圣灵不是创造者。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And the reason why you can't say that is because if you say that, you are implying, you say the Father is creator, you're implying that the Son and the Spirit are not also creator. Dialogue: 0,0:41:52.83,0:42:05.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果你说圣子是救主，以一种暗示圣父不是救主的方式，那也是有问题的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If you say the Son is Savior, In such a way that you imply that the Father is not also a Savior, then that's problematic too. Dialogue: 0,0:42:06.16,0:42:08.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}说耶稣是我的救主没有什么问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}There's nothing wrong with saying Jesus is my Savior. Dialogue: 0,0:42:10.68,0:42:28.13,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但如果你用三位一体的公式说，以一种暗示这些是三位一体位格之间的区别，这些\N区别是按功能划分的方式，你描述的就不是正统的三位一体论，而是一种形态论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But if you say it in a Trinitarian formula, in such a way that you imply that these are the distinctions between the persons of the Trinity, that these distinctions are by function, you're describing not Orthodox Trinitarianism, but a form of modalism. Dialogue: 0,0:42:28.35,0:42:37.21,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当人们试图按功能重塑三位一体公式时，这就成了一个真正的问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And this becomes a real problem when folks try to recast the Trinitarian formula by function. Dialogue: 0,0:42:37.29,0:42:47.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以如果你祝福说，奉创造者、救赎者、维持者的名，那么，现在你就在教导形态论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So if you give a benediction and say, in the name of the Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer, well, now you're teaching modalism. Dialogue: 0,0:42:47.57,0:42:48.87,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这是个问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So that's a problem. Dialogue: 0,0:42:48.99,0:42:51.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}为什么形态论是个问题？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And why is modalism a problem? Dialogue: 0,0:42:52.09,0:42:56.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为在形态论中，你最终失去了基督的人性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because in modalism, you ultimately lose the humanity of Christ. Dialogue: 0,0:42:56.90,0:43:00.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果你失去了基督的人性，你就失去了我们与他的联系。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And if you lose the humanity of Christ, you lose our connection to Him. Dialogue: 0,0:43:00.94,0:43:04.46,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为我们与他的联系是通过我们共享的人性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because our connection to Him is through our shared human nature. Dialogue: 0,0:43:04.84,0:43:10.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果我们没有通过共享的人性与基督建立联系，那么我们就与神没有联系。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And if we have no connection to Christ through a shared human nature, then we have no connection to God. Dialogue: 0,0:43:10.89,0:43:16.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为我们与神的联系是通过基督的人性，而基督的人性与基督的神性相连。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because our connection to God is through the humanity of Christ, which is connected to the divinity of Christ. Dialogue: 0,0:43:16.97,0:43:25.49,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，三位一体的三个位格不能通过模式或功能来描述或区分。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, three persons of the Trinity cannot be described or distinguished by mode or function. Dialogue: 0,0:43:25.59,0:43:46.65,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}事实上，除了几个例外，你能说的关于三位一体中\N一个位格的任何事，你都可以说到其他两个位格。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In fact, In fact, anything that you can say about one person of the Trinity, you can say about the other two persons of the Trinity with a couple of exceptions. Dialogue: 0,0:43:47.66,0:43:52.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你能说的关于整个三位一体的任何事，你都可以说到三位一体中的任何一个位格。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Anything you can say about the whole Trinity, you can say about one person, any one person of the Trinity. Dialogue: 0,0:43:52.92,0:43:57.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}或者你能说的关于三位一体中任何一个位格的任何事，你都可以说到整个三位一体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Or anything you can say about any one person of the Trinity, you can say about the whole Trinity. Dialogue: 0,0:43:57.32,0:44:00.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}再次强调，有几个非常具体的例外。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Again, with a couple of very specific exceptions. Dialogue: 0,0:44:02.76,0:44:06.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我实际上刚刚向你描述了两个重要的教义。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so I've actually just described to you two important doctrines. Dialogue: 0,0:44:08.53,0:44:12.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}第一个是不可分离的运作教义。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The first is the doctrine of inseparable operation. Dialogue: 0,0:44:20.24,0:44:29.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不可分离的运作说的是三位一体的三个位格在所有神圣活动中是统一的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Inseparable operation says that all three persons of the Trinity are unified in all divine activity. Dialogue: 0,0:44:30.89,0:44:35.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以无论神在做什么，都是三位一体在做。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So no matter what God is doing, it is the Trinity that's doing it. Dialogue: 0,0:44:35.28,0:44:37.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不是三位一体中的一个位格单独在做。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It is not one person of the Trinity only. Dialogue: 0,0:44:37.32,0:44:41.18,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}三位一体的三个位格不是在做分开的事情。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The three persons of the Trinity are not off doing separate things. Dialogue: 0,0:44:41.62,0:45:15.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在再次强调，说圣灵启示圣经没有什么问题，三\N位一体的三个位格在所有神圣活动中都是活跃的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now again, there's nothing wrong with saying the Holy Spirit inspired Scripture, All three persons of the Trinity are active In all divine activity. Dialogue: 0,0:45:15.08,0:45:19.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这不是我说的确切方式。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That's not exactly how I said it. Dialogue: 0,0:45:19.36,0:45:22.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}三位一体的三个位格在所有神圣活动中是统一的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}All three persons of the Trinity are unified in all divine activity. Dialogue: 0,0:45:22.28,0:45:23.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}类似这样。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Something like that. Dialogue: 0,0:45:23.08,0:45:23.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这在书中有。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's in the book. Dialogue: 0,0:45:23.90,0:45:25.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但你明白了这个概念。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But you get the idea. Dialogue: 0,0:45:25.22,0:45:30.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你明白了三位一体的位格不是在做分开的事情。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You get the idea that the persons of the Trinity are not off doing separate things. Dialogue: 0,0:45:31.27,0:45:40.05,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}即使是在道成肉身的事上，三位一体的三个位格也是统一的，都参与其中。