[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: 0,0:00:04.88,0:00:18.05,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，欢迎回来，感谢你们再次光临。在今晚的第二\N个小时里，我们将讨论接下来两位重要的神学家。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay, so welcome back, thanks for coming back, and in this second hour tonight we're going to talk about our next two important theologians. Dialogue: 0,0:00:18.05,0:00:25.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们要讨论的第一位神学家是希波吕陀。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The first theologian we're going to talk about is Hippolytus. Dialogue: 0,0:00:31.52,0:00:44.66,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，我不会称他为任何地方的希波吕陀，因为我们并不确定他\N是否真的是主教，如果他是主教，也不知道他是哪里的主教。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, I'm not calling him a Hippolytist of any place, because we don't really know whether he was a bishop for sure, and if he was a bishop, where he was a bishop. Dialogue: 0,0:00:44.66,0:00:46.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是个谜。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's a bit of a mystery. Dialogue: 0,0:00:46.42,0:01:00.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}事实上，即使是关于归属于他的文献的作者身份，也存在\N很多争议，所以我先说明一下，这个人身上有很多疑问。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In fact, even when it comes to the authorship of the documents that are ascribed to him, there's a lot of debate over that, so I'll just say up front that there's big question marks over this guy. Dialogue: 0,0:01:01.48,0:01:05.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他很重要，有几个原因，因为他某种程度上迈出了下一步。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He's important for a couple of reasons because he sort of takes the next step. Dialogue: 0,0:01:05.79,0:01:08.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他的年代大约是从170年到……\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so his dates are about 170 to... Dialogue: 0,0:01:08.39,0:01:12.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他死于235年或236年。具体不太确定。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}he died in 235 or 236. Not exactly sure. Dialogue: 0,0:01:12.47,0:01:13.31,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他是……\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And he is... Dialogue: 0,0:01:24.76,0:01:35.13,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}爱任纽的门徒，他用希腊文写作，而在特土良那里我们看到从希腊文到拉丁文的转变。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}A disciple of Irenaeus, and he is writing in Greek, and so with Tertullian we saw a shift from Greek to Latin. Dialogue: 0,0:01:35.17,0:01:37.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}希波吕陀仍在用希腊文写作。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Hippolytus is still writing in Greek. Dialogue: 0,0:01:42.53,0:01:51.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他称自己为使徒的继承人，事实上，根据传统，他算是使徒的第四代。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He refers to himself as a successor of the Apostles, and in fact, according to the tradition, he's sort of fourth generation from the Apostles. Dialogue: 0,0:01:51.71,0:02:03.93,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以有使徒约翰，他有一个门徒坡旅甲，坡旅甲的\N门徒是爱任纽，然后爱任纽有希波吕陀作为门徒。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So there was the Apostle John, and he had a disciple Polycarp, and Polycarp's disciple was Irenaeus, and Irenaeus then would have Hippolytus as a disciple. Dialogue: 0,0:02:03.93,0:02:05.49,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}无论如何，这就是这个故事。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That's the story, at any rate. Dialogue: 0,0:02:05.63,0:02:26.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以问题就变成了，你知道，当希波吕陀称自己为使徒的继承人时，他是单\N纯指这种师徒相传的链条，还是特指使徒统绪，换句话说，他是一位主教？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so the question becomes, you know, when Hippolytus refers to himself as a successor of the Apostles, Does he mean simply in terms of this chain of teacher and disciple, or does he mean specifically in terms of apostolic succession, in other words, that he is a bishop? Dialogue: 0,0:02:27.18,0:02:35.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在他的一份文献中，他似乎确实称自己为主教，但我们不知道他是哪里的主教。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In one of his documents, he does seem to refer to himself as a bishop, but we don't know where he's a bishop of. Dialogue: 0,0:02:35.22,0:02:40.10,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他处在罗马城的背景中，但他不是罗马的主教。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He is in the context of the city of Rome, but he's not the bishop of Rome. Dialogue: 0,0:02:41.86,0:02:56.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，到了16世纪，你知道，快进到16世纪，\N考古学家在河里发现了一座雕像，我想是在河里。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, In the 16th century, you know, fast forward to the 16th century, archaeologists found a statue in, I think in the river. Dialogue: 0,0:02:56.78,0:03:06.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以他们发现了这座雕像，它看起来是一位坐着的主教的雕像，上面有铭文。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So they find this statue, and it appears to be a statue of a seated bishop, With inscriptions on it. Dialogue: 0,0:03:07.01,0:03:20.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}铭文包括一个计算未来约一百年复活节日期的日历，以及希波吕陀著作的清单。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And the inscriptions include a calendar for calculating the date of Easter for about the next hundred years, and then a list of the writings of Hippolytus. Dialogue: 0,0:03:21.24,0:03:26.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以问题就变成了，那么，这是希波吕陀主教的雕像吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so the question becomes, well, is this a statue of Bishop Hippolytus? Dialogue: 0,0:03:27.39,0:03:36.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}顺便说一下，如果你和我一起去罗马，我会给你看梵蒂冈博物馆里那座雕像的石膏复制品。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}By the way, if you come to Rome with me, I'll show you a plaster replica of the statue that's in the Vatican Museum. Dialogue: 0,0:03:36.39,0:03:39.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我不知道原件在哪里。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I don't know where the original is. Dialogue: 0,0:03:40.57,0:03:46.65,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但无论如何，这是希波吕陀作为主教的雕像吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But anyway, so is this a statue of Hippolytus as a bishop? Dialogue: 0,0:03:46.79,0:04:00.89,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对他的一种解释是，他是罗马城外一个叫波尔图斯的小镇的主教。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And one of the explanations for him is that he was a bishop of a A smaller town outside of Rome called Portus. Dialogue: 0,0:04:04.75,0:04:09.49,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是罗马城外地中海沿岸的一个小镇。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And this would be a smaller town on the coast of the Mediterranean outside of Rome. Dialogue: 0,0:04:09.49,0:04:34.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在这里的想法是，罗马的主教被视为大都会区的主教，或者说都市\N区的主教，所以你知道，都市区的主教正在获得一些权威，不仅对他\N们地区的教会，还对周围地区的教会，甚至对周围地区的主教。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And now the idea here is that the bishop of Rome is considered a metropolitan, or a bishop of a metropolitan area, so that he is, you know, that bishops of metropolitan areas are gaining some authority Not only over the churches in their area, but over the churches in the surrounding areas, and even over the bishops in the surrounding areas. Dialogue: 0,0:04:34.60,0:04:48.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，可能希波吕陀是波尔图斯的主教，但作为罗马邻近城镇的主\N教，他处在罗马的背景中，他处于一个可以批评罗马主教的位置。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, it may be that Hippolytus is bishop of Portus, but as bishop of a neighboring town to Rome, he's in the Roman context, and he's in a position where he can criticize the bishops of Rome. Dialogue: 0,0:04:49.36,0:05:00.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不过，另一种可能性是，他可能在罗马，可能是一\N群追随他而不是追随罗马主教的基督徒的领袖。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Another possibility, though, is that he may have been in Rome and he may have been the leader of a group of Christians who followed him rather than the bishop of Rome. Dialogue: 0,0:05:01.29,0:05:09.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换句话说，我们可能处在一个时期，在罗马城里\N，一个城市一位主教的观念还没有完全确立。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In other words, we may be at a time when in the city of Rome the idea of one bishop per city hasn't quite caught on. Dialogue: 0,0:05:10.38,0:05:26.37,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}虽然有一位选举产生的罗马主教，但可能还有其他学派，也许希波吕陀是其\N中一个学派的领袖，可能是一个希腊语学派，而不是拉丁语学派之类的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And while there is an elected bishop of Rome, there may have also been other schools, perhaps Hippolytus was the leader of one of these schools, maybe of a Greek-speaking school as opposed to Latin or something. Dialogue: 0,0:05:27.27,0:05:33.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这并不十分清楚，但无论如何，他批评了罗马的主教们。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's not really clear, but one way or the other, he criticized the bishops of Rome. Dialogue: 0,0:05:34.10,0:05:42.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在一些书籍和其他名单中，你知道，你会看到教宗的名单之类的，他被称为反教宗。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And he's often referred in some of the books and other lists, you know, you see the list of the popes or whatever, he's referred to as an anti-pope. Dialogue: 0,0:05:42.82,0:05:54.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，这其实并不准确，因为他并没有声称，他似乎\N并没有宣称自己是唯一的罗马主教，与其他人对抗。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, that really isn't accurate because it's not as though he claims, he doesn't seem to have claimed to be the one and only bishop of Rome as a rival to the others. Dialogue: 0,0:05:54.77,0:06:03.73,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但无论如何，你知道，存在这样的争议，所以在一些名单中你会看到他被列为反教宗。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But, at any rate, he, you know, there's this controversy and so in some of the lists you'll see him listed as an anti-pope. Dialogue: 0,0:06:03.73,0:06:10.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在罗马城，主要有两位主教被希波吕陀批评。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In the city of Rome, there are two bishops, primarily, who Hippolytus criticized. Dialogue: 0,0:06:10.03,0:06:13.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们已经见过其中一位，泽菲林。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And we've already met one of them, Zephyrinus. Dialogue: 0,0:06:16.85,0:06:40.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}泽菲林从199年到217年担任罗马主教。泽菲林曾任命一位名叫卡利斯图的神父。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Zephyrinus was the bishop of Rome from 199 to 217. And Zephyrinus had ordained a particular priest named Callistus. Dialogue: 0,0:06:45.25,0:06:56.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}卡利斯图后来成为下一任罗马主教，从217年到222年。所以\N这里的日期是他们担任主教的时间，不是他们的整个生命，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And Callistus would become the next bishop of Rome from 217 to 222. So these dates here are the dates that they were bishops, not their whole life, right? Dialogue: 0,0:06:56.28,0:07:03.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}有趣的是，当泽菲林担任罗马主教时，他让卡利斯图负责管理地下墓穴。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Interesting thing is that when Zephyrinus was bishop of Rome, he put Callistus in charge of the catacombs. Dialogue: 0,0:07:03.44,0:07:06.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}直到今天，那些地下墓穴仍以他们的名字命名。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And those catacombs to this day are named after them. Dialogue: 0,0:07:06.71,0:07:09.49,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它们是圣卡利斯图地下墓穴。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They're the catacombs of San Calisto. Dialogue: 0,0:07:09.49,0:07:14.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以再说一遍，如果你和我一起去罗马，我们会进入圣卡利斯图地下墓穴。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so again, if you come to Rome with me, we will go into the catacombs of San Calisto. Dialogue: 0,0:07:16.25,0:07:18.81,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们会看到早期基督徒埋葬的地方。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And we'll see where the early Christians were buried. Dialogue: 0,0:07:19.09,0:07:31.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}总之，就是在这个时期，我们的朋友诺伊特，一位形态论者，从东方来到了罗马。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So anyway, it's during this time that our friend Noetius, one of the modalists, arrived from the East and came to Rome. Dialogue: 0,0:07:32.16,0:07:39.56,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，再次强调，当你阅读希波吕陀的文献时，你会发现诺伊特的全部主张。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And So, again, when you read Hippolytus' documents, you find out what Noetis was all about. Dialogue: 0,0:07:39.56,0:08:01.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}希波吕陀告诉我们，诺伊特从东方来到罗马，带来了这种一元论，他将其与基督\N教结合，创造了一种形态论版本的基督教，他的动机是想要保护神的一体性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Hippolytus is the one who tells us that Noetis came to Rome from the East, bringing this form of monism that he combined with Christianity to create a modalistic version of Christianity, that he was motivated by a desire to preserve the oneness of God. Dialogue: 0,0:08:01.16,0:08:03.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是使他成为一位君主论者的原因。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So this is what makes him a monarchian. Dialogue: 0,0:08:03.57,0:08:08.65,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，伊迪斯是一位君主论者，因为他全心强调神的一体性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, Edith is a monarchian because he's all about emphasizing the oneness of God. Dialogue: 0,0:08:08.73,0:08:11.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但为了做到这一点，他去掉了三位一体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But to do that, he took out threeness. Dialogue: 0,0:08:11.77,0:08:17.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他如此强调神的一体性，以至于他去掉了三位一体中各位格之间的所有区别。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He emphasized the oneness of God so much that he took out all distinction between the persons of the Trinity. Dialogue: 0,0:08:19.42,0:08:28.41,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为他认为，诺伊特认为，如果你说圣父是神，圣子是神，那么你就有两个神。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because he thought, Noedas thought, if you say the Father is God and the Son is God, then you have two gods. Dialogue: 0,0:08:28.41,0:08:32.19,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以不如直接说圣父和圣子是同一个。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So better to just say the Father and Son are one and the same. Dialogue: 0,0:08:33.71,0:08:42.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}毕竟，耶稣说，「看见我的就是看见了父」，所以这一定意味着圣父和圣子是完全相同的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}After all, Jesus said, whoever has seen me has seen the Father, so that must mean that the Father and Son are identical. Dialogue: 0,0:08:42.11,0:08:58.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以再说一遍，正如我所说，诺伊特认为圣父通过从童贞女所生成为自己的儿子\N，你只能在道成肉身之前称神为圣父，一旦道成肉身发生，他就被称为圣子。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so again, as I said, Noedas thought that the Father became his own Son by being born of a virgin, and that you can really only call God the Father before the Incarnation, and then once the Incarnation comes, he's called the Son. Dialogue: 0,0:08:58.54,0:09:00.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他不能再被称为圣父了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He can't be called the Father anymore. Dialogue: 0,0:09:00.96,0:09:07.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以希波吕陀……这就是你看到形态论和幻影说之间的相似之处。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so Hippolytus This is where you see the affinity between modalism and docetism. Dialogue: 0,0:09:28.34,0:09:37.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，当诺伊特最初来到罗马时，泽菲林起初对他很宽容，某种程度上就让他做自己的事。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, when Noetis first came to Rome, Zephyrinus at first was tolerant of him and sort of just let him do his own thing. Dialogue: 0,0:09:37.47,0:09:49.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}显然，我们从希波吕陀那里了解到，卡利斯图曾建\N议泽菲林就让他一个人，与所有人保持友好关系。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And apparently, what we learn from Hippolytus is that Callistus had advised Zephyrinus to just leave him alone and be friends with everybody. Dialogue: 0,0:09:50.04,0:10:04.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但派系出现了，所以现在在罗马有一个更正统的派系和一个形态论派系\N，卡利斯图的建议是让两个派系各行其是，但要做两个派系的主教。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But factions emerged, and so now you had in Rome a more orthodox faction and a modalist faction, and Callistus' advice is just let both factions do their thing, but be bishop of both factions. Dialogue: 0,0:10:05.38,0:10:07.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}与两个派系都保持友好关系。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Be friends to both factions. Dialogue: 0,0:10:07.68,0:10:12.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}希波吕陀confronted他们说，这不是正确的做法。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And Hippolytus confronted them and said, this is not the way to go. Dialogue: 0,0:10:14.39,0:10:20.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以就有了这种反复，你知道，泽菲林有点骑墙。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so there's this back and forth where, you know, Zephyrinus is kind of on the fence. Dialogue: 0,0:10:21.16,0:10:26.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}诺伊特两次被召到神父会议前。