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Even when it comes to the incarnation, all three persons of the Trinity are unified and involved in the incarnation. Dialogue: 0,0:45:41.82,0:45:47.18,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，我提到的另一个重要教义叫做归属。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, the other important doctrine that I mentioned is called appropriation. Dialogue: 0,0:45:50.70,0:45:59.61,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}归属说的是，你能说的关于三位一体中一个位格的任何事，你也必须能说到其他两个位格。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Appropriation says that anything you can say about one person of the Trinity, you have to be able to say about the other two persons of the Trinity. Dialogue: 0,0:46:03.75,0:46:08.41,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你能说的关于三位一体的任何事，你必须能说到每个位格。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Anything you can say about the Trinity, you have to be able to say about each of the persons. Dialogue: 0,0:46:08.41,0:46:11.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你能说的关于每个位格的任何事，你必须能说到整个三位一体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Anything you can say about each of the persons, you have to be able to say about the Trinity. Dialogue: 0,0:46:11.85,0:46:15.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}再次强调，有几个非常具体的例外。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Again, with a couple of very specific exceptions. Dialogue: 0,0:46:17.70,0:46:25.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}再次强调，这样做的原因是因为你不能通过功能或工作描述来区分三位一体的位格。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And again, the reason for this is because you cannot distinguish the persons of the Trinity by function or job description. Dialogue: 0,0:46:25.16,0:46:26.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}让我也擦掉这些东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Let me erase this stuff, too. Dialogue: 0,0:46:27.10,0:46:30.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，我们黑板上不再有异端了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, we no longer have heresy on the board. Dialogue: 0,0:46:35.60,0:46:40.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在黑板上的是正统对它的回应。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now what's on the board is the Orthodox response to it. Dialogue: 0,0:46:41.85,0:46:44.31,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你问那些例外是什么？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What are those exceptions, you ask? Dialogue: 0,0:46:45.51,0:46:48.29,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，让我们来讨论一下。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Alright, let's talk about it. Dialogue: 0,0:46:48.49,0:46:59.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当涉及到圣父和圣子之间的关系时，唯一真正具体的区别，\N圣父和圣子之间唯一真正具体、有形的区别就是道成肉身。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The only real concrete distinction, when it comes to the relationship between the Father and Son, the only real concrete, tangible distinction between the Father and Son is the Incarnation. Dialogue: 0,0:47:00.53,0:47:04.09,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们不能说圣父道成肉身。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We cannot say that the Father became incarnate. Dialogue: 0,0:47:04.100,0:47:07.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们只能说圣子道成肉身。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We would only say that about the Son. Dialogue: 0,0:47:08.94,0:47:10.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们也不会说圣灵道成肉身。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And we wouldn't say that about the Spirit either. Dialogue: 0,0:47:10.78,0:47:12.98,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣灵从未道成肉身。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Spirit never became incarnate. Dialogue: 0,0:47:13.34,0:47:16.41,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这是唯一真正的区别。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so that's the only real distinction. Dialogue: 0,0:47:16.41,0:47:22.31,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}还有几个其他术语只适用于三位一体中的一个位格。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}There are a couple of other terms that apply only to one person of the Trinity. Dialogue: 0,0:47:22.89,0:47:26.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以让我们讨论几分钟。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so let's talk about that for a few minutes. Dialogue: 0,0:47:27.73,0:47:29.29,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是我们的三位一体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So here's our Trinity. Dialogue: 0,0:47:32.09,0:47:37.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一个本质，或者如果你喜欢，本体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}One substance Or, if you prefer, essence. Dialogue: 0,0:47:42.61,0:47:45.69,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}和三个位格。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And, three persons. Dialogue: 0,0:47:51.32,0:47:53.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你知道他们是谁。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And you know who they are. Dialogue: 0,0:47:53.62,0:47:54.46,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣父。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Father. Dialogue: 0,0:47:55.68,0:48:02.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，有些人会争辩说圣父与旧约的神耶和华是同义的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, some people would argue that the Father is synonymous with the Old Testament God, Yahweh. Dialogue: 0,0:48:02.62,0:48:07.49,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}其他人会争辩说旧约的神更应该被认为是整个三位一体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Other people would argue that the Old Testament God is more to be thought of as the whole Trinity. Dialogue: 0,0:48:07.49,0:48:10.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我暂时把这个问题放在一边。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I'm going to leave that aside for the moment. Dialogue: 0,0:48:11.47,0:48:22.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我们有圣父，我们有圣子，也就是耶稣基督，我们有圣灵。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So we have the Father, we have the Son, who is also known as Jesus Christ, and we have the Holy Spirit. Dialogue: 0,0:48:24.39,0:48:26.98,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是我们三位一体的三个位格。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So those are our three persons of the Trinity. Dialogue: 0,0:48:27.74,0:48:39.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以只适用于三位一体中一个位格的术语是，我已\N经告诉你一个，只有圣子可以说是道成肉身的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so the terms that are specific to one person of the Trinity only are, I already told you about one, only the Son can be said to be incarnate. Dialogue: 0,0:48:40.76,0:48:50.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但再次强调，即使在这一点上，不可分离的运作仍然\N适用，因为圣父、圣子和圣灵都参与了道成肉身。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But again, even within that, Inseparable operation still applies because the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all involved in the incarnation. Dialogue: 0,0:48:50.64,0:48:59.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但只有圣子可以说是道成肉身的，因为只有圣子成为了人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But only the Son can be said to be incarnate because only the Son became human. Dialogue: 0,0:48:59.60,0:49:05.49,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}除此之外，我们还有这个圣经词语，受生。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In addition to that, we have this biblical word, begotten. Dialogue: 0,0:49:06.51,0:49:09.87,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}只有圣子被称为受生的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Only the Son is said to be begotten. Dialogue: 0,0:49:11.15,0:49:15.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们可以在圣经中读到，他被称为神的独生子。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And we can read that in Scripture where he's called the only begotten Son of God. Dialogue: 0,0:49:16.86,0:49:24.66,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，我将在下一个小时里更详细地解释受生的含义，所以请耐心听我说。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, I'm going to unpack the meaning of begottenness a little bit more in the next hour, so bear with me. Dialogue: 0,0:49:24.66,0:49:39.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但受生实际上是关于圣子与圣父的关系，描述了圣子如何在道成肉身之前就与圣父不同。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But begottenness is really all about the relationship of the Son to the Father, and describes how the Son It is distinct from the Father even before the Incarnation. Dialogue: 0,0:49:39.59,0:49:40.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}让我们思考一下这个问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Let's think about this. Dialogue: 0,0:49:40.91,0:49:48.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果你回到道成肉身之前的时间，圣父和圣子之间的区别是什么？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If you go back in time before the Incarnation, what's the distinction between the Father and Son? Dialogue: 0,0:49:49.42,0:49:54.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这并不是说圣父和圣子原本是一个东西，然后像变形虫一样分裂了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's not as though the Father and Son were one thing and then split like an amoeba or something. Dialogue: 0,0:49:54.36,0:49:55.56,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不是那样的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's not like that. Dialogue: 0,0:49:56.32,0:49:59.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以圣父和圣子是永恒地不同的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the Father and Son are distinct eternally. Dialogue: 0,0:49:59.32,0:50:00.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那么区别是什么？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So what is the distinction? Dialogue: 0,0:50:00.60,0:50:04.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}区别在于圣子是由圣父所生的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The distinction is that the Son is begotten of the Father. Dialogue: 0,0:50:04.92,0:50:08.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在我知道你在想，不管那是什么意思，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now I know you're thinking, whatever that means, right? Dialogue: 0,0:50:08.36,0:50:09.61,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但请耐心听我说。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But bear with me. Dialogue: 0,0:50:09.61,0:50:11.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣子是由圣父所生的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Son is begotten of the Father. Dialogue: 0,0:50:11.53,0:50:15.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这意味着圣子是受生的，而圣父不是。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So that means the Son is begotten and the Father is not. Dialogue: 0,0:50:16.49,0:50:26.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为没有人生出圣父，所以，如果圣子是受生的，那么圣父就被描述为非受生的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because there's no one of whom the Father is begotten, So, if the Son is begotten, the Father then is described as unbegotten. Dialogue: 0,0:50:29.40,0:50:30.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}再次问，这是什么意思？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Again, what does that mean? Dialogue: 0,0:50:30.59,0:50:32.17,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，这样想。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay, think of it this way. Dialogue: 0,0:50:32.77,0:50:48.42,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}把「受生」这个词理解为与「由...引起」或「依赖于」同义。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Think of the term begotten as synonymous with caused by or dependent on. Dialogue: 0,0:50:53.43,0:51:06.69,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣子的存在是由圣父引起的，圣子依赖于圣父，而圣父\N并不以同样的方式依赖于圣子，也不是由圣子引起的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Son's existence is caused by the Father, and the Son is dependent on the Father in a way that the Father is not reciprocally dependent on the Son, or caused by the Son. Dialogue: 0,0:51:06.75,0:51:08.69,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣父是非受生的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Father is unbegotten. Dialogue: 0,0:51:08.97,0:51:15.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣父不是由任何人引起的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Father is not caused by anyone. Dialogue: 0,0:51:16.93,0:51:20.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣父是无因的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Father is uncaused. Dialogue: 0,0:51:22.42,0:51:25.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}事实上，他是第一因，正如护教学者所说的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He is, in fact, the first cause, as the apologists would say. Dialogue: 0,0:51:25.38,0:51:27.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣父是无因的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Father is uncaused. Dialogue: 0,0:51:28.20,0:51:44.51,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这里有一种偶然性或依赖性的关系，圣子的存在依赖于圣\N父，或取决于圣父，而圣父的存在不依赖于或取决于圣子。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So there is a relationship here of contingency, or dependency, where the Son's existence is dependent on the Father, or contingent upon the Father, and the Father's existence is not contingent or dependent upon the Son. Dialogue: 0,0:51:44.93,0:51:49.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是圣父和圣子之间的区别。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And that is the distinction between Father and Son. Dialogue: 0,0:51:50.47,0:51:52.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那么，圣灵呢？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, what about the Holy Spirit? Dialogue: 0,0:51:52.85,0:52:01.72,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，在教义发展的这个阶段谈论这个有点早，但我还是要告诉你们，这样你们就知道了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, it's a little bit early in the development of doctrine to talk about this, but I'm going to give it to you anyway so you have it. Dialogue: 0,0:52:01.78,0:52:05.69,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们用来描述圣灵的词是圣灵发出。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The word that we use for the Holy Spirit is that the Holy Spirit proceeds. Dialogue: 0,0:52:08.51,0:52:10.31,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣灵发出。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Holy Spirit proceeds. Dialogue: 0,0:52:10.43,0:52:13.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在西方，在我们的信经中，我们说圣灵是从圣父和圣子发出的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And in the West, in our creed, we say it proceeds from the Father and the Son. Dialogue: 0,0:52:13.83,0:52:17.17,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们将在几周后深入讨论这个问题，所以你们会全面了解的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We're going to get into that in a couple of weeks, so you'll know all about that. Dialogue: 0,0:52:17.17,0:52:24.66,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但现在的重点是，虽然圣子被称为受生的，但圣灵是发出的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the point for now is that whereas the Son is said to be begotten, the Spirit proceeds. Dialogue: 0,0:52:24.92,0:52:34.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}「发出」意味着一些与「受生」相同的含义，如由...引起，依赖于，诸如此类的东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And proceeding means some of the same kinds of stuff as begottenness, caused by, dependent on, those kinds of things. Dialogue: 0,0:52:34.59,0:52:43.87,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以再次强调，圣灵有这种关系，圣灵的存在某种程度上取决于圣父。