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Noedas was called before the Council of Priests twice. Dialogue: 0,0:10:27.30,0:10:33.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}第一次被召到神父会议前时，他否认教导形态论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The first time he's called before the Council of Priests, he denied teaching modalism. Dialogue: 0,0:10:33.29,0:10:37.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他只是撒谎以避免陷入麻烦。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He just lied to get out of being in trouble. Dialogue: 0,0:10:37.85,0:10:43.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}第二次，他显然有了足够的支持，足够的追随者，所以他没有否认。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The second time, he apparently had enough support, enough followers, that he didn't deny it. Dialogue: 0,0:10:45.37,0:10:59.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他诚实地承认了他所教导的内容，因此诺伊特被逐出教会，离开后开\N始了自己的哲学学派，继续做他的事，但脱离了教会和主教的权威。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He was honest about what he was teaching, and so Noetis was excommunicated and went off and started his own philosophical school and kept doing his thing, but apart from the church and apart from the authority of the bishop. Dialogue: 0,0:11:01.11,0:11:11.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以从中产生的结果，你已经听说过形态论，但从这场\N争议中产生的是希波吕陀迫使泽菲林和卡利斯图表态。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So what came out of that, you've already heard about modalism, but what came out of this controversy was that Hippolytus forced Zechariah and Ecclesiastes to take a stand. Dialogue: 0,0:11:12.24,0:11:18.09,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}迫使他们站在正统一边，而不是形态论一边。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}force them to come down on the side of orthodoxy as opposed to modalism. Dialogue: 0,0:11:18.09,0:11:27.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}最终，卡利斯图和泽菲林都确认并同意「只有圣子是受生的，并且受苦」。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And eventually, Philistus and Zephyrinus both affirmed and agreed to Only the Son is begotten and suffered. Dialogue: 0,0:11:27.60,0:11:30.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣父没有死，但圣子死了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Father did not die, but the Son died. Dialogue: 0,0:11:46.11,0:11:50.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}只有圣子是受生的，受苦的，道成肉身的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Only the Son is begotten and suffered, incarnate. Dialogue: 0,0:11:50.76,0:11:52.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣父没有死。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Father did not die. Dialogue: 0,0:11:52.90,0:11:56.42,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以圣父没有道成肉身，而是圣子。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the Father was not incarnate, but the Son. Dialogue: 0,0:11:56.49,0:12:09.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以再说一遍，他们所说的是，这里我们有两个概念只适用于\N圣子而不适用于圣父，这就成为了驳斥形态论的一种方式。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So again, what they're saying is that here we have these two concepts that apply only to the Son and not to the Father, and so that becomes a way of refuting modalities. Dialogue: 0,0:12:10.57,0:12:18.18,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不管怎样，希波吕陀并不满意，所以他指责这两位主教都是形态论者。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, anyway, Hippolytus wasn't satisfied, and so he accused both of those bishops of being modalists. Dialogue: 0,0:12:18.18,0:12:24.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他指责他们，他认为，因为他们对形态论太软弱，他们一定是形态论者。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He accused them of, he thought, because they were too soft on modalism, they must be modalists. Dialogue: 0,0:12:24.74,0:12:34.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们回应说，指责希波吕陀过分分离圣父和圣子，有点倾向于另一个方向。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And they responded by accusing Hippolytus of separating the father and son too much, of sort of leaning in the other direction. Dialogue: 0,0:12:34.27,0:12:47.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}再说一遍，这些人都没有真正越过异端的界限，但对罗马的主教们\N来说，如果他们要倾向一个方向，他们宁愿倾向于神的一体性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Again, none of these guys really fall over the boundary into heresy, but For the bishops of Rome, if they're going to lean one direction, they'd rather lean toward the unity of God. Dialogue: 0,0:12:47.86,0:12:54.69,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而对希波吕陀来说，如果他要倾向一个方向，他宁愿倾向于圣父和圣子之间更多的区别。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And for Hippolytus, if he's going to lean one direction, he'd rather lean toward more distinction between the father and son. Dialogue: 0,0:12:54.69,0:12:55.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这说得通吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Does that make sense? Dialogue: 0,0:12:56.32,0:13:06.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他在罗马，他不断地confronting罗马的主教\N们，他试图让他们对他认为是异端的教师们更加严厉。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He's in Rome and he's continually confronting the bishops of Rome and he's trying to get them to be tougher on the teachers that he sees as heretical. Dialogue: 0,0:13:19.67,0:13:22.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他也在其他问题上confronts他们。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He also confronts them on other issues too. Dialogue: 0,0:13:24.44,0:13:28.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他说他们宽恕了通奸的罪。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He said that they are forgiving the sin of adultery. Dialogue: 0,0:13:29.36,0:13:43.93,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在这在早期教会中是一种暗语，当保罗说这些人是坏主教因为\N他们宽恕通奸的罪时，他的意思是他们可能在祝福第二次婚姻。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now this is kind of a code in the early church for when Paul says these guys are bad bishops because they're forgiving the sin of adultery, what he means is that they're probably blessing second marriages. Dialogue: 0,0:13:44.80,0:13:48.06,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换句话说，你离婚了，你再婚了？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In other words, you get a divorce, You get remarried? Dialogue: 0,0:13:48.06,0:13:49.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}耶稣对此怎么说？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What did Jesus say about that? Dialogue: 0,0:13:49.30,0:13:56.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，这是一种通奸，所以主教们祝福第二次婚姻的事实意味着他们宽恕了通奸的罪。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, it's a form of adultery, so the fact that the bishops were blessing second marriages means that they're forgiving the sin of adultery. Dialogue: 0,0:13:56.85,0:13:58.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}希波吕陀认为他们不应该这样做。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Hippolytus doesn't think they should do that. Dialogue: 0,0:13:58.95,0:14:03.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}希波吕陀认为他们不应该祝福这些第二次婚姻。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Hippolytus thinks that they should not be blessing these second marriages. Dialogue: 0,0:14:03.63,0:14:16.29,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们可能允许离婚和再婚的人继续担任神职人员，所以一\N个神父离婚后再婚，主教们允许他们继续他们的事工。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They may have been allowing divorced and remarried men to continue as clergy, so a priest gets a divorce and then gets remarried, and the bishops are allowing them to continue in their ministry. Dialogue: 0,0:14:18.44,0:14:22.06,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}或者，一个未婚的神父结婚了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Or, an unmarried man who's a priest gets married. Dialogue: 0,0:14:22.06,0:14:29.33,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}再说一遍，希波吕陀可能认为这不是个好主意，认为神父如果未婚，就应该保持未婚。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Again, Hippolytus might think that that's not a good idea, that a priest, if unmarried, should stay unmarried. Dialogue: 0,0:14:31.30,0:15:07.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这些主教可能还祝福了在罗马制度下本应是非法的婚姻，因为很多社会\N阶层之间的婚姻，你不能在社会阶层之间有合法的婚姻，所以如果上层\N阶级的人想要娶下层阶级的人，在罗马制度下根本不可能有合法的婚姻\N，所以这些主教可能做的是允许他们简单地同居，并将其祝福为婚姻。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}These bishops may also have been blessing marriages that would have been illegal under the Roman system, because a lot of marriages between social classes, you couldn't have a legal marriage between social classes, and so if someone from an upper class wanted to marry someone from a lower class, It simply wasn't possible to have a legal marriage under the Roman system, so what these bishops may have been doing is allowing them to simply live together and blessing that as a marriage. Dialogue: 0,0:15:07.68,0:15:19.21,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这实际上可能是基督教婚姻作为宗教仪式和宗教礼仪的观念的开始。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This may in fact be the beginning of the idea of Christian marriage as a religious ritual and as a religious rite. Dialogue: 0,0:15:20.18,0:15:38.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}无论如何，其中一些是推测，但你明白了希波吕陀是一种严格的人，在道德上非常严\N格，所以当他看到主教们祝福他认为不应该祝福的东西时，他就会为此批评他们。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Anyway, some of that is speculation, but you get the idea that Hippolytus is a kind of a rigorous, who is very strict morally, and so when he sees the bishops blessing what he thinks they shouldn't bless, then he criticizes them for this. Dialogue: 0,0:15:38.14,0:15:51.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}再说一遍，你知道，如果希波吕陀也是一位主教，这就提出了我们一开始与\N我们的老朋友安提阿的伊格那丢面临的问题，即一个城市只能有一位主教。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And again, you know, if Hippolytus is also a bishop, This brings up an issue that we faced at the beginning with our old friend Ignatius of Antioch, that there can only be one bishop in a city. Dialogue: 0,0:15:51.38,0:15:51.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}为什么？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Why? Dialogue: 0,0:15:51.74,0:16:03.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为如果一位主教将一个人逐出教会，而那个人可以直接去找另一位主\N教得到他们寻求的祝福，那么逐出教会就不太算是一种惩戒形式了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because if one bishop excommunicates a person, And that person can then just go to the other bishop and get the blessing that they're looking for, then the excommunication isn't much of a form of discipline. Dialogue: 0,0:16:03.39,0:16:08.19,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以再说一遍，这就是将要出现的问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so again, this is the kind of thing that is going to come up. Dialogue: 0,0:16:08.19,0:16:28.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}无论希波吕陀是否认为自己是罗马的主教，或者他是附近城市的主教\N，再说一遍，你仍然可能有这个问题，如果一对夫妇想在离婚后再婚\N，而希波吕陀不愿祝福，他们可以去罗马的主教那里得到祝福。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And whether Hippolytus considers himself a bishop of Rome, or whether he's the bishop of a nearby city, again, you still may have this problem where if If a couple wants to be remarried after a divorce and Hippolytus won't bless that, they can go to the bishop of Rome and get that blessing. Dialogue: 0,0:16:28.08,0:16:29.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}希波吕陀对此感到不安。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Hippolytus is upset about this. Dialogue: 0,0:16:30.60,0:16:45.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}总之，所有这些都导致了他批评这两位罗马主教并\N称他们为异端等的想法。所以他们有这种冲突。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well anyway, so all of this goes into the idea that he is criticizing these two bishops of Rome and calling them heretics, etc. And so they have this conflict. Dialogue: 0,0:16:45.12,0:16:53.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}最终，卡利斯图基本上证明他不是形态论者，当他将撒伯流逐出教会时。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Eventually, Callitius basically demonstrates that he's not a modalist when he excommunicated Sibelius. Dialogue: 0,0:16:53.40,0:16:57.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以记住，撒伯流本人也被逐出了教会。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So remember, Sibelius himself was also excommunicated. Dialogue: 0,0:16:57.77,0:17:04.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，你要读的文献是希波吕陀反对诺伊特的文献。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, the document you're going to read is Hippolytus' document against Noetius. Dialogue: 0,0:17:08.06,0:17:23.05,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我相信你要点击的链接实际上会链接到希波吕陀的几个文\N献的集合，所以你需要向下滚动找到《反对诺伊特》。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And I believe the link that you're going to follow to get to it actually links you to a grouping of several documents by Hippolytus, and so you're going to need to scroll down to find Against Noedas. Dialogue: 0,0:17:23.05,0:17:26.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以你不需要读所有的文献，你只需要读《反对诺伊特》。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So you don't need to read all the documents, you just need to read Against Noedas. Dialogue: 0,0:17:26.85,0:17:28.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}实际上它不是很长。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's actually not very long. Dialogue: 0,0:17:30.36,0:17:36.31,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但那就是你要读的文献，所以我会给你一个简短的介绍，这样你就知道你在读什么。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But that's the document you're going to read, so I'm going to give you a little intro to that so you know what you're reading. Dialogue: 0,0:17:36.31,0:17:46.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}基本上，记住，你知道，它如此强调三位一体的一体性，以至于在他的心中没有区别。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Basically, remember, you know, It is emphasizing the oneness, the unity of the Trinity so much that in his mind there is no distinction. Dialogue: 0,0:17:46.23,0:17:54.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以希波吕陀必须强调三个位格之间的区别，以反驳形态论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So Hippolytus has to emphasize the distinction between the three persons in order to argue against modalism. Dialogue: 0,0:17:54.22,0:18:05.81,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以希波吕陀的回应是，你知道，说只有一位神并不否认神的三位一体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So Hippolytus' response is, you know, to say that there is one God does not deny the threeness of God. Dialogue: 0,0:18:05.81,0:18:29.17,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在他用来表示三位一体的词，当你看到这个时，希腊作家用这个词来谈论神的\N三位一体，或者位格之间的区别，甚至是我们所说的三位一体内部的位格等级。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now his word for threeness When you see this, the Greek writers use this word to talk about the threeness in God, or the distinctions between the persons, or even what we would call the hierarchy of persons within the Trinity. Dialogue: 0,0:18:29.85,0:18:37.37,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你注意到我故意在这里放了数字1、2和3，因为我们要讨论三位一体内部的等级观念。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You notice I intentionally put the numbers here, 1, 2, and 3, because we're going to talk about the idea of hierarchy within the Trinity. Dialogue: 0,0:18:38.82,0:18:43.56,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们可能说等级，希腊词是经纶。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Where we might say hierarchy, the Greek word is economy. Dialogue: 0,0:18:43.56,0:18:47.29,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以当你看到希波吕陀谈论经纶时，这就是他在谈论的内容。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So when you see Hippolytus talking about the economy, that's what he's talking about. Dialogue: 0,0:18:47.29,0:18:49.73,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}三位一体，区别，等级。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The threeness, the distinction, the hierarchy. Dialogue: 0,0:18:49.73,0:19:00.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果你读过任何当代神学或后期神学，你习惯了像\N经纶的三位一体与内在的三位一体这样的短语。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If you've done any reading in contemporary theology, or later theology, And you're used to phrases like economic trinity versus imminent trinity. Dialogue: 0,0:19:00.92,0:19:03.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们讨论的时期远早于那些内容，所以把那些放在一边。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We're way too early for that stuff, so put that stuff aside. Dialogue: 0,0:19:03.78,0:19:09.61,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在这里，经纶简单地指三位一体内部的等级或位格的区别。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Here, the economy simply means the hierarchy or the distinction of persons within the trinity. Dialogue: 0,0:19:10.69,0:19:28.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}再说一遍，我们在这里追求的，主流教会，主流正统主\N教们追求的是三位一体中一体性和三位一体性的平衡。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And really, again, what we're after here, what the mainstream church, what the mainstream Orthodox bishops are after is a balance of The oneness and the threeness in the Trinity. Dialogue: 0,0:19:28.15,0:19:31.45,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一体性和区别性的平衡。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}A balance of the unity and the distinction. Dialogue: 0,0:19:31.45,0:19:33.49,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你不想过分倾向任何一边。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You don't want to go too far to either side. Dialogue: 0,0:19:33.49,0:19:37.42,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你不想过分强调一体性而失去区别性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You don't want to go too far to the unity but you lose the distinction. Dialogue: 0,0:19:37.44,0:19:45.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你也不想过分强调区别性以至于区别变成分离，从而失去一体性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You don't want to go so far toward the distinction that the distinctions become separations and you lose the unity. Dialogue: 0,0:19:46.13,0:19:59.