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So again, the Holy Spirit has this relationship where the Holy Spirit's existence is sort of contingent on the Father. Dialogue: 0,0:52:43.95,0:52:52.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但你不要认为这是一种阶梯，即圣父生出圣子，圣子生出圣灵。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But you don't want to get the idea that it's kind of a ladder where the Father begets the Son and the Son begets the Spirit. Dialogue: 0,0:52:52.48,0:52:55.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣灵不是圣父的孙子。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Spirit is not the grandson of the Father. Dialogue: 0,0:52:55.30,0:53:16.41,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是你必须非常小心使用这些术语的地方，因为虽然圣父\N是圣子的父，但圣父并不是以同样的意义成为圣灵的父。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This is where you have to be very careful with these terms because while the Father is the Father of the Son, the Father is not really the Father of the Spirit in the same sense that the Father is the Father of the Son. Dialogue: 0,0:53:17.11,0:53:19.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣父永远是圣父。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Father is always the Father. Dialogue: 0,0:53:22.22,0:53:28.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣父和圣子之间的关系是一回事，圣父和圣灵之间的关系是另一回事。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The relationship between the Father and the Son is one thing, the relationship between the Father and the Spirit is something else. Dialogue: 0,0:53:30.21,0:53:33.49,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不要让它看起来像圣灵是圣父的孙子。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Making it seem like the Spirit is the grandson of the Father. Dialogue: 0,0:53:33.49,0:53:34.41,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你明白我的意思吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You know what I'm saying? Dialogue: 0,0:53:34.41,0:53:35.33,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你们有问题吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Do you have questions? Dialogue: 0,0:53:35.33,0:53:37.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这就是为什么我们不说被遗忘的原因吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So is that why we just don't say forgotten? Dialogue: 0,0:53:38.35,0:53:39.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对，是的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right, yeah. Dialogue: 0,0:53:39.01,0:53:57.37,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}再次强调，这需要几个世纪才能理清，因为在早期，护教学者\N确实使用「发出」这个词来描述圣子，但最终这个词只用于圣\N灵，如果只是因为我们想不出其他词来描述圣灵，你知道吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And again, it's going to take a couple centuries for that to get sorted out, because in the early days, the apologists do use the word proceeding to speak of the Son, but eventually that becomes a word that's only applied to the Spirit, if only because we couldn't think of any other words to apply to the Spirit for that, you know? Dialogue: 0,0:53:57.39,0:53:58.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}后面有问题吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Is there a question back here? Dialogue: 0,0:53:58.63,0:54:06.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，我想，这些教义保持正统效力多长时间，我猜？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yeah, I guess, how long do these doctrines hold the orthodox effect, I guess? Dialogue: 0,0:54:06.54,0:54:08.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}比如，多长时间？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Like, how long? Dialogue: 0,0:54:08.34,0:54:09.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}多长时间？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}How long? Dialogue: 0,0:54:09.34,0:54:11.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你的意思是，正统持续多长时间？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You mean, how long does orthodoxy last? Dialogue: 0,0:54:11.20,0:54:12.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}直到耶稣再来。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Until Jesus returns. Dialogue: 0,0:54:12.22,0:54:13.56,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你在说什么？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What are you talking about? Dialogue: 0,0:54:13.56,0:54:26.33,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}比如，这些教义，我猜，我可能有点超前了，但是，当神秘主\N义者试图把马利亚放入永恒中时，她如何与这些教义相符呢？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Like, these doctrines, I guess, I might be going a little too far ahead, but like, when the mystics try to put Mary into eternity, how does she fit in with these doctrines? Dialogue: 0,0:54:26.51,0:54:32.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，实际上没有人真正把马利亚放入三位一体中。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, nobody really puts Mary in the tribute, per se. Dialogue: 0,0:54:32.59,0:54:46.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但神秘主义是完全不同的东西，因为我认为，你知道，许多神秘主义\N者通过自称神秘主义者或被认为是神秘主义者来逃避异端的指控。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But mysticism is a whole different animal, because I would argue that You know, a lot of the mystics get away with heresy by calling themselves mystics, or by being considered mystics. Dialogue: 0,0:54:46.86,0:54:58.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你可能注意到，对于一些神秘主义者来说，你知道，这是中世纪，在我们讨论的时期之后\N，但你知道，他们是会被烧死在火刑柱上还是被称为圣人，这是一个难以预料的结果。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And you may notice that some of the mystics, it was a toss-up whether they were going to, you know, this is Middle Ages, you know, after our time period, but this is, you know, it was a toss-up whether they were going to get burned at the stake or called a saint. Dialogue: 0,0:54:59.10,0:55:06.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们可能是靠抛硬币决定的，因为被称为神秘主义者可以逃避很多异端指控。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And they could have flipped a coin, because you get away with a lot of heresy by being called a mystic. Dialogue: 0,0:55:06.23,0:55:12.41,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但更大的问题是，记住我们的渐进启示的概念。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the bigger question is, remember our concept of progressive revelation. Dialogue: 0,0:55:12.59,0:55:17.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一旦某些东西被确立为正统，你就不能反悔。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Once something is established as orthodoxy, you can't go back on it. Dialogue: 0,0:55:18.22,0:55:25.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我们在每一代中描述的正统都会保留下来，然后未来的几代人会对其进行阐述。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So what we're describing as orthodoxy in every generation sticks, and then future generations elaborate on it. Dialogue: 0,0:55:25.86,0:55:40.49,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是一个很好的观点，因为有些人会说，嗯，你知道，在四世纪或尼西亚公会议\N之前没有所谓的正统，或者你知道，在某个日期之前我们只能称之为原始正统。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And that's a good point to bring up, because there are some who will say that, well, you know, there's no such thing as orthodoxy before the fourth century or the Council of Nicaea, or, you know, before a certain date we can only call it proto-orthodoxy. Dialogue: 0,0:55:40.49,0:55:44.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我不太同意这种说法，因为每一代都有其正统。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And I don't really agree with that, because every generation has its orthodoxy. Dialogue: 0,0:55:44.76,0:56:01.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，二世纪的正统并不像三世纪或四世纪的正统那样完全发\N展或阐述，但每一代的正统都建立在上一代的正统基础之上。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, the orthodoxy of the second century is not as It's fully developed or articulated as the orthodoxy of the 3rd or 4th century, but the orthodoxy of every generation builds on the orthodoxy of the last. Dialogue: 0,0:56:01.40,0:56:08.