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以当你读《反对诺伊特》时，你会看到一些这样的内容，他谈到，你知\N道，那些区分三位一体三个位格的事物，展示或证明它们之间的区别。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so when you read against Noetis, you're going to see some of this stuff, where he talks about, you know, the things that distinguish the three persons of the Trinity and show or demonstrate distinction between them. Dialogue: 0,0:19:59.28,0:20:06.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}只有圣父是非受生的，或者在你读的译本中，我想这个词是「无本源的」。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Only the Father is unbegotten, or in the translation you're reading, I think the word is unoriginated. Dialogue: 0,0:20:06.50,0:20:07.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}无本源的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Unoriginated. Dialogue: 0,0:20:07.32,0:20:08.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但是，你知道，无因的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But, you know, uncaused. Dialogue: 0,0:20:08.70,0:20:09.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是它的意思。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That's what it means. Dialogue: 0,0:20:09.86,0:20:12.42,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}只有圣父是无本源的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Only the Father is unoriginated. Dialogue: 0,0:20:12.77,0:20:16.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}只有圣子从天而降。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Only the Son came down from heaven. Dialogue: 0,0:20:16.61,0:20:19.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}意思是，只有圣子道成肉身。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Meaning, only the Son is incarnate. Dialogue: 0,0:20:21.09,0:20:26.69,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}只有圣子是受限的，或者说在时间和空间中被局限的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Only the Son is circumscribed, or localized in time and space. Dialogue: 0,0:20:27.14,0:20:30.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而圣父是不能被局限的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Whereas the Father cannot be circumscribed. Dialogue: 0,0:20:30.08,0:20:32.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣父只能是无所不在的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Father can only be omnipresent. Dialogue: 0,0:20:36.86,0:20:40.13,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}只有圣父……圣父只能是不可见的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Only the Father The Father can only be invisible. Dialogue: 0,0:20:40.13,0:20:41.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣父永远不能被看见。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Father can never be visible. Dialogue: 0,0:20:41.85,0:20:43.49,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}没有人能看见圣父。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}No one can see the Father. Dialogue: 0,0:20:43.69,0:20:45.65,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但圣子是可见的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the Son can be visible. Dialogue: 0,0:20:49.57,0:20:55.21,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}然后他有一些有趣的语法论证来维持圣父和圣子之间的区别。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And then he has some interesting grammatical arguments for maintaining the distinction between Father and Son. Dialogue: 0,0:20:55.26,0:21:01.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他谈到耶稣的声明，「我与父原为一」。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He talks about Jesus' statement, the Father and I are one. Dialogue: 0,0:21:01.36,0:21:04.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}记住，这是形态论者最喜欢的经文。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And remember, this would be a favorite text of the modalists. Dialogue: 0,0:21:05.10,0:21:06.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}「我与父原为一。」\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Father and I are one. Dialogue: 0,0:21:06.30,0:21:09.72,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们将其解释为圣父和我是同一个。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They interpret it to mean the Father and I are one and the same. Dialogue: 0,0:21:09.72,0:21:11.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但希波吕陀说，等一下。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But Hippolytus says, wait a second. Dialogue: 0,0:21:12.00,0:21:15.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他没有说「父和我是一」。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He didn't say the Father and I am one. Dialogue: 0,0:21:15.92,0:21:18.69,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他说「我与父原为一」。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He said the Father and I are one. Dialogue: 0,0:21:18.87,0:21:21.05,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这里的动词是复数。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And the verb there is plural. Dialogue: 0,0:21:21.05,0:21:24.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}父与我，我们是一。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Father and I, we are one. Dialogue: 0,0:21:24.57,0:21:33.56,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以因为动词是复数，这表明你们形态论者错误地将其解释为父与我是同一个。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So because the verb is plural, that shows that you modalists are wrong to interpret this as though it means the Father and I are one and the same. Dialogue: 0,0:21:36.15,0:21:42.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他指出的另一段经文是耶稣的祷告，你知道，「使他们合而为一，像我们合而为一」。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The other passage that he points to is Jesus' prayer, you know, that they may be one even as we are one. Dialogue: 0,0:21:42.43,0:21:44.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}再次注意他在做什么。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Again, notice what he's doing. Dialogue: 0,0:21:44.07,0:21:49.87,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他正在利用形态论者最喜欢的证明文本，并将其反过来用于反驳他们。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He's taking the modalist's favorite proof text and turning it against them. Dialogue: 0,0:21:51.33,0:21:53.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}「使他们合而为一，像我们合而为一。」\N{\an2\fs10\i1}that they may be one even as we are one. Dialogue: 0,0:21:53.55,0:22:01.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，再说一遍，「我们是」是一个复数动词，所以\N这表明，你知道，圣父和圣子不是完全相同的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, again, we are is a plural verb, so that shows that, you know, the Father and Son are not identical. Dialogue: 0,0:22:01.15,0:22:10.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，你知道，希波吕陀会争辩说，这些经文本\N身就包含了圣父和圣子之间的一体性和区别性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, you know, Hippolytus would argue that these very passages have built into them both the unity and the distinction between Father and Son. Dialogue: 0,0:22:10.96,0:22:13.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一体性是显而易见的，「父与我原为一」。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The unity is obvious, the Father and I are one. Dialogue: 0,0:22:13.68,0:22:18.10,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}区别性在于复数动词，父与我，我们是一。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The distinction is in the plural verb, the Father and I, we are one. Dialogue: 0,0:22:19.31,0:22:21.13,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}「使他们合而为一，像我们合而为一。」\N{\an2\fs10\i1}that they may be one even as we are one. Dialogue: 0,0:22:21.13,0:22:22.41,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}再说一遍，同样的道理。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Again, same thing. Dialogue: 0,0:22:22.41,0:22:26.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一体性是显而易见的，但区别性内含在复数动词中。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The unity is obvious, but the distinction is built into the plural verb. Dialogue: 0,0:22:28.05,0:22:40.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他还会谈到差遣者-使者的关系，虽然他是从圣\N父是命令者，圣子是服从者的角度来讨论的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He'll also talk about the The sender-messenger thing, although he talks about it in terms of the Father is the one who commands, the Son is the one who obeys. Dialogue: 0,0:22:40.68,0:22:47.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，再次注意这是同样的主题，但其中的观念是他们在三位一体内部存在等级。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, notice again how it's the same sort of motif, but the idea is that they're in a hierarchy within the Trinity. Dialogue: 0,0:22:47.85,0:22:51.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们处于权威的等级之中。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They're in the hierarchy of authority. Dialogue: 0,0:22:51.61,0:22:54.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣父是权威的源头。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Father is the source of authority. Dialogue: 0,0:22:54.59,0:22:57.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣子是那个……\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Son is the one who... Dialogue: 0,0:22:57.51,0:23:03.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}带来并执行圣父权威的那位，但最终这是圣父的权威。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}who comes with and brings and enforces the Father's authority, but it's ultimately the Father's authority. Dialogue: 0,0:23:04.36,0:23:07.66,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: 0,0:23:07.74,0:23:12.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以圣子带来信息，但最终这是圣父的信息。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the Son brings the message, but it's ultimately the Father's message. Dialogue: 0,0:23:12.08,0:23:15.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这里有一个内在的等级制度。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so there is a built-in hierarchy here. Dialogue: 0,0:23:15.25,0:23:36.42,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}再说一遍，我可能以前说过，我们这些在当代背景下长大的人，也许你越\N年轻，这可能越适用于你，你可能被教导认为等级制度自动是一件坏事。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And again, I may have said this before, those of us who have grown up in a contemporary context, And maybe even the younger you are, maybe the more this applies to you, you may have been taught to think that hierarchy is automatically a bad thing. Dialogue: 0,0:23:36.64,0:23:42.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而且如果涉及神，就不可能存在等级制度，因为神全是关于平等的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And that if God's involved, there can't possibly be hierarchy because God's all about equality. Dialogue: 0,0:23:42.64,0:23:57.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}问题是，如果你有三个位格，圣父、圣子和圣灵，你必须有等\N级制度来维持它们之间的区别，否则你最终会落入形态论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The problem is that if you have three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, You have to have the hierarchy to maintain the distinction between them, or you end up with modalism. Dialogue: 0,0:23:57.38,0:24:01.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但你也必须有等级制度，这样你就不会最终得到三个神。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But also you have to have the hierarchy so that you don't just end up with three gods. Dialogue: 0,0:24:01.99,0:24:06.29,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为如果没有等级制度，如果三者是平等的，那么你就有了三个神。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because if there's no hierarchy, if the three are equal, then you've got three gods. Dialogue: 0,0:24:06.85,0:24:14.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以所有这些又一次是在走钢丝，在保持一体性和区别性的平衡木上行走。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So all of this is sort of, again, riding that fine line, walking that balance beam of maintaining the unity and the distinction. Dialogue: 0,0:24:15.20,0:24:17.42,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一体性是为了不落入嗣子论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Unity so you don't fall into adoptionism. Dialogue: 0,0:24:17.42,0:24:20.10,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}区别性是为了不落入形态论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Distinction so you don't fall into modalism. Dialogue: 0,0:24:20.29,0:24:24.19,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}同时，也是为了不落入多神论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And also, so you don't fall into polytheism as well. Dialogue: 0,0:24:25.48,0:24:43.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以三位一体中三个位格之间的区别是在这个经纶或等级制度中，但三\N者是一，因为三者是不可分割的，所以他也会谈到不可分割的运作。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the use of the distinction between the three persons of the Trinity is in this economy, or this hierarchy, yet the three are one, because the three are inseparable, and so he'll talk about inseparable operation as well. Dialogue: 0,0:24:44.40,0:24:48.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，他说，神是三位一体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And therefore, he says, God is a triad. Dialogue: 0,0:24:48.04,0:24:52.46,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，记住，他不是用拉丁文写作，所以他没有使用「三位一体」这个词。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, remember, he's not writing in Latin, so he's not using the word Trinity. Dialogue: 0,0:24:52.46,0:25:00.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们从特土良那里得到了「三位一体」这个词，\N即使在拉丁文中，它也并没有立即流行起来。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We got the word Trinity from Tertullian, and even in Latin, it doesn't really catch on right away. Dialogue: 0,0:25:00.46,0:25:03.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但在希腊文中，神是三位一体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But in Greek, God is a triad. Dialogue: 0,0:25:03.60,0:25:06.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不过，基本上意思是一样的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Basically means the same thing, though. Dialogue: 0,0:25:08.43,0:25:13.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是一位神中三个位格的经纶。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This is an economy of three persons in one God. Dialogue: 0,0:25:13.39,0:25:15.05,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一个本质，三个位格。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}One essence, three persons. Dialogue: 0,0:25:15.89,0:25:24.21,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，再次驳斥形态论者，实际上不是圣父降临并道成肉身。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, again, refuting the modalist, it was not, in fact, the Father who came down and was incarnate. Dialogue: 0,0:25:24.21,0:25:25.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是圣子。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It was the Son. Dialogue: 0,0:25:26.99,0:25:36.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你要知道，希波吕陀还写了另一份文献，我不会要求你们读，叫做《驳斥一切异端》。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Just so you know, Hippolytus also wrote another document that I'm not going to ask you to read called The Reputation of All Heresies. Dialogue: 0,0:25:37.57,0:25:52.56,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这主要是爱任纽《驳异端》的一个更复杂的版本，他在\N其中论证异端来自哲学、占星术和所有这些混合主义。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This is mostly a A more convoluted version of Irenaeus' against heresies, where he argues that heresy comes from philosophy and astrology and all of this syncretism. Dialogue: 0,0:25:52.56,0:26:00.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但有趣的是，我们现在越来越远离那些认为哲学是好事的护教者。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the interesting thing is here is now we're moving farther and farther away from the apologists who thought philosophy was a good thing. Dialogue: 0,0:26:00.20,0:26:03.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}记住，护教者认为哲学对基督是有益的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Remember, the apologists thought that philosophy was a good thing for Christ. Dialogue: 0,0:26:03.90,0:26:11.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，对于爱任纽、特土良和希波吕陀来说，不，哲学只会导致你陷入异端。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, with Irenaeus and Tricullian and Hippolytus, No, philosophy is only going to lead you to heresy. Dialogue: 0,0:26:13.58,0:26:19.05,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好吧，无论如何，根据传统，希波吕陀殉道了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay, well anyway, Hippolytus, according to tradition, was martyred. Dialogue: 0,0:26:19.05,0:26:21.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他被认为是一位殉道者，但细节不太清楚。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He is considered a martyr, but the details are sketchy. Dialogue: 0,0:26:21.59,0:26:25.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}大约在235年左右，他被流放。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In about the year 235 or so, he was exiled. Dialogue: 0,0:26:28.76,0:26:35.06,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}被流放到矿山，这是罗马帝国可能的惩罚之一。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}To the mines, this is one of the possible punishments in the Roman Empire. Dialogue: 0,0:26:35.06,0:26:41.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}被送去矿山工作基本上就是一个缓慢的死刑。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}To be sent to work in the mines is basically just a slow death sentence. Dialogue: 0,0:26:41.53,0:26:43.37,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你工作直到倒下死去。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You work until you drop dead. Dialogue: 0,0:26:44.17,0:26:54.10,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以希波吕陀被流放到撒丁岛的矿山，和罗马的主教一\N起，如果你在记分的话，那位主教的名字是庞提安。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So Hippolytus was exiled to the mines of Sardinia, along with the bishop of Rome, whose name was Pontianus, if you're keeping score. Dialogue: 0,0:26:57.70,0:27:19.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}庞提安230年，中间还有另一位主教，但从230年到235年，所以你可以看到\N，我们不确切知道他什么时候死的，235年还是236年，他可能只是在矿山里倒\N下死去，或者根据一种传统，他可能被处决，被溺死，你知道，他们淹死了他。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Pontianus 230, there's another bishop in there, but 230 to 235, and so you can see, we don't know exactly when he died, 235 or 236, he may have just dropped dead in the mines, or, according to one tradition, he may have been killed by, executed by drowning, they, you know, that they drowned him. Dialogue: 0,0:27:19.39,0:27:34.33,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}通常这些故事是这样结束的，你知道，殉道者被流放，但在流放中，\N事工蓬勃发展，许多人皈依，他们引起了注意，然后他们被处决。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Usually these stories end like this, you know, the martyr is exiled, But then, in exile, ministry flourishes, and many converts are made, and they draw attention to themselves, and then they're executed. Dialogue: 0,0:27:34.83,0:27:40.09,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，我们不知道其中有多少是基于事实，但他被认为是教会的殉道者。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, we don't know how much of that is based in truth, but he is considered a martyr of the Church. Dialogue: 0,0:27:40.59,0:27:43.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，关于希波吕陀有什么问题吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Alright, questions about Hippolytus? Dialogue: 0,0:27:43.62,0:27:44.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yes? Dialogue: 0,0:27:44.40,0:27:47.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，他从未被逐出教会，尽管他保持沉默。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, he was never excommunicated, even though he was silent. Dialogue: 0,0:27:49.57,0:27:52.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对，从未被逐出教会。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right, never excommunicated. Dialogue: 0,0:27:52.54,0:27:58.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}可能有人质疑他是否过于倾向于、太接近嗣子论，但他不被认为是异端。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}There may be some question about if he leaned too far, too close to adoptionism, but he's not considered a heretic. Dialogue: 0,0:27:58.74,0:27:59.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他被认为是正统的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He's considered orthodox. Dialogue: 0,0:27:59.96,0:28:04.02,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以可以认为即使是中间立场也有一点极性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So sort of thinking of even the middle ground having polarity a little bit. Dialogue: 0,0:28:04.08,0:28:11.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，没错，因为记住，我知道我的图表看起来像是有\N三个选项，但你必须更多地把它看作是一个连续体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yeah, right, because remember, I know that my charts make it look like there's three options, but you have to think of it more like a continuum. Dialogue: 0,0:28:11.55,0:28:25.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}公平地说，大多数教会的主教会希望尽可能地把\N那些界限画得宽一些，以尽可能少地排斥人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And to be fair, Most of the bishops of the church would have wanted to draw those lines as wide as possible, to exclude as few people as possible. Dialogue: 0,0:28:25.70,0:28:35.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为他们真正关心的不是普通信徒对某事有误解，而是有人教导会使信徒误入歧途的异端。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because what they're really concerned about is not the average believer being mistaken about something, but that someone is teaching a heresy that's going to lead believers astray. Dialogue: 0,0:28:35.77,0:28:37.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是问题所在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That's kind of the issue. Dialogue: 0,0:28:38.49,0:28:40.89,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}关于公教会还有其他问题吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Any other questions about Catholicism? Dialogue: 0,0:28:43.55,0:28:47.89,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，我想就到这里，所以我要擦掉这些内容。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay, I think I want to leave this here, so I'm going to erase this stuff. Dialogue: 0,0:28:49.01,0:28:54.13,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们要谈谈我个人最喜欢的诺瓦天。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We're going to talk about my personal favorite, Novation. Dialogue: 0,0:28:54.13,0:29:01.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他是我最喜欢的原因之一是因为我的博士研究就\N是关于他的，所以我的论文是关于诺瓦天的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}One of the reasons he's my favorite is because I spent my PhD working on him, so my dissertation is on Novation. Dialogue: 0,0:29:04.41,0:29:06.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他是一个非常有趣的人物。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He's a really interesting character. Dialogue: 0,0:29:09.68,0:29:16.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果你正确拼写他的名字，它以A-N结尾。你的\N拼写检查器会想把它改成O-N，但那是错的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If you spell his name right, it ends in A-N. Your spell checkers will want to change it to O-N, but that's wrong. Dialogue: 0,0:29:17.08,0:29:29.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他出生于大约200年，就在世纪之交，死于250年……\N257年，258年，无论我在书中写的是什么都是对的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He was born around the year 200, right around the turn of the century, and died in 250... 257, 258, whatever I wrote in the book is right. Dialogue: 0,0:29:30.15,0:29:37.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，我想是258年。我的笔记上写的是257年，但我想我已经更新了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yeah, well, I think it's 258. I have 257 in my notes, but I think I've updated that. Dialogue: 0,0:29:37.64,0:29:52.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我最新的看法是258年。但无论如何，这些都是传\N统，以及传说如何随着时间的推移被添加到传统中。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}My latest opinion is 258. But at any rate, these things are tradition and how legend gets sort of added to the tradition over time. Dialogue: 0,0:29:54.01,0:29:59.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，诺瓦天是那个将特土良和希波吕陀的思想提升到下一个层次的人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, Novation is the one who sort of takes Tertullian and Hippolytus to the next level. Dialogue: 0,0:30:00.01,0:30:11.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果特土良给了我们神的一体性在于一个神圣本质的观念，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so if Tertullian gave us the idea that the oneness of God is in the one divine substance, right? Dialogue: 0,0:30:11.86,0:30:14.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这也有一点来自爱任纽，一个本质。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And a little bit of this is from Irenaeus too, one essence. Dialogue: 0,0:30:14.80,0:30:29.05,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}特土良给了我们神的一体性在于一个神圣本质的观念，而希波\N吕陀则给了我们神的三位一体性在于这种等级区别的观念。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Tertullian gave us the idea that the oneness of God is in the one divine substance, And Hippolytus then gives us the idea that the threeness of God is in this hierarchical distinction. Dialogue: 0,0:30:30.73,0:30:33.41,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}诺瓦天是那个将这一切综合在一起的人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Novatius is the one who sort of puts that all together. Dialogue: 0,0:30:33.83,0:30:39.29,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，再说一遍，你知道，我们通常在这里讨论的是圣父和圣子之间的关系。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, again, you know, usually we're talking about the relationship between the Father and Son here. Dialogue: 0,0:30:39.29,0:30:42.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们还没有开始太多地谈论圣灵。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They're not getting around to speaking of the Spirit too much yet. Dialogue: 0,0:30:43.15,0:30:53.100,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但当涉及到圣父和圣子时，诺瓦天说，圣父和圣子在本质上是平等的，但在权柄上不平等。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But when it comes to the Father and Son, the Father and Son, says Novation, are equal in substance, but not equal in authority. Dialogue: 0,0:30:54.38,0:30:58.18,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为如果他们在权柄上平等，那就会成为两个神。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because if they were equal in authority, that would make two gods. Dialogue: 0,0:30:59.06,0:31:04.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，在本质上平等，当我在这里说本质时，指的是神性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, equal in substance, when I say substance here, divinity. Dialogue: 0,0:31:04.20,0:31:07.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在神性上平等，但在权柄上不平等。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Equal in divinity, but not in authority. Dialogue: 0,0:31:08.44,0:31:25.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，因为圣子是由圣父所生的，因为圣子是由圣父的非受生而\N生的，因为圣子的存在依赖于圣父，圣子自愿顺从圣父的权柄。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, because the Son is begotten of the Father, because the Son is begotten of the Father's unbegotten, because the Son's existence is dependent on the Father, the Son voluntarily defers to the Father's authority. Dialogue: 0,0:31:26.21,0:31:53.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣子可以声称……所以，这种圣父是差遣者而圣子是使者的等级关系完全是自愿的，因为既\N然圣子在神性上是平等的，如果他选择的话，他可以声称平等的权柄，但他选择不这样做。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Son could claim So, this hierarchical relationship where the father is the sender and the son is the messenger is entirely voluntary because since the son is equal in divinity, he could claim equal authority if he chose to, but he chooses not to. Dialogue: 0,0:31:55.58,0:32:00.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}无论如何，诺瓦天的主要文献被称为《论三位一体》。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Anyway, Novation's primary document is called On the Trinity. Dialogue: 0,0:32:03.46,0:32:05.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}至少这是我们现在对它的称呼。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}At least that's what we call it now. Dialogue: 0,0:32:05.92,0:32:10.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它实际上可能被称为类似「真理法则」的东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It was probably actually called something like the Rule of Truth. Dialogue: 0,0:32:11.23,0:32:12.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那么，什么是真理法则？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, what is the Rule of Truth? Dialogue: 0,0:32:12.95,0:32:15.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}真理法则就像是信经的一个名称。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Rule of Truth is like a name for the Creed. Dialogue: 0,0:32:16.05,0:32:19.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}真理法则，或信仰法则，指的是信经。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Rule of Truth, or the Rule of Faith, means the Creed. Dialogue: 0,0:32:19.63,0:32:28.66,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，从某种意义上说，《论三位一体》是对信经的扩展或解释。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, in a way, On the Trinity is An expansion on or an explanation of the creed. Dialogue: 0,0:32:28.82,0:32:32.02,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}只是我们还没有尼西亚信经或使徒信经。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Except that we don't have the Nicene Creed or the Apostles' Creed yet. Dialogue: 0,0:32:32.02,0:32:35.61,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以无论他谈论的是什么信经，我们都没有。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So whatever creed he's talking about, we don't have it. Dialogue: 0,0:32:36.09,0:32:38.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但我们有他对它的解释。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But we have his explanation of it. Dialogue: 0,0:32:39.45,0:32:47.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在这个对信经的解释中，他谈到了两种君主论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And what he does in this explanation of the creed is he talks about the two kinds of monarchianism. Dialogue: 0,0:32:48.99,0:33:00.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}记住我们一边有动态君主论或嗣子论，另一边有形态君主论或形态论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Remember we had Dynamic Monarchianism or Adoptionism on the one side and Modalistic Monarchianism or Modalism on the other side. Dialogue: 0,0:33:00.35,0:33:08.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}诺瓦天在《论三位一体》中试图从中间立场驳斥这两个极端。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And Novation on the Trinity sets out to refute both extremes from the middle. Dialogue: 0,0:33:09.20,0:33:18.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以所有这些东西，你知道，当我谈论正统和极\N端选择之间的中间道路时，我指的就是诺瓦天。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so all of this stuff that, you know, when I talk about the orthodoxy and the middle way between the extreme alternatives, I mean, that's novation. Dialogue: 0,0:33:18.94,0:33:20.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他不是唯一这样做的人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He's not the only one who does that. Dialogue: 0,0:33:21.88,0:33:25.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但重点是这是他看待问题的方式。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the point is that this is his way of looking at it. Dialogue: 0,0:33:25.59,0:33:34.13,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他说真正的基督再次被钉在两个强盗之间。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And what he says is that the real Christ is being crucified again between two thieves. Dialogue: 0,0:33:34.97,0:33:39.41,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在嗣子论和形态论这两个强盗之间。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}between the two thieves of adoptionism and modalism. Dialogue: 0,0:33:39.97,0:33:49.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他没有明确这么说，但就好像嗣子论试图偷走他\N的神性，而形态论试图偷走他的人性，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He doesn't quite say this, but it's like as if adoptionism is trying to steal his divinity away, and modalism is trying to steal his humanity away, right? Dialogue: 0,0:33:49.62,0:33:53.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但真正的基督是在中间的那一位。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the real Christ is the one in the middle. Dialogue: 0,0:33:54.44,0:33:55.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是他呈现的方式。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And that's how he presents it. Dialogue: 0,0:33:57.30,0:34:14.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，他神学的关键是腓立比书第2章。在腓立比书第2\N章中，你会记得我们读到为了成为人，基督做了什么？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, the key to his theology is Philippians chapter 2. And in Philippians chapter 2, you'll remember that we read that in order to become human, Christ did what? Dialogue: 0,0:34:15.86,0:34:17.42,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}倒空自己。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Empty himself. Dialogue: 0,0:34:17.42,0:34:19.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，他倒空了自己。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yes, he emptied himself. Dialogue: 0,0:34:19.94,0:34:29.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在诺瓦天出现之前，一些神学家曾提到这节经文，\N但没有人回答过这个问题，倒空自己，倒空什么？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And before Novation came along, a few theologians had referred to this verse, but nobody ever answers the question, emptying himself, of what? Dialogue: 0,0:34:30.43,0:34:37.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我的意思是，当特土良谈到这段经文时，他似乎暗示他倒空了自己的神性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I mean, when Tertullian, you know, talked about this passage, he sort of implied that he emptied himself of divinity. Dialogue: 0,0:34:37.22,0:34:38.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这有点问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That's kind of a problem. Dialogue: 0,0:34:38.62,0:34:39.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这行不通。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That doesn't work. Dialogue: 0,0:34:39.74,0:34:41.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他不能倒空自己的神性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He can't empty himself of divinity. Dialogue: 0,0:34:41.54,0:34:44.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他不能变得不那么神圣来成为人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He can't become less divine to become human. Dialogue: 0,0:34:45.01,0:34:49.19,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他必须完全是神性的，同时完全承担人性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He has to be fully divine and take on full humanity. Dialogue: 0,0:34:50.11,0:34:56.09,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但问题是，如果你是无所不在的，你就不能完全是人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the problem is, you can't be fully human if you're omnipresent. Dialogue: 0,0:34:57.41,0:35:01.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果你是全能的，你就不能完全是人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You can't be fully human if you're omnipotent. Dialogue: 0,0:35:03.45,0:35:21.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以诺瓦天说，为了成为人，三位一体的第二位格倒空了自己，或\N搁置了那些会阻止他完全成为人的东西，比如无所不在或全能。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so what Novation says is that in order to become human, the second person of the Trinity emptied himself, or set aside, these things that would have prevented him from becoming fully human, like omnipresence or omnipotence. Dialogue: 0,0:35:24.23,0:35:29.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}令人困惑的是，我们常常认为这些是神性的属性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What's confusing is that we often assume those are attributes of divinity. Dialogue: 0,0:35:30.09,0:35:37.13,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我们会说，嗯，你怎么能搁置你的无所不在和全能而不搁置你的神性呢？