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以你不改变它，你只是对它进行扩展。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So you don't change it, you only expand on it. Dialogue: 0,0:56:08.54,0:56:18.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当我们进入现代，当然所有的赌注都取消了，但我们在这门\N课上不这样做，所以就我们的目的而言，正统是固定的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}When we get to the modern era, Then all bets are off, of course, but we don't do that in this class, so for our purposes, orthodoxy sticks. Dialogue: 0,0:56:20.90,0:56:24.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以无论如何，如果你看这些词，我们这里有什么？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So anyway, if you look at these words, what do we have here? Dialogue: 0,0:56:24.64,0:56:27.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们有四个词。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We have four words. Dialogue: 0,0:56:28.07,0:56:34.37,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣父是非受生的，圣子是道成肉身和受生的，圣灵是发出的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Unbegotten for the Father, incarnate and begotten for the Son, and proceeds for the Spirit. Dialogue: 0,0:56:34.95,0:56:41.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这些真的是唯一四个词，每个词只适用于三位一体中的一个位格。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Those are really the only four words That applies to only one person of the Spirit each. Dialogue: 0,0:56:42.17,0:56:46.10,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，这些是归属教义的例外。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, those are the exceptions to the doctrine of appropriation. Dialogue: 0,0:56:46.26,0:56:51.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你能说的关于圣父的任何其他事，你也必须能说到圣子和圣灵。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Anything else you can say about the Father, you have to be able to say about the Son and the Spirit. Dialogue: 0,0:56:52.24,0:57:04.65,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你能说的关于圣子的任何其他事，你也必须能说到圣父和圣灵，等等。你\N能说的关于三位一体的任何事，你也必须能说到三位一体中的一个位格。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Anything else you can say about the Son, you have to be able to say about the Father and the Spirit, etc. Anything you can say about the Trinity, you have to be able to say about one person of the Trinity. Dialogue: 0,0:57:04.65,0:57:20.98,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这些不可分离的运作和归属的教义不仅肯定了神的统一性，三位一体的一\N体性，而且还防止了通过工作描述来命名三位一体位格的形态论倾向。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}These doctrines of inseparable operation and appropriation not only affirm the unity of God, the oneness of the Trinity, but also Guard against the modalist tendency of naming the persons of the Trinity by job description. Dialogue: 0,0:57:21.16,0:57:22.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是你不能做的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Which you can't do. Dialogue: 0,0:57:22.93,0:57:38.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，如果你回想一下你到目前为止读到的内容，你会记得早期神学家和护\N教学者，早期神学家，他们以某些独特的方式描述三位一体的三个位格。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, if you want to think back to what you've read so far, you'll remember that there are certain ways that the early theologians and the apologists, the early theologians, there are certain ways that they described the three persons of the Trinity in unique ways. Dialogue: 0,0:57:38.80,0:57:43.10,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}再次强调，很多都围绕着道成肉身。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Again, a lot of it revolves around the Incarnation. Dialogue: 0,0:57:44.57,0:57:47.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣父不能被局限。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Father cannot be circumscribed. Dialogue: 0,0:57:47.77,0:57:52.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣父不能被局限在时间和空间中，或被包含在空间内。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Father cannot be localized in time and space, or contained within space. Dialogue: 0,0:57:53.04,0:58:05.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}另一方面，圣子可以被局限，或被局限在时间和空间中\N，因为显然，要成为完全的人，他必须如此，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Son, on the other hand, can be circumscribed, or localized in time and space, because obviously, to be fully human, He had to be, right? Dialogue: 0,0:58:06.09,0:58:08.17,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣父总是不可见的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Father is always invisible. Dialogue: 0,0:58:08.49,0:58:12.09,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}然而，圣子在他想要的时候可以是可见的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Son, however, can be visible when he wants to be. Dialogue: 0,0:58:12.47,0:58:22.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以当早期神学家读到「没有人能看见神还能存活」时，他们理解这里的神是指圣父神。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so when the early theologians read, no one can see God and live, they understood God there to mean God the Father. Dialogue: 0,0:58:22.30,0:58:27.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}没有人能看见圣父还能存活，但如果你认为你看见了神，你看见的是圣子神。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}No one can see the Father and live, but if you think you're seeing God, you're seeing God the Son. Dialogue: 0,0:58:27.90,0:58:49.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}事实上，这不正是新约告诉我们的吗，耶稣说，看见了我就\N是看见了父，而且圣父是无形的，但圣子可以是有形的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And in fact, isn't that what we're told in the New Testament, that Jesus says, whoever has seen me has seen the Father, and The Father is intangible, but the Son can be tangible. Dialogue: 0,0:58:49.34,0:58:53.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣父是差遣者，圣子是使者。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Father is the sender, and the Son is the messenger. Dialogue: 0,0:58:54.68,0:59:08.72,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以你确实会得到一些似乎只适用于三位一体中一个位格的描述\N，但在大多数情况下，那四个词真的是归属规则的唯一例外。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So you do get some more descriptions that seem to apply only to one person of the Trinity, but for the most part, Those four words are really the only exceptions to the rule of appropriation. Dialogue: 0,0:59:10.64,0:59:15.18,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}基本上就是这样。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And that's pretty much it. Dialogue: 0,0:59:15.28,0:59:23.10,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在我们会讨论更多，但如果你在想，好吧，那\N么我谈论三位一体的选择是什么，不用担心。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now we will talk more, but don't worry if you're thinking, okay, well then what are my options for talking about the Trinity? Dialogue: 0,0:59:23.62,0:59:25.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们会讨论到这一点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We'll get into that. Dialogue: 0,0:59:25.88,0:59:27.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但现在先坚持这个。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But stick with this for now. Dialogue: 0,0:59:28.20,0:59:38.100,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}再次记住，你知道，形态论是有问题的，因为形态论削弱或否认了耶稣的人性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And remember, again, that, you know, modalism is problematic because modalism diminishes or denies the humanity of Jesus. Dialogue: 0,0:59:38.100,0:59:45.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}然后，你知道，根据早期神学家的说法，这会使我们的救恩本身受到质疑。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And then that, you know, according to the early theologians, that would call into question our very salvation. Dialogue: 0,0:59:45.68,0:59:56.