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So we would say, well, how can you set aside your omnipresence and omnipotence without setting aside your divinity? Dialogue: 0,0:35:37.27,0:35:40.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而诺瓦天基本上就是说这就是他所做的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And Novation basically just says that's what he did. Dialogue: 0,0:35:40.25,0:35:50.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以他暗示他在神性本身和这些他称之为神圣能力之间做出了区分。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So he's implying that he's making a distinction between divinity itself and these divine powers, as he calls them. Dialogue: 0,0:35:51.74,0:36:04.61,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以耶稣可以保持他完全的神性，但搁置，意味着选择不使用无所不在和全能的神圣能力。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So Jesus could keep his full divinity, but set aside, meaning choose not to use, the divine powers of omnipresence and omnipotence. Dialogue: 0,0:36:04.61,0:36:11.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以诺瓦天说他倒空了自己的神圣能力，但不是神性，因此他做出了这种区分。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So Novatian says he emptied himself of divine power, but not of divinity, so he makes this distinction. Dialogue: 0,0:36:13.01,0:36:21.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但从某种意义上说，这与嗣子论相反，因为记住，嗣子论是一种上升的基督论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But this is the opposite, in a sense, this is the opposite of adoptionism, because adoptionism, remember, is a Christology of ascent. Dialogue: 0,0:36:21.88,0:36:31.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗣子论说耶稣只是一个普通人，开始时只是一个普通人，但达到了一个崇高的地位。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Adoptionism says Jesus is a mere human, starts out as a mere human, but achieves an elevated status. Dialogue: 0,0:36:31.54,0:36:33.42,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是上升的基督论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That's the Christology of ascent. Dialogue: 0,0:36:33.62,0:36:38.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}诺瓦天反驳说，不，恰恰相反。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Novation argues against that by saying, no, it's the opposite. Dialogue: 0,0:36:38.36,0:36:41.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他不是从低处开始最后被提升。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He doesn't start out low and ends up elevated. Dialogue: 0,0:36:41.40,0:36:45.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他开始时是崇高的，然后使自己谦卑。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He starts out exalted and humbles himself. Dialogue: 0,0:36:45.44,0:36:48.10,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这是一种下降的基督论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So this is a Christology of descent. Dialogue: 0,0:36:51.31,0:37:03.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}下降的基督论说道成了肉身，他原与神同等，但他倒空了自己。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Christology of descent says that the Word became flesh, that He had equality with God, but He emptied Himself. Dialogue: 0,0:37:04.88,0:37:09.05,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他愿意不主张那种平等，而是放弃它。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And He was willing to not claim to that equality, but let go of it. Dialogue: 0,0:37:10.15,0:37:12.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这就是下降的基督论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so this is the Christology of descent. Dialogue: 0,0:37:12.59,0:37:17.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}基督倒空了自己的神圣能力，为了真正成为人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Christ emptied Himself of His own divine power, In order to be truly human. Dialogue: 0,0:37:17.40,0:37:21.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为，再说一遍，如果你是无所不在的，你怎么能真正成为人呢？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because, again, how can you be truly human if you're omnipresent? Dialogue: 0,0:37:21.26,0:37:22.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}或者如果你是全能的？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Or if you're omnipotent? Dialogue: 0,0:37:23.81,0:37:26.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}或者即使你是全知的，就这个问题而言。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Or even if you're omniscient, for that matter. Dialogue: 0,0:37:26.35,0:37:27.09,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你知道一切。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You know everything. Dialogue: 0,0:37:27.09,0:37:33.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，当耶稣说，你知道，没有人知道那日子，那时\N辰，连子也不知道，只有父知道，他说的是实话。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, when Jesus said, you know, no one knows the day or the hour, not even the Son, but only the Father, He was telling the truth. Dialogue: 0,0:37:33.99,0:37:35.09,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他不知道。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He didn't know. Dialogue: 0,0:37:35.19,0:37:39.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为他已经搁置了那种能力，那种知识。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because He had set that kind of power, that knowledge, aside. Dialogue: 0,0:37:39.43,0:37:42.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}无论如何，这是诺瓦天的解释。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This is Novation's explanation of it, at any rate. Dialogue: 0,0:37:42.72,0:37:45.46,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，对诺瓦天来说，什么……\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, for Novation, what... Dialogue: 0,0:37:46.41,0:37:55.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这种倒空解释了基督的两种本性，他的神性和人性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This emptying does is that it explains both natures of Christ, his divinity and his humanity. Dialogue: 0,0:37:56.14,0:38:03.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他必须倒空自己才能成为人这一事实意味着他一开始就不仅仅是人，这证明了他的神性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The fact that he had to be emptied to become human means that he started out as more than human, so that demonstrates his divinity. Dialogue: 0,0:38:03.94,0:38:07.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他的神性表现在他必须倒空自己才能成为人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}His divinity has demonstrated in that he had to empty himself to become human. Dialogue: 0,0:38:08.10,0:38:12.05,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但这种倒空也证明了他的人性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the emptying Demonstrates his humanity. Dialogue: 0,0:38:12.05,0:38:18.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}事实上，他不是圣父，而是圣子，他获得了人性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That he is not, in fact, the Father, but he is the Son, and he has acquired a human nature. Dialogue: 0,0:38:19.76,0:38:25.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}倒空的术语，希腊词是kenosis。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The term for emptying, the Greek word is kenosis. Dialogue: 0,0:38:26.30,0:38:27.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你知道这个术语吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You know this term? Dialogue: 0,0:38:27.22,0:38:28.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你听说过这个词吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You've heard this word? Dialogue: 0,0:38:28.24,0:38:34.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}Kenosis是那个动词的希腊词，意思是他倒空了自己。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Kenosis is the Greek word for that verb, he emptied himself. Dialogue: 0,0:38:36.86,0:38:50.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在保罗书信的背景下，在腓立比书本身的背景下，保罗用这个\N作为他论点的部分支持，你知道，我们应该像基督那样谦卑。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In the context of Paul's letter, in the context of Philippians itself, Paul is using this as part of the support for his argument for, you know, we ought to be humble the way Christ was humble. Dialogue: 0,0:38:50.30,0:38:53.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他愿意使自己卑微或谦卑。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He was willing to humiliate or humble himself. Dialogue: 0,0:38:54.36,0:39:23.09,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，不幸的是，有些人用kenosis这个词来谈论人的谦卑，这混淆了问\N题，但它实际上是关于这种倒空，三位一体的第二位格愿意搁置神圣能力以真正\N成为人，因为毕竟，如果你拥有所有这些神圣能力，你就无法体验真正的人性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, unfortunately, some people use the word kenosis to talk about human humility, and that confuses the issue, but it's really about this emptying, that the second person of the Trinity was willing to set aside divine powers in order to become truly human, because after all, You can't experience real humanity if you've got all these divine powers at your disposal. Dialogue: 0,0:39:23.09,0:39:23.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，有问题吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yes, question? Dialogue: 0,0:39:23.99,0:39:39.45,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，我觉得如果你谈论基督放弃他的全知全能，还有一\N个神性的第三个要素，就是他是不变的和永恒不变的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, I feel like if you talk about Christ giving up his omniscience and the fact that he's omnipotent and omnipotent, there was a third element of divinity that he's immutable and unchanging. Dialogue: 0,0:39:39.45,0:39:40.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right. Dialogue: 0,0:39:40.01,0:39:48.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们是如何认为不变的变成了可变的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And how do they think that The immutable became mutable. Dialogue: 0,0:39:48.17,0:39:50.37,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不朽的变成了可朽的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The incorruptible became corruptible. Dialogue: 0,0:40:07.15,0:40:17.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但「成为」这种语言最终并不够精确，因为使用「成为」的语言，听起来好像有变化。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the becoming language eventually isn't quite precise enough, because by using becoming language, it makes it sound like there's change. Dialogue: 0,0:40:18.12,0:40:33.81,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以更精确的说法是，在获得人性时，不变的获得了\N可变性，但他们会很快指出神性仍然始终是不变的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So a more precise way to say it would be that in acquiring a human nature, the immutable acquired immutability, but They would be quick to point out that the divine nature is always still immutable. Dialogue: 0,0:40:33.81,0:40:35.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是人性是可变的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's the human nature that's immutable. Dialogue: 0,0:40:35.75,0:40:39.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是人性可以改变和受苦，而不是神性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's the human nature that can change and suffer, not the divine nature. Dialogue: 0,0:40:39.95,0:40:45.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这就是他们如何保护神性不受变化和苦难的影响。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So this is how they protect the divine nature from change and suffering. Dialogue: 0,0:40:45.39,0:40:49.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们几分钟后会回到我们之前提出的那个问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We're going to get back to that question that we had earlier in a few minutes. Dialogue: 0,0:40:49.86,0:41:06.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但这就是我们进入那个奥秘领域的地方，我们所有的答案都到此为止\N，因为在某种意义上，不变的变成了可变的，但神性仍然保持不变。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But this is where we enter that realm of mystery where all of our answers come to an end because there's a sense in which the immutable becomes mutable, but the divine nature remains immutable. Dialogue: 0,0:41:06.34,0:41:23.51,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以当我们说他搁置了他的无所不在，以便他可以在时间和空间中\N被限制或局限时，在某个层面上他的神性仍然始终是无所不在的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So when we say that he sets aside his omnipresence so that he can be circumscribed or localized in time and space, on one level his divine nature is still always omnipresent. Dialogue: 0,0:41:24.75,0:41:26.81,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但这就是它变得有点神秘的地方。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But that's where it becomes kind of mysterious. Dialogue: 0,0:41:26.81,0:41:51.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我们可能会说，他们可能会说，如果耶稣搁置了他\N的神圣能力并选择不使用它，他是如何行那些神迹的？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So we kind of, they might have said that If Jesus set aside his divine power and chooses not to use it, How did he do all those miracles? Dialogue: 0,0:41:51.39,0:41:54.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}答案是，靠圣灵的能力。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And the answer would be, by the power of the Holy Spirit. Dialogue: 0,0:41:54.47,0:41:56.21,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}靠圣灵的能力。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}By the Holy Spirit's power. Dialogue: 0,0:41:56.21,0:42:06.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是为什么他可以对门徒说，当他谈到赐给他们圣灵的恩赐\N时，我所做的事，你们也可以做，你们甚至可以做更大的事。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And this is why he can say to the disciples, when he's talking about giving them the gift of the Holy Spirit, the things I did, you can do, and you can do even greater things. Dialogue: 0,0:42:06.100,0:42:13.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我是说，你有没有读过那段经文并想，等一下，人怎么能做比耶稣做的更大的事呢？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I mean, did you ever read that passage and think, wait a minute, How can people do greater things than Jesus did? Dialogue: 0,0:42:13.04,0:42:17.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，因为他们将能够接触到同样的圣灵，那是他能力的源泉。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, because they would have access to the same Holy Spirit that was the source of his power. Dialogue: 0,0:42:17.20,0:42:19.66,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以无论如何，这就是对此的解释。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So that's the explanation for it anyway. Dialogue: 0,0:42:19.66,0:42:23.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}有人争辩说圣灵只是他搁置的能力吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And did anyone argue that the Holy Spirit was just the power he set aside? Dialogue: 0,0:42:24.50,0:42:27.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不，因为圣灵不仅仅是能力。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}No, because the Holy Spirit isn't simply power. Dialogue: 0,0:42:27.78,0:42:30.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣灵是一个神圣的位格。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Holy Spirit is a divine person. Dialogue: 0,0:42:32.49,0:42:39.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以在他的人性存在中，他被圣灵充满，就像我们可以被圣灵充满一样。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So in his human existence, he's filled with the Holy Spirit in a way that we can be filled with the Holy Spirit. Dialogue: 0,0:42:40.15,0:42:47.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我的意思是，这一切都很神秘，但这些都是很好的问题，所\N以当我回答它们时，请知道这是我们能给出的最好答案。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I mean, it's all very mysterious, but these are great questions, so when I answer them, just know that this is the best answer we got. Dialogue: 0,0:42:48.68,0:43:03.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以无论如何，当你看父与子之间的关系时，问题再次变成\N他们在多大程度上是一体的，又在多大程度上是不同的？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So anyway, when you look at the relationship then between father and son, the question again becomes how much are they one and how much are they distinct? Dialogue: 0,0:43:03.30,0:43:15.41,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当你问他们有多大的区别时，你就开始谈论圣子顺服于圣父权柄的领域。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And when you ask how much are they distinct, then you're starting to talk in the realm of The Son submitting to the authority of the Father. Dialogue: 0,0:43:15.41,0:43:18.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们处在这个我们可能称之为从属的领域。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We're in this realm of what we might call subordination. Dialogue: 0,0:43:18.97,0:43:22.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣子从属于圣父。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Son is subordinated to the Father. Dialogue: 0,0:43:23.57,0:43:27.56,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗣子论有太多的从属。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Adoptionism has too much subordination. Dialogue: 0,0:43:27.56,0:43:30.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换句话说，或者是错误类型的从属。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In other words, or the wrong kind of subordination. Dialogue: 0,0:43:30.70,0:43:36.19,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换句话说，对于嗣子论，这种从属是本体论的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In other words, for adoptionism, the subordination is ontological. Dialogue: 0,0:43:36.19,0:43:40.61,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是存在、本质或实质的从属。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's a subordination of being, or of essence, or of substance. Dialogue: 0,0:43:40.72,0:43:46.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣子是不同的实质，不同的本质。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That the Son is a different substance, different essence. Dialogue: 0,0:43:46.16,0:44:17.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以再说一遍，嗣子论有太多的区别，不够统一，但在那种过多的区别中也有太多的从属\N，圣父和圣子如此不同是因为他们是不同的本质，而圣子的本质或实质比圣父低一等。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So again, adoptionism is too much distinction, not enough unity, but in that too much distinction is also too much Subordination, that the Father and Son are so different because they're different essences, and the Son is of a lower order of essence or substance than the Father. Dialogue: 0,0:44:17.33,0:44:18.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这是个问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So that's a problem. Dialogue: 0,0:44:18.80,0:44:28.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但在另一个极端，形态论没有足够的从属，在这个意义上，它没有足够的位格之间的区别。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But on the other extreme, modalism didn't have enough subordination, in the sense that it doesn't have enough distinction between the persons. Dialogue: 0,0:44:28.70,0:44:34.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对形态论来说，圣父和圣子是同一的，这导致我们最终失去了基督的人性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}For modalism, the Father and Son are one and the same, which we end up losing the humanity of Christ. Dialogue: 0,0:44:35.81,0:44:45.56,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，形态论在位格之间没有足够的区别，因此为\N了保持位格之间的区别，我们有这种等级制度。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, modalism didn't have enough distinction between the persons, and so in order to preserve the distinction between the persons, we have this hierarchy. Dialogue: 0,0:44:46.12,0:45:07.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但诺瓦天指出的是，这种等级制度，或者说圣子对圣父的从属，如果你想这样说的话\N，不是本体论的，不是本质或存在或实质的从属，而是权柄或能力的从属或顺服。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But what Novation points out is that the hierarchy, or the subordination of the son to the father, if you want to talk about it that way, is not ontological, not a subordination of essence or being or substance, It is a subordination or a submission of authority or power. Dialogue: 0,0:45:09.93,0:45:14.33,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，再说一遍，希腊语中表示能力的词是dynamic，adunimous。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, again, the Greek word for power is dynamic, adunimous. Dialogue: 0,0:45:14.39,0:45:31.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，诺瓦天的基督论是一种动态的从属或权柄或能力的从属，但不是本质或实质的从属。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, Novatian's Christology is a dynamic subordination or a subordination of authority or power, but not a subordination of essence or substance. Dialogue: 0,0:45:31.96,0:45:41.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，这种区分并不会长期存在，因为后来的神学家们会想把能力和实质看作是同一件事。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, that distinction isn't really going to stick for a long time because later theologians will want to talk about power and substance as the same thing. Dialogue: 0,0:45:41.59,0:45:48.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以他们将结合不可分割的运作和实质的统一的观念，说一个实质，一个能力。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So they're going to combine the ideas of inseparable operation and unity of substance and say one substance, one power. Dialogue: 0,0:45:48.59,0:45:53.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以从这个意义上说，诺瓦天思想的一些细节不会持续很久。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So some of the details of Novatian's thought are not going to last in that sense. Dialogue: 0,0:45:53.78,0:46:05.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但他所做的很重要，因为他说我们必须在三位一体中有一个等级\N制度，否则我们要么有形态论，要么有多神论，二者必居其一。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But what he does is important because he says we have to have a hierarchy in the Trinity Or else we've got either modalism or polytheism, one of the two. Dialogue: 0,0:46:05.00,0:46:07.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我们必须在三位一体中有一个等级制度。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So we have to have a hierarchy in the Trinity. Dialogue: 0,0:46:07.70,0:46:15.02,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但我们也必须确保明确这种等级制度不是实质或本质的等级制度。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But we also have to make sure that it's clear that the hierarchy is not a hierarchy of substance or essence. Dialogue: 0,0:46:15.26,0:46:19.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣父的实质并不比圣子高一等，或者类似的任何说法。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Father is not a higher order of substance than the Son, or anything like that. Dialogue: 0,0:46:19.97,0:46:23.45,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣子仍然与圣父是同一实质。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Son is still the same substance as the Father. Dialogue: 0,0:46:24.41,0:46:29.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这是权柄的等级制度，而不是实质的等级制度。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So it's a hierarchy of authority, but not of substance. Dialogue: 0,0:46:30.47,0:46:38.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这种权柄的等级制度正是我们在谈论圣父和圣子作为差遣者和使者时所看到的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And that hierarchy of authority is exactly what we see when we talk about the Father and Son as sender and messenger. Dialogue: 0,0:46:42.96,0:46:57.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们还必须始终提醒自己，圣子对圣父的任何顺服\N都是自愿的，因为他们是同一实质和平等的神性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And we also always have to remind ourselves that any submission of the Son to the Father is always voluntary, because they are the same substance and equal divinity. Dialogue: 0,0:47:01.20,0:47:30.06,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以当诺瓦天在这里谈论三位一体时，顺便说一下，以防我忘记说这一点\N，关于三位一体的文献稍长一些，所以我给你们许可，如果你们没有时间\N读完整个文献，请确保你们专注于第22章。因为第22章是真正深入探\N讨腓立比书第2章和kenosis的地方，所以这真的是核心部分。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So when Novation talks about the Trinity here, and by the way, in case I forget to say this, the document on the Trinity is a little bit longer, and so I'm giving you permission, if you don't have time to read the whole thing, make sure you focus on chapter 22. Because chapter 22 is where it really gets into the Philippians 2 thing and the kenosis, so that's really the core of it. Dialogue: 0,0:47:30.32,0:47:38.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果你有时间读其余部分，那是值得的，但要专注于第22章。现在这里有一个问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If you have the time to read the rest, it's worth it, but focus on chapter 22. Now there's a question here. Dialogue: 0,0:47:38.32,0:47:46.61,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，如果神是不变的，神性是不变的，圣子怎么能自愿做某事呢？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, if God is unchanging, divinity is unchanging, how is it that the Son can volunteer something? Dialogue: 0,0:47:47.53,0:47:50.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为这似乎是状态的改变。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}because that seems to be a change in state. Dialogue: 0,0:47:50.70,0:47:54.02,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，这不是作为一个事件的自愿。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, it isn't volunteering as an event. Dialogue: 0,0:47:54.04,0:47:58.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不是说，你知道，有一天他决定做某事。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It isn't that, you know, one day he makes a decision to do something. Dialogue: 0,0:47:58.92,0:48:02.02,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但这只是某种永恒的自愿。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But it's just sort of eternally volunteering. Dialogue: 0,0:48:02.02,0:48:04.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这不是强加于他的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So it's not forced upon him. Dialogue: 0,0:48:04.58,0:48:04.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right. Dialogue: 0,0:48:04.88,0:48:06.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是重点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That's the point. Dialogue: 0,0:48:06.24,0:48:10.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为他是神圣的，没有什么可以强加于神圣的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because he's divine, nothing can be forced upon the divine. Dialogue: 0,0:48:10.63,0:48:12.21,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这就是问题所在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So that's the thing. Dialogue: 0,0:48:12.21,0:48:17.65,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但你提出了一个很好的观点，因为我们马上要讨论一些非常相似的东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But you bring up a great point, because we're going to talk about something very similar to that in a minute. Dialogue: 0,0:48:19.14,0:48:34.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，所以当诺瓦天谈论三位一体时，圣父是第一因，是非\N受生的，或无因的，或者我们说的另一种方式是非生成的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Alright, so when salvation talks about the Trinity, the Father, then, is the first cause and is unbegotten, or uncaused, or another way that we talk about it is ungenerated. Dialogue: 0,0:48:34.20,0:48:37.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这只是「受生」的同义词。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And this is just a synonym for begotten. Dialogue: 0,0:48:37.80,0:48:41.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，这些词都是同一个意思。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, these words all mean the same thing. Dialogue: 0,0:48:41.76,0:48:43.73,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}非生成的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Ungenerated. Dialogue: 0,0:48:45.70,0:48:49.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣子是由圣父所生成的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Son is generated from the Father. Dialogue: 0,0:48:49.39,0:48:51.73,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}生成就是受生的意思。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Generated just means begotten. Dialogue: 0,0:48:51.93,0:48:58.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这恰好是我更喜欢的英语词，因为「受生」这个词，它是什么意思？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It happens to be the English word that I prefer because the word begotten, what does that mean? Dialogue: 0,0:48:58.26,0:49:04.65,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，生成是一种说法，表示圣子是由圣父所生成的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, generated is a way of saying that the Son is generated from the Father. Dialogue: 0,0:49:04.65,0:49:06.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣子有一个源头。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Son has a source. Dialogue: 0,0:49:07.38,0:49:20.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣父，圣子是由圣父所致的，圣子依赖于圣父，圣子的存在取\N决于圣父，但不说被创造，因为我们不说圣子是被创造的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Father, the Son is caused by the Father, the Son is dependent on, and the Son's existence is contingent on the Father, but without saying created, because we do not say the Son is created. Dialogue: 0,0:49:20.99,0:49:25.89,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这是一种说法，你知道，是被致的，但不是被创造的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So it's a way of saying, you know, caused, but not created. Dialogue: 0,0:49:25.89,0:49:28.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}无论如何，这就是我们使用那个词的目的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Anyway, that's what we're after with that word. Dialogue: 0,0:49:28.28,0:49:51.81,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以圣父是非生成的，而圣子是生成的，因为这种差异，这就是两者之\N间的区别，圣父优先于圣子，不是在时间上，不是说圣父在圣子之前，\N两者都是永恒的，但因为圣父是最终源头，而圣子顺服于他的权柄。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the Father is ungenerated, And the Son is generated, and because of this difference, this is the distinction between the two, the Father has priority over the Son, not in time, not like the Father came before the Son, both are eternal, but because the Father is the ultimate source, and the Son defers to His authority. Dialogue: 0,0:49:52.48,0:49:58.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣子是生成的，正如诺瓦天所说，是从圣父延伸出来的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Son is generated and, as Novation says, extended from the Father. Dialogue: 0,0:49:58.03,0:50:02.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}语言也可能有问题，但他正在寻找描述这一点的方法。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Language can be problematic too, but he's searching for ways to describe this. Dialogue: 0,0:50:03.84,0:50:08.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但始终坚持圣父和圣子的神性是相同的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But always maintain that the divinity of the Father and the Son is the same. Dialogue: 0,0:50:10.58,0:50:18.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣父和圣子的神性是相同的，但圣子的神性源自圣父的神性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The divinity of the Father and Son is the same, but the divinity of the Son is derived from the divinity of the Father. Dialogue: 0,0:50:18.50,0:50:22.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}有点像星星与光和热的关系。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Kind of like the star with the light and the heat. Dialogue: 0,0:50:22.52,0:50:29.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}星星发出的光是由星星生成的，但它是同样的光。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The light from the star is generated from the star, but it's the same light. Dialogue: 0,0:50:31.45,0:50:45.19,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，在道成肉身或自我倒空中，圣子自愿搁置\N了他自己的全能、无所不在和全知的神圣能力。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, in the incarnation then, or in the kenosis, the Son voluntarily sets aside His own divine powers of omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience. Dialogue: 0,0:50:45.64,0:50:51.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}再说一遍，对诺瓦天来说，他可以这样做而不搁置他的神性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And again, for an ovation, He can do that without setting aside His divinity. Dialogue: 0,0:50:51.94,0:50:58.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是人们在写这个问题时容易绊倒的地方。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And this is the thing that people get tripped up on when they have to write about this. Dialogue: 0,0:50:59.03,0:51:13.66,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}写关于道成肉身和圣子搁置这些我们可能认为是神圣属性的\N东西，同时始终坚持他没有搁置他的神性，这是很棘手的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's tricky to write about the Incarnation and the Son setting aside these things that we might consider divine attributes while always maintaining that He does not set aside His divinity. Dialogue: 0,0:51:13.66,0:51:17.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他并没有变得不那么神圣，他并没有停止成为神圣，或任何类似的情况。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He does not become any less divine, He does not cease to be divine, or any of that. Dialogue: 0,0:51:17.94,0:51:23.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我们必须非常清楚，圣子是永恒神圣的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So we've got to be very clear that the Son is eternally divine. Dialogue: 0,0:51:24.72,0:51:27.41,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，这是诺瓦天对这个问题的解决方案。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, this is Novation's solution to the problem. Dialogue: 0,0:51:27.41,0:51:41.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}再说一遍，这里有一些细微差别，也许其他作者会以不同的\N方式阐明，但诺瓦天始终坚持圣子并没有倒空自己的神性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And again, there are nuances of this that maybe other writers will clarify in different ways, but Novation always maintains that the Son does not empty himself of divinity. Dialogue: 0,0:51:44.12,0:52:00.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以基本上，诺瓦天所做的是把这些我们可能认为是神性本质定义的概念\N，如无所不在、全能、全知，他把它们更多地看作是不同位格的属性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So basically, what Novation is doing is making these concepts of omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, things that we might consider the very definition of divinity, he's making them more attributes of the distinct persons. Dialogue: 0,0:52:00.87,0:52:05.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以圣父有他的无所不在，圣子有他的，圣灵也有他的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the Father has his omnipresence, the Son has his, and the Holy Spirit has his. Dialogue: 0,0:52:05.57,0:52:07.73,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣子可以某种程度上搁置他的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Son can kind of set his aside. Dialogue: 0,0:52:08.80,0:52:14.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}无论如何，如果你想更深入地了解这一点，我不知道你为什么会想这样做。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Anyway, if you want to go deeper on that, I don't know why you would. Dialogue: 0,0:52:14.04,0:52:25.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但如果你确实想更深入地了解这类东西，我写了一本关于诺\N瓦天的书，名为《罗马的诺瓦天与尼西亚前正统的巅峰》。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But if you did want to go deeper into this kind of stuff, I wrote a book on Novation called Novation of Rome and the Culmination of Pre-Nicene Orthodoxy. Dialogue: 0,0:52:25.67,0:52:31.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那本书将是下学期早期教会基督论和三位一体选修课的教科书之一。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That book will be one of the textbooks for next semester's elective on Christology and Trinity in the early church. Dialogue: 0,0:52:31.83,0:52:38.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以如果你对此感兴趣，而且你觉得还不够，那么下学期就选修那门课吧。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So if you're interested in that and you just didn't get enough of it, here, take that class next semester. Dialogue: 0,0:52:40.28,0:52:47.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这里是关键所在，这是重要的内容，所以如果你的眼睛一直在走神，现在该清醒一下了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Where the rubber meets the road for this here, and this is the important stuff, so if your eyes have been glazing over, kind of wake up. Dialogue: 0,0:52:50.55,0:53:06.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当我们谈论圣子是受生的，或被致的，或生成的，即使到了特土良的时\N代，可能希波吕陀也是，在他们的思想中，圣子的开始是一种事件。