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为我们与神的联系是通过基督的位格，而人类与神\N性的联系在于基督位格本身内人性和神性的结合。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because our connection to God is through the person of Christ, and humanity's connection to the divine is in the union of human and divine within the person of Christ itself. Dialogue: 0,0:59:57.16,0:59:58.51,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，他自己。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, himself. Dialogue: 0,0:59:59.23,1:00:00.19,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，那么。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Alright, so. Dialogue: 0,1:00:00.20,1:00:05.69,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，在休息之前我们还有几分钟，到目前为止有什么问题吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, we've got a few minutes left before break here, so any questions so far? Dialogue: 0,1:00:05.69,1:00:08.09,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，后面有一个。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yes, one back there. Dialogue: 0,1:00:08.09,1:00:27.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是否可以被认为是圣父在他自身的一部分上有意识\N地做出区分，他有意识地将自己分为圣子和圣灵？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Can this be considered in a way to be a deliberate distinction of the Father on his part of himself, where he consciously divides himself into the Son and then the Holy Spirit? Dialogue: 0,1:00:28.04,1:00:38.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这种理论是他存在，然后他取自己并做出分割？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This theory of He is and then he takes himself and makes divisions? Dialogue: 0,1:00:38.34,1:00:52.06,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，从历史上看，神学家们永远不会那样说，因为如果\N神在任何意义上被分割，那么你就失去了神的单一性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, historically the theologians would never say it that way because if God were to be divided in any sense, Then you lose the simplicity of God. Dialogue: 0,1:00:52.06,1:00:54.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为记住，神也是单一的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because remember, God is also simplex. Dialogue: 0,1:00:55.12,1:01:01.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}神是单一的，这意味着神没有部分，也不能被分割成部分。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}God is simplex, which means God doesn't have parts, nor can God be divided into parts. Dialogue: 0,1:01:01.15,1:01:07.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这样做的原因是因为任何有部分的东西都自动是可腐败的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And the reason for that is because anything that has parts is automatically corruptible. Dialogue: 0,1:01:07.38,1:01:16.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}任何有部分的东西都可以被分解成部分，如果它可以被分解成部分，\N它就可以腐烂，任何可以腐烂的东西都可以死亡，而神不能死亡。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Anything that has parts can be broken down into parts, and if it can be broken down into parts, it can decay, and anything that can decay can die, and God can't die. Dialogue: 0,1:01:16.76,1:01:21.45,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以神不能是可腐败的，因此神必须是单一的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So God can't be corruptible, therefore God must be simplex. Dialogue: 0,1:01:21.55,1:01:23.37,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是背后的哲学。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This is the philosophy behind it. Dialogue: 0,1:01:23.37,1:01:33.17,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以他们永远不会说圣父把自己分成三个或类似的\N东西，因为神的统一性要求这种神圣的单一性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So they would never say that the Father divvies himself up into three or anything like that, because the unity of God demands this divine simplicity. Dialogue: 0,1:01:33.17,1:01:35.33,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这有点悖论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So it is a bit of a paradox. Dialogue: 0,1:01:35.76,1:01:49.29,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但你还要记住的另一件事是，如果有人说，嗯，你知道，神开始是\N一个，然后通过分割自己变成三个，现在你也在神中引入了变化。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the other thing that you have to keep in mind is that if anyone were to say, well, you know, God starts out as one and then becomes three by dividing himself, now you've also got change in God. Dialogue: 0,1:01:49.29,1:01:52.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}神现在从一个变成了三个。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}God has now changed from one to three. Dialogue: 0,1:01:52.24,1:01:58.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这也行不通，因为我们还必须保持神的不变性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And that's not going to work either because we have to also keep up the divine immutability. Dialogue: 0,1:01:59.32,1:02:04.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为任何可以改变的东西都不可能是完美的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because anything that can change cannot be perfect. Dialogue: 0,1:02:04.69,1:02:11.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}完美需要永恒的不变性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Perfection requires eternal unchangeability. Dialogue: 0,1:02:11.67,1:02:13.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}记住，我把这称为神圣的毛衣。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Remember, I call this the divine sweater. Dialogue: 0,1:02:13.39,1:02:15.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所有这些东西都是以某种方式编织在一起的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}All these things are sort of woven together. Dialogue: 0,1:02:15.07,1:02:18.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果你拉出一根线，整个东西就会散开。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If you pull out one thread, the whole thing unravels. Dialogue: 0,1:02:23.91,1:02:38.02,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}神要成为一体、完美和永恒，神必须是单一的、不变的和不朽的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}God, to be one and to be perfect and to be eternal, God has to be simplex and unchanging and incorruptible. Dialogue: 0,1:02:38.08,1:02:40.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以神不能从一个变成三个。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So God can't go from being one to three. Dialogue: 0,1:02:40.38,1:02:41.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}神必须永远是三位一体的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}God has to be always three. Dialogue: 0,1:02:41.36,1:02:54.10,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是悖论所在，因为神必须永恒地是一体的，同时又永恒\N地是三位一体的，永恒地保持统一，但也永恒地保持区别。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And here's where the paradox comes in because God has to be eternally one and eternally three Eternally maintaining the unity, but also eternally maintaining the distinctions. Dialogue: 0,1:02:54.10,1:02:56.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，请说。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yeah, go ahead. Dialogue: 0,1:02:56.47,1:02:59.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣子是否被限制在时间和空间中？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Was the Son confined to time and space? Dialogue: 0,1:03:00.03,1:03:04.93,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当他在他的...嗯，看，这就是悖论所在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}When he was in his, well see, this is where the paradox comes in. Dialogue: 0,1:03:05.41,1:03:10.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在道成肉身期间，圣子是被局限的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}During the incarnation, the Son is circumscribed. Dialogue: 0,1:03:11.34,1:03:17.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}甚至圣子的神性也被局限在时间和空间中。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And even the divine nature of the Son is circumscribed within time and space. Dialogue: 0,1:03:17.58,1:03:25.