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}When we talk about the Son as begotten, or caused, or generated, even as late as Tertullian, and probably Hippolytus too, in their minds, The beginning of the Son is a kind of an event. Dialogue: 0,0:53:06.90,0:53:12.73,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}尽管它不是在时间内发生的，但他们把它当作是发生过的事情。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Even though it doesn't take place within time, they treat it like it's something that happened. Dialogue: 0,0:53:13.47,0:53:16.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对诺瓦天来说，这是有问题的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And for Novation, that's problematic. Dialogue: 0,0:53:16.25,0:53:30.81,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为如果你把圣子的开始或生成当作发生过的事情，他被生成了，\N那么这不是暗示了一种变化，就像也许在那之前他没有被生成？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because if you treat the beginning or the generation of the Son as something that happened, that he was generated, Then doesn't that imply a change, like maybe before then he wasn't generated? Dialogue: 0,0:53:31.23,0:53:41.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}再说一遍，这又回到了一些护教者尝试将三位一体的第二\N位格描述为圣父心中的一个思想然后表达出来的方式。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Again, this kind of goes back to some of the ways that the apologists experimented with talking about the second person of the Trinity as a thought in the mind of the Father and then coming out. Dialogue: 0,0:53:41.80,0:53:46.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但如果你这么说，那么你就有了变化的问题，你知道吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But if you say that, then you have the problem of change, you know? Dialogue: 0,0:53:46.33,0:53:49.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在神的心意中，然后在神之外，圣父。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In the mind of God and then external to God, the Father. Dialogue: 0,0:53:49.95,0:53:54.61,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}或者甚至神原本不是圣父，然后神成为了圣父。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Or maybe even God wasn't the Father and then God became the Father. Dialogue: 0,0:53:54.61,0:53:55.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}类似这样的说法。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Something like that. Dialogue: 0,0:53:55.25,0:53:59.18,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以如果你开始这样说，所有这些都是有问题的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So all of these things are problematic if you start talking like that. Dialogue: 0,0:53:59.18,0:54:01.72,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以诺瓦天说，等一下。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so what Novation says is, wait a minute. Dialogue: 0,0:54:03.62,0:54:11.56,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你不能说圣子原本在圣父里面，然后来到圣父身边或在圣父之外。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You can't say that the Son was in the Father and then came to be with the Father or external to the Father. Dialogue: 0,0:54:11.88,0:54:18.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你必须说圣子始终在圣父里面，圣子始终与圣父同在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You have to say that the Son is always in the Father, and the Son is always with the Father. Dialogue: 0,0:54:19.13,0:54:23.19,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而且始终有圣父，始终有圣子。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And there was always a Father, and there was always a Son. Dialogue: 0,0:54:23.69,0:54:26.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}三位一体始终是三位一体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Trinity was always a Trinity. Dialogue: 0,0:54:26.07,0:54:32.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，诺瓦天实际上并没有使用「三位一体」这个词，因为记住，这个词还没有标准化。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, Novatius doesn't actually use the word Trinity, because remember, that word hasn't become standardized yet. Dialogue: 0,0:54:32.26,0:54:37.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但这个想法是，三位一体必须和一体性一样永恒。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the idea is that the threeness has to be as eternal as the oneness. Dialogue: 0,0:54:37.79,0:54:42.89,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}位格之间的区别必须是永恒的，就像一体性一样。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The distinctions between the persons have to be eternal, just like the unity. Dialogue: 0,0:54:43.72,0:54:48.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}否则你就在三位一体内提出了随时间变化的观点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Otherwise you propose change over time within the Trinity. Dialogue: 0,0:54:48.68,0:54:57.49,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，诺瓦天真的是第一个解释说圣子不能简单地被说成是生成的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, Novation is really the first one to explain that The Son can't simply be said to be generated. Dialogue: 0,0:54:57.49,0:55:01.17,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}必须说他是永恒生成的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He has to be said to be eternally generated. Dialogue: 0,0:55:01.21,0:55:04.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这种生成不是一个事件，而是一种永恒的存在状态。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The generation is not an event, but it's an eternal state of being. Dialogue: 0,0:55:04.96,0:55:08.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这被称为永恒生成。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This is called eternal generation. Dialogue: 0,0:55:10.34,0:55:12.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}永恒生成。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Eternal generation. Dialogue: 0,0:55:12.93,0:55:18.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣子的生成或开始以及与圣父的那种关系是一种永恒的关系。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The generation or the beginning of the Son and that relationship with the Father is an eternal relationship. Dialogue: 0,0:55:18.70,0:55:20.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是一种永恒的存在状态。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's an eternal state of being. Dialogue: 0,0:55:20.58,0:55:25.02,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为圣父和圣子之间的区别必须是永恒的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because the distinction between Father and Son has to be eternal. Dialogue: 0,0:55:25.02,0:55:37.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}看，当特土良暗示生成是一个事件时，他也暗示\N在那个事件之前，圣父和圣子之间没有区别。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}See, when Tertullian implied that generation was an event, he also implied that before that event, there was no distinction between the Father and Son. Dialogue: 0,0:55:38.28,0:55:40.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}然后，在那个事件之后，就有了区别。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And then, after that event, there was. Dialogue: 0,0:55:40.70,0:55:50.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，特土良尽管很伟大，但他暗示了一种，你知道，直到生成之前的某种形态论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, Tertullian, as great as he was, he was implying a kind of, sort of, you know, modalism up until the generation. Dialogue: 0,0:55:50.67,0:55:53.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这种说法，你知道，并不太合适。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Which, you know, doesn't quite work. Dialogue: 0,0:55:53.83,0:55:59.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，诺瓦天在纠正这一点，说，不，生成是永恒的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, Novation is correcting that and saying, no, the generation is eternal. Dialogue: 0,0:55:59.68,0:56:13.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为，让我们面对现实，当你读约翰福音1:1，「太初有道」，你知道这句话\N说的是，在创造的时候，甚至在创造之前，道，神的道的神性，就已经存在了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because, let's face it, when you read John 1.1, in the beginning was the Word, you know that that says, that at creation, or even before creation, the Logos, the divine nature of the Word of God, existed. Dialogue: 0,0:56:13.84,0:56:16.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他在创造的时代就在那里。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He was there in the age of creation. Dialogue: 0,0:56:16.26,0:56:17.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}太初有道。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In the beginning was the Word. Dialogue: 0,0:56:19.24,0:56:29.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但有些人会说，好吧，我承认他在创造时就在那里，但我想说他是在那之前不久被创造的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But some people are going to come along and say, well, okay, I'll give you that he was there at creation, but I want to say he was created shortly before that. Dialogue: 0,0:56:30.45,0:56:41.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，即使是约翰福音第1章，虽然说基督是先存的，但并没有明确说他是永恒先存的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, even John 1, while it says Christ is pre-existent, It doesn't quite say he was eternally pre-existent. Dialogue: 0,0:56:41.96,0:56:44.10,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这就是诺瓦天澄清的内容。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so this is what Novation clarifies. Dialogue: 0,0:56:44.44,0:56:48.06,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}仅仅说道是先存的是不够的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's not enough to say that the Logos is pre-existent. Dialogue: 0,0:56:48.92,0:56:53.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}事实上，即使说道是永恒先存的也不够。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In fact, it's not even enough to say that the Logos is eternally pre-existent. Dialogue: 0,0:56:53.86,0:57:02.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你必须说道是作为一个独特的神圣位格永恒先存的，与圣父有别。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You have to say that the Logos is eternally pre-existent as a distinct divine person, distinct from the Father. Dialogue: 0,0:57:03.49,0:57:06.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是永恒生成所做的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so this is what the eternal generation does. Dialogue: 0,0:57:06.03,0:57:13.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}永恒生成既展示了圣父和圣子之间的永恒一体性，也展示了他们之间的永恒区别。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The eternal generation demonstrates both the eternal unity and the eternal distinction between father and son. Dialogue: 0,0:57:13.07,0:57:16.73,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}永恒一体性体现在他们都是永恒的这一事实中。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The eternal unity is in the fact that they are both eternal. Dialogue: 0,0:57:17.81,0:57:20.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}没有圣父存在而圣子还不存在的时候。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}There was no time that the father existed and the son didn't exist yet. Dialogue: 0,0:57:20.99,0:57:21.87,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}完全没有这种情况。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}None of that. Dialogue: 0,0:57:22.15,0:57:26.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}区别在于这两者不是同一个。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The distinction is in the fact that the two are not one and the same. Dialogue: 0,0:57:26.99,0:57:28.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们从来就不是。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And they never were. Dialogue: 0,0:57:28.25,0:57:31.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们并不是开始时是同一个，然后变得分开或类似的情况。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They didn't start out as the same and then became separate or anything like that. Dialogue: 0,0:57:34.39,0:57:39.49,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以永恒生成既展示了永恒的一体性，也展示了永恒的区别。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so the eternal generation demonstrates both the eternal unity and the eternal distinction. Dialogue: 0,0:57:39.49,0:57:47.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以为了使三位一体是永恒的且不随时间变化，三个位格之间的这些区别也必须是永恒的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So for the Trinity to be eternal and not change over time, those distinctions between the three persons have to also be eternal. Dialogue: 0,0:57:47.86,0:57:52.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这说得通吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Does that make sense? Dialogue: 0,0:57:52.20,0:57:56.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我看到很多人皱眉头和扶额。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I see a lot of foreheads and palms. Dialogue: 0,0:57:56.97,0:58:08.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当你读《三位一体101》时，这些会更有意义，一切都会变得清晰。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This will make more sense as you read the When you read Trinity 101, it will all fall into place. Dialogue: 0,0:58:08.28,0:58:11.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，在我们结束之前还有一个概念我必须讨论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, there's one more concept I've got to talk about before we can quit. Dialogue: 0,0:58:11.30,0:58:14.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这回到了你之前的问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And this gets back to your question from before. Dialogue: 0,0:58:15.53,0:58:58.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果我们想从不可分割的运作等方面谈论三位一体的一体性，我们在多大程度\N上可以说圣父至少是通过圣子的苦难间接地受苦？当我们读希波吕陀的作品时\N，在他的几份文献中，在他对罗马主教的抨击中，在他批评卡利斯图主教的一\N个地方，他批评他教导的某些东西听起来非常像诺瓦天后来要说的话。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}To what extent can we say the Father suffered, at least vicariously, through the Son's suffering, If we want to talk about the unity of the Trinity in terms of inseparable operation, etc. When we read Hippolytus, and in Hippolytus, in a couple of his documents, in his ranting and raving about the bishops of Rome, in one of the places where he's criticizing Bishop Callistus, he criticizes him for teaching something It sounds an awful lot like something Novatian is later going to say. Dialogue: 0,0:58:58.92,0:59:07.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，虽然诺瓦天是第一个真正说这话的人，但我认为在歌罗西书中已经有了暗示。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, while Novatian is the first one to really say this, I think there are hints of it already in Colossians. Dialogue: 0,0:59:08.28,0:59:10.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}基本上，就是这样。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And basically, it's this. Dialogue: 0,0:59:11.24,0:59:30.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在基督的两性，即神性和人性的联合中，在基督的位格内，有一种\N联系，通过这种联系，两性中的每一性都从另一性借用某些东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That in the connection, in the union of the two natures of Christ, the divinity and the humanity, within the person of Christ, there is a connection by which each of the two natures borrows something from the other nature. Dialogue: 0,0:59:31.48,0:59:51.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，举个例子，在基督位格内人性和神性的联合中，神性赋予他的人性不朽性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, for example, So, in the union of human and divine within the person of Christ, the divine nature gives to his human nature immortality. Dialogue: 0,0:59:52.95,1:00:03.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以基督的人性，诺瓦天实际上使用了借贷的语言。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the humanity of Christ, and Novation actually uses the language of loaning and borrowing. Dialogue: 0,1:00:03.05,1:00:08.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这样做是有原因的，因为借贷保护了神性的不变性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And there's a reason for this, because the loaning and borrowing protects the immutability of the divine. Dialogue: 0,1:00:08.35,1:00:11.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这里神性没有发生变化。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So there's no change going on here in the divine. Dialogue: 0,1:00:11.85,1:00:17.45,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但人性从神性借用了不朽性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the humanity borrows from the divine nature immortality. Dialogue: 0,1:00:18.68,1:00:27.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为他的人性得到了这种不朽性的借贷，我们的人性也可以接受不朽性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And because his humanity has gotten this loan of immortality, our humanity can also receive immortality. Dialogue: 0,1:00:28.07,1:00:41.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但对诺瓦天来说，这种借贷是双向的，因为人性借用了不朽性，他的神性则借用了脆弱性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the loaning and the borrowing works both ways for Novation, because while the humanity borrows immortality, his divine nature, his divinity, borrows frailty. Dialogue: 0,1:00:43.87,1:00:47.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}脆弱性，人的处境，人的软弱。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Frailty, the human condition, the weakness of the human condition. Dialogue: 0,1:00:47.95,1:00:53.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}再说一遍，这是借用的，所以神性中没有发生真正的变化。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now again, it's borrowed, so there's no real change that takes place in the divinity. Dialogue: 0,1:00:53.84,1:00:55.100,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这并不威胁到不变性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It doesn't threaten immutability. Dialogue: 0,1:00:56.56,1:01:07.87,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但这意味着基督的神性可以体验人的处境而不经历变化。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But, what this means is that the divine nature of Christ can experience the human condition without undergoing change. Dialogue: 0,1:01:08.64,1:01:25.42,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，通过神性，三位一体，包括圣父，可以在同情人\N类的意义上受苦，而不是在改变的意义上真正受苦。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, through the divine nature, the Trinity, including the Father, can suffer in the sense of having compassion for humanity without actually suffering in the sense of changing. Dialogue: 0,1:01:25.90,1:01:31.