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当我们谈论马利亚作为神的母亲时，这个问题就出\N现了，即使是神性也被局限在马利亚的子宫中。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And this comes up when we talk about Mary as mother of God, that even the divine nature is circumscribed within the womb of Mary. Dialogue: 0,1:03:25.97,1:03:31.33,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但同时，这并不减少神性的无所不在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But at the same time, that doesn't diminish the omnipresence of the divine nature as well. Dialogue: 0,1:03:31.33,1:03:37.93,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这是一种既...又...的答案，但这是悖论的一部分。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So it's kind of a both-and answer, but it's part of the paradox. Dialogue: 0,1:03:38.34,1:03:50.93,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，当你考虑永恒时，神的一体性必须是永恒的，\N但三位一体的三个位格之间的区别也必须是永恒的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, when you think across eternity, the oneness of God has to be eternal, but also the distinctions between the three persons of the Trinity have to be eternal, too. Dialogue: 0,1:03:50.93,1:04:04.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，在护教学者早期，有几位护教学者尝试了这样一个想法，嗯\N，也许如果圣子被称为道，也许他存在，也许就像一个说出的话。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, early in the days of the apologists, there were a couple of apologists who experimented with this idea that, well, maybe if the Son is called the Word, maybe He existed Maybe it's just like a spoken word. Dialogue: 0,1:04:04.96,1:04:11.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当你说话时，它首先像是你脑海中的一个想法，然后你移动嘴巴，它就说出来了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}When you speak, it's first like an idea in your mind, and then you move your mouth and it comes out. Dialogue: 0,1:04:11.94,1:04:13.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}也许耶稣就是这样的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Maybe that's what Jesus was like. Dialogue: 0,1:04:13.26,1:04:21.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}也许基督是神心中的一个想法，然后他发出，或者他被省略了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Maybe Christ was an idea in the mind of God, and then he proceeded, or he was omitted. Dialogue: 0,1:04:21.77,1:04:29.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但最终这被认为是有问题的，因为你在提议神内部的变化。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But eventually that was recognized as problematic because you're proposing change within God. Dialogue: 0,1:04:29.91,1:04:37.81,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你知道，耶稣，圣子从在圣父内部到圣父外部。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You know, where Jesus, where the Son goes from from being in the Father to external to the Father. Dialogue: 0,1:04:38.01,1:04:42.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这种变化是有问题的，因为现在神不再是不变的了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And that change is problematic because now God's not immutable anymore. Dialogue: 0,1:04:43.13,1:04:47.69,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以位格之间的区别也必须是永恒的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the distinction between verses has to be eternal as well. Dialogue: 0,1:04:48.88,1:04:51.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，我们现在有时间做一个小测验。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay, so we've got time for a little pop quiz here. Dialogue: 0,1:04:53.38,1:04:55.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我要给你们三个引述。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I'm going to give you three quotes. Dialogue: 0,1:04:55.86,1:05:01.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你们都会通过这个测验，因为我无法知道你们会说什么。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You're all going to pass that quiz because I have no way of knowing what you're going to say. Dialogue: 0,1:05:01.32,1:05:07.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但我要给你们三个引述，其中一个是异端。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But I'm going to give you three quotes, and one of them is heresy. Dialogue: 0,1:05:07.77,1:05:10.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}另外两个不是。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And two of them are not. Dialogue: 0,1:05:11.03,1:05:13.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这个想法是找出异端。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the idea is spot the heresy. Dialogue: 0,1:05:13.38,1:05:16.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这总是一个很好的技能，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That's always a good skill to have, right? Dialogue: 0,1:05:19.65,1:05:23.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，我会给你们三个引述，然后我们看看你们怎么想。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}All right, so I'll give you all three quotes, and then we'll see what you think. Dialogue: 0,1:05:23.59,1:05:27.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}第一个引述是，创造者被挂在十字架上。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The first quote is, the Creator hung on the cross. Dialogue: 0,1:05:28.80,1:05:30.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}创造者被挂在十字架上。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Creator hung on the cross. Dialogue: 0,1:05:31.84,1:05:35.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}第二个是，神被杀害了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The second one is, God was murdered. Dialogue: 0,1:05:37.92,1:05:41.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}第三个引述是，圣父受苦了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And the third quote is, the Father suffered. Dialogue: 0,1:05:41.16,1:05:47.56,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，让我们从第一个开始。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, Let's start with the first one. Dialogue: 0,1:05:47.56,1:05:49.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}创造者被挂在十字架上。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Creator hung on the cross. Dialogue: 0,1:05:50.30,1:05:55.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}异端还是正统？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Heresy or Orthodoxy? Dialogue: 0,1:05:55.25,1:05:59.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我听到两种说法都有，但我认为大多数人说这是正统的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I'm hearing a little bit of both, but I think most people are saying it's Orthodox. Dialogue: 0,1:05:59.99,1:06:10.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这实际上是5世纪罗马主教利奥一世教宗的引述，它是正统的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That is actually a quote from Pope Leo I, Bishop of Rome in the 5th century, and it is Orthodox. Dialogue: 0,1:06:10.30,1:06:23.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}创造者被挂在十字架上是...嗯，实际上这两者都\N是，但主要是归属，因为，嗯，谁被挂在十字架上？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Creator hung on the cross is Well, really, both of these, but mostly appropriation, actually, because, well, who hung on the cross? Dialogue: 0,1:06:23.03,1:06:24.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}耶稣基督，神的儿子，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Jesus Christ, the Son of God, right? Dialogue: 0,1:06:24.76,1:06:27.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}三位一体的第二个位格被挂在十字架上。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The second person of the Trinity hung on the cross. Dialogue: 0,1:06:29.30,1:06:32.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们可以称他为创造者，因为他是创造者。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We can call him creator because he is creator. Dialogue: 0,1:06:32.40,1:06:34.02,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他是创造的代理人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He's the agent of creation. Dialogue: 0,1:06:34.33,1:06:38.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，我们不能说圣父被挂在十字架上，那是错误的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, we can't say the Father hung on the cross, that would be wrong. Dialogue: 0,1:06:38.74,1:06:48.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但我们可以说创造者被挂在十字架上，因为当我们这样说时，我们称耶稣\N为创造者，他确实是，因为你可以称三位一体的任何一个位格为创造者。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But we can say the Creator hung on the cross, because when we do that, we're calling Jesus the Creator, which He is, because you can call any of the three persons of the Trinity Creator. Dialogue: 0,1:06:48.11,1:06:50.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是归属。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That's appropriation. Dialogue: 0,1:06:50.95,1:06:54.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}第二个，神被杀害了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The second one, God was murdered. Dialogue: 0,1:06:56.03,1:06:56.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}正统。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Orthodox. Dialogue: 0,1:06:56.53,1:06:58.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，这也是正统的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yeah, that's Orthodox too. Dialogue: 0,1:06:58.57,1:06:59.21,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}同样的原因。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The same reason. Dialogue: 0,1:06:59.21,1:07:01.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这实际上来自撒狄的梅利托。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This is actually from Melito of Sardis. Dialogue: 0,1:07:01.77,1:07:04.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但再次强调，他在谈论十字架受难。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But again, he's talking about the crucifixion. Dialogue: 0,1:07:05.54,1:07:06.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}神被杀害了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}God was murdered. Dialogue: 0,1:07:06.38,1:07:08.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他称神的儿子为神。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He's calling the Son of God, God. Dialogue: 0,1:07:09.74,1:07:13.10,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以第三个是异端，因为圣父受苦了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the third one is heresy because the Father suffered. Dialogue: 0,1:07:15.33,1:07:21.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在你特别把圣父放在十字架上，这将是一种形态论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now you're specifically putting the Father on the cross, and that would be a form of modalism. Dialogue: 0,1:07:21.73,1:07:26.31,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以无论如何，那是一个突击测验，你们都得了A。再说一遍？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So anyway, that was a pop quiz, you all got an A. Say that again? Dialogue: 0,1:07:26.31,1:07:43.09,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，从这个意义上说，因为只有圣子道成肉身，而不是圣父。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yeah, well, in that sense, Because only the Son is incarnate and not the Father. Dialogue: 0,1:07:43.09,1:07:45.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你不能说圣父...\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You can't say that the Father... Dialogue: 0,1:07:45.63,1:08:01.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，你知道，我想为了更清楚，我应该说圣父在十字架上受苦，明确指的\N是特指十字架受难，因为我们可以讨论圣父是否有可能以同情的方式受苦。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, you know, I suppose what I should do to be more clear is to say the Father suffered on the cross, to be clear that it's about the crucifixion specifically, because we can talk about whether there are ways in which the Father can suffer compassionately. Dialogue: 0,1:08:01.16,1:08:04.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那是一个完全不同的论点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That's a whole different argument. Dialogue: 0,1:08:05.10,1:08:22.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但是，你知道，在不可分离的运作中，我们会说圣父和圣灵都在受难\N这一神圣工作中是活跃的，但我们不会特别把圣父放在十字架上。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But, you know, in inseparable operation, We would say that both the Father and the Holy Spirit are active in the divine work that is the Passion, but we wouldn't specifically put the Father on the cross. Dialogue: 0,1:08:22.55,1:08:23.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是摩西所关注的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That's what Moses was about. Dialogue: 0,1:08:23.47,1:08:26.13,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这说得通吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Does that make sense? Dialogue: 0,1:08:27.82,1:08:46.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，但也不是，因为如果三位一体的每一个运作都是不可分离的\N，那么耶稣在十字架上受苦，那么圣父和圣灵也在十字架上受苦。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yes, but no, because if every operation of the Trinity is inseparable, then Jesus suffering on the cross, then the Father was suffering as well as the Holy Spirit suffering on the cross. Dialogue: 0,1:08:47.39,1:08:50.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你是从稍后的角度来看这个问题的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You're looking at it from a little bit later perspective. Dialogue: 0,1:08:50.83,1:08:59.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在这一点上，你不会说圣父受苦，因为那会使圣父看起来是可变的或可受苦的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}At this point, you wouldn't say that the Father suffered because that makes the Father seem mutable or passable. Dialogue: 0,1:08:59.54,1:09:05.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}神性是不可受苦的，神性不能受苦的观念。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The idea that divinity is impassable, that divinity cannot suffer. Dialogue: 0,1:09:05.62,1:09:22.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}边缘群体对正统的批评部分会是，等一下，如果你说神的儿子是\N神性的，而你让他受苦，那么你就违背了神性不可受苦的规则。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Part of the critique of Orthodoxy from the Fringes would have been, wait a minute, if you say the Son of God is divine, And you've got him suffering, then you're contradicting the rule of divine impassibility. Dialogue: 0,1:09:23.11,1:09:28.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}正统的回答是，嗯，受苦的是他的人性，而不是他的神性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And the Orthodox answer to that is, well, it's his human nature that suffered, not his divine nature. Dialogue: 0,1:09:28.68,1:09:41.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以通过这样说，它甚至使第二位格的神性不受苦，\N因为受苦是一种变化的形式，而神必须是不变的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So by saying that, it keeps even the divine nature of the second person from suffering, because suffering is a form of change, and God must be unchanging. Dialogue: 0,1:09:43.64,1:09:59.02,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对此的注脚是，在下一个小时我将讨论一个概念\N，即圣父可以经历苦难而不是一种变化的形式。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The footnote to that is that in the next hour I'm going to talk about a concept where the father can experience the suffering without it being a form of change. Dialogue: 0,1:10:08.36,1:10:25.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，让我们回来，让我们在下一个小时重新审视这个想法，到时我会回来向你们展示\N我们的下一位神学家是如何讨论神不知道成为我们是什么感觉的，从这个意义上说。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, let's come back, let's revisit this idea in the next hour, and I'll come back then and show you how one of our next theologians does talk about how it is that God didn't know what it's like to be us, in that sense. Dialogue: 0,1:10:27.27,1:10:31.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}说到这里，让我们休息一下，15分钟后回来。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}With that, let's take a break, and we'll come back in 15 minutes.