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，这个概念的名称很长，是拉丁语。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, the name for this is long and Latin. Dialogue: 0,1:01:40.01,1:01:42.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}Communicatio idiomatum。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Communicatio idiomatum. Dialogue: 0,1:01:43.79,1:01:45.51,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}Communicatio idiomatum。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Communicatio idiomatum. Dialogue: 0,1:01:45.51,1:01:49.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果你看不到黑板，它在书里。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If you can't see the board, it's in the book. Dialogue: 0,1:01:49.59,1:02:06.10,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它意味着特性的交流，或特有属性的共享，这些属性是某一性独有的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It means the communication of idioms, or the sharing of idiomatic properties, properties that are unique to one nature or the other. Dialogue: 0,1:02:06.28,1:02:14.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以通常不朽性是神性的特有属性，但神性将其借给了人性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So normally immortality would be an idiomatic property of the divine nature, but the divinity loans that to humanity. Dialogue: 0,1:02:14.39,1:02:21.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}通常脆弱性是人性的属性，但人性将其借给了神性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Normally frailty would be a property of the human nature, But the human nature loans that to the dimension. Dialogue: 0,1:02:21.20,1:02:24.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}正因为如此，神知道作为你是什么感觉。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And because of that, God knows what it's like to be you. Dialogue: 0,1:02:24.86,1:02:30.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}有问题吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Question? Dialogue: 0,1:02:33.51,1:02:37.69,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，那只是人性的功能，是的，就其本身而言。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, that would be just a function of the human nature, yeah, in and of itself. Dialogue: 0,1:02:37.69,1:02:43.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但绝对是，我的意思是，你知道，因为这将是……\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But absolutely, I mean, you know, because this would be... Dialogue: 0,1:02:45.68,1:02:48.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}神是否通过基督的眼睛经历了死亡？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Did God experience death with Christ's eyes? Dialogue: 0,1:03:14.48,1:03:17.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当基督死时，神是否经历了死亡？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Did God experience death when Christ died? Dialogue: 0,1:03:17.70,1:03:28.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，你知道，这在某种意义上成为一种奥秘，你知道，你必须决定你想把它推到多远。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, you know, it becomes a kind of a mystery in the sense that, you know, You have to decide how far you want to take it. Dialogue: 0,1:03:28.73,1:03:40.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我用「经历」这个词的意思是，你知道，能够理解和知道，而不是实际经历。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I use the word experience to mean, you know, able to understand and know without actually undergoing. Dialogue: 0,1:03:40.78,1:03:51.49,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}从这个意义上说，是的，这就是这个想法，三位一体…\N…所以我们谈到了三位一体，但圣灵在这方面做什么？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In that sense, yeah, that would be the idea, that the Trinity So we talked about Trinity, but what's the Holy Spirit doing on this? Dialogue: 0,1:03:51.49,1:03:53.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，这是个好问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, that's a good question. Dialogue: 0,1:04:03.86,1:04:09.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}再说一遍，记住现在的争论主要是关于圣父和圣子之间的关系。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Again, remember that the debate is primarily over the relationship between the Father and the Son right now. Dialogue: 0,1:04:09.80,1:04:12.33,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，没有太多关于圣灵的讨论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, there isn't a lot of talk about the Spirit. Dialogue: 0,1:04:12.33,1:04:16.21,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}虽然，我要说，诺瓦天是早期谈论圣灵的人之一。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Although, I will say, Novation is one of the early people to talk about the Spirit. Dialogue: 0,1:04:16.21,1:04:22.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，如果你对圣灵感兴趣，那是诺瓦天《论三位一体》的第29章，我想。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, if you're interested in the Holy Spirit, that's chapter 29, I think, in Novation on the Trinity. Dialogue: 0,1:04:22.28,1:04:25.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，也读一读那章，看看他怎么说圣灵。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, read that too and see what he says about the Holy Spirit. Dialogue: 0,1:04:25.82,1:04:35.17,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}最终，所有这些关于圣子位格的争论最终都会再次被提出，或应用于圣灵的位格。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Ultimately, what ends up happening is all of these arguments over the person of the Son will eventually be asked again, or apply to the person of the Spirit. Dialogue: 0,1:04:37.73,1:04:43.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但诺瓦天说圣灵是三位一体中的一个神圣位格，一切你所期望的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But Novation is saying that the Holy Spirit is a divine person of the Trinity, everything that you'd expect. Dialogue: 0,1:04:44.63,1:04:48.37,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我想回到关于受苦的问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I want to step back to the question about suffering. Dialogue: 0,1:04:48.37,1:04:56.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果神是全知的，神难道不知道受苦是什么感觉吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If God is all-knowing, Doesn't God know what suffering feels like? Dialogue: 0,1:04:56.77,1:04:58.21,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他知道一切。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He knows everything. Dialogue: 0,1:04:58.21,1:04:58.87,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，没错。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yeah, right. Dialogue: 0,1:04:58.87,1:05:00.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，这是个公平的问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, that's a fair question. Dialogue: 0,1:05:00.71,1:05:04.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}神一直知道我们已经知道受苦是什么感觉。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}God is always knowing that we already know what suffering feels like. Dialogue: 0,1:05:04.95,1:05:09.33,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，好吧，我想是的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, um, sure, I suppose. Dialogue: 0,1:05:09.49,1:05:19.46,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但这里的重点是，通过特性交流，我们与神联系在一起。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the point here is that through the Communicantio Mediomagem, we are connected to God. Dialogue: 0,1:05:19.46,1:06:07.09,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们与三位一体的联系，这就是我们如何与神联系，但那个纽带、链接、连\N接点……所以，让我总结一下诺瓦天的观点，然后看看是否还有更多问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Our connection to the Trinity This is how we are connected to God, but that the nexus, the link, the connecting point So, let me summarize Novation and then I'll see if there are more questions. Dialogue: 0,1:06:08.21,1:06:10.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}诺瓦天假设这一点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Novation assumes this. Dialogue: 0,1:06:10.75,1:06:19.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一方面，你必须在圣父和圣子之间有一些区别，否则你最终会落入撒伯流主义或形态论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}On the one hand, you must have some distinction between the Father and Son, or else you end up with Sibelianism or Motivism. Dialogue: 0,1:06:21.33,1:06:27.81,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但是，这种区别不能是实质的差异，否则你最终会落入嗣子论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But, that distinction cannot be a difference of substance, or you end up with adoptionism. Dialogue: 0,1:06:28.85,1:06:33.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，他再次试图在两个极端之间找到中间道路。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, he's again trying to find the middle way between the two extremes. Dialogue: 0,1:06:34.02,1:06:41.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以他用圣子对圣父的自愿顺服来定义这种区别。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so he defines the distinction in terms of the son's voluntary obedience to the father. Dialogue: 0,1:06:41.34,1:06:45.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以存在一种维持区别的等级制度。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So that there is a hierarchy that maintains the distinction. Dialogue: 0,1:06:47.09,1:06:55.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但这种等级制度是自愿的，是权柄的等级制度，而不\N是实质的，所以正是实质的一体性维持了一体性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the hierarchy is voluntary, and it's a hierarchy of authority, not of substance, and so it's the unity of substance that maintains the oneness. Dialogue: 0,1:06:56.24,1:06:58.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这不是实质的等级制度。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So it's not a hierarchy of substance. Dialogue: 0,1:06:59.70,1:07:02.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣子在实质上与圣父平等。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Son is equal to the Father in substance. Dialogue: 0,1:07:02.08,1:07:06.10,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}事实上，圣父和圣子是同一实质，同一神性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In fact, the Father and Son are the same substance, same divinity. Dialogue: 0,1:07:06.48,1:07:13.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但圣子在起源上不等同于圣父，因为圣父没有起源。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the Son is not equal to the Father in origin, because the Father has no origin. Dialogue: 0,1:07:13.48,1:07:15.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣父是无因的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Father is uncaused. Dialogue: 0,1:07:16.59,1:07:19.09,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣子有一个起源，就是圣父。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Son has an origin, the Father. Dialogue: 0,1:07:21.03,1:07:22.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}让我们开放提问。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Let's open it up for questions. Dialogue: 0,1:07:23.07,1:07:33.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我知道这对周一晚上9点来说是很深奥的内容，但事实就是如此。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I know it's deep stuff for 9 o'clock on a Monday night, but it is what it is. Dialogue: 0,1:07:44.43,1:07:46.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，绝对要重复一遍总结。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yeah, repeat the summary, absolutely. Dialogue: 0,1:07:46.27,1:07:47.51,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay. Dialogue: 0,1:07:47.51,1:07:56.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}诺瓦天假设，一方面，你必须在圣父和圣子之间有一些区别，否则你最终会落入形态论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Novation assumes that, on the one hand, you have to have some distinction between the father and son, or you end up with modalism. Dialogue: 0,1:07:58.21,1:08:06.21,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}另一方面，这种区别不能是实质的差异，否则你最终会落入嗣子论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}On the other hand, that distinction cannot be a difference of substance, or you end up with adoptionism. Dialogue: 0,1:08:06.67,1:08:09.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以他正在尝试，他正在寻找两个极端之间的中间道路。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So he's trying, he's looking for the middle way between the two extremes. Dialogue: 0,1:08:10.76,1:08:16.72,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以他说你必须有区别，但这种区别是权柄的等级制度。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so he says you have to have distinction, but the distinction is this hierarchy of authority. Dialogue: 0,1:08:16.94,1:08:21.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不是实质的等级制度，而是权柄的等级制度。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Not a hierarchy of substance, but a hierarchy of authority. Dialogue: 0,1:08:21.00,1:08:33.81,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣子顺服于圣父的唯一原因是他选择这样做，不是因为必须这样做，因为他\N们有平等的神性，但他选择这样做是基于他是受生的而圣父不是这一事实。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And the only reason that the Son defers to the Father is because He chooses to, doesn't have to because it's equal divinity, but He chooses to based on the fact that He is begotten and the Father is not. Dialogue: 0,1:08:33.81,1:08:37.81,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他是被致的，而圣父是致因。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He is cause and the Father is the cause. Dialogue: 0,1:08:39.34,1:08:41.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们不知道那个致因是什么。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We have no idea what that cause is. Dialogue: 0,1:08:41.62,1:08:43.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，致因就是圣父。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, the cause simply is the Father. Dialogue: 0,1:08:44.98,1:08:47.42,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们不进一步定义它。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We don't define it further than that. Dialogue: 0,1:08:47.42,1:08:49.18,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是为什么我更喜欢用「生成」这个词。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That's why I prefer the term generated. Dialogue: 0,1:08:49.18,1:08:55.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他是由圣父所生成的，但不是被创造的，也不是在时间中。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He's generated from the Father, but not created and not in time. Dialogue: 0,1:08:55.88,1:08:57.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是永恒的生成。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's an eternal generation. Dialogue: 0,1:08:57.28,1:09:06.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，这种生成只是存在于圣父和圣子之间关系中\N的一种存在状态，其中圣子的存在依赖于圣父。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, the generation is just this state of being that exists in this relationship between the Father and the Son, where the Son's existence is contingent upon the Father. Dialogue: 0,1:09:06.71,1:09:22.46,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}听着，我这样说吧，虽然如果圣父停止存在，圣子也必须停止存在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Look, I'll say it this way, although If the Father were to cease to exist, the Son would also have to cease to exist. Dialogue: 0,1:09:23.08,1:09:30.13,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}然而，理论上，如果圣子停止存在，圣父不一定必须停止存在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}However, theoretically, if the Son were to cease to exist, the Father would not necessarily have to cease to exist. Dialogue: 0,1:09:30.68,1:09:34.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为圣子的存在依赖于圣父，但反过来不是。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because the Son's existence is dependent on the Father, but not the other way around. Dialogue: 0,1:09:34.84,1:09:40.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当然，这些都不会发生，但你明白这个意思。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, of course, none of that would ever happen, but you get the idea. Dialogue: 0,1:09:40.24,1:09:43.06,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣子是依赖于或取决于圣父的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Son is contingent or dependent on the Father. Dialogue: 0,1:09:43.06,1:09:45.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣父没有这种依赖性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Father has no such dependency. Dialogue: 0,1:09:45.52,1:09:48.06,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这说得通吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Does that make sense? Dialogue: 0,1:09:48.06,1:09:48.66,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay. Dialogue: 0,1:09:49.00,1:09:49.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}All right. Dialogue: 0,1:09:50.58,1:09:51.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}还有其他问题吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Any other questions? Dialogue: 0,1:09:51.54,1:09:52.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，后面有一个。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yeah, one back there. Dialogue: 0,1:09:52.68,1:10:13.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果你把圣子对圣父的依赖性搁置一边，有没有一种理论认为，如\N果圣子强调他的平等性而不顺服，不谦让，他就可能成为分离的？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If you're taking the Son's dependence on the Father and kind of setting that aside, Is there a theory that if the sum were to stress his equality and not submit, not demur, is there a theory that he could then be separate? Dialogue: 0,1:10:15.40,1:10:31.13,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果你没听到这个问题，有人推测如果圣子主张自己的权柄\N，就像腓立比书2章所说，他不以自己与神同等为强夺的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In case you didn't hear the question, does anyone speculate that if the son were to assert his own authority, like in Philippians 2, he didn't consider his equality something to cling to. Dialogue: 0,1:10:31.13,1:10:32.33,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那么，如果他确实抓住不放呢？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, what if he did cling to it? Dialogue: 0,1:10:32.33,1:10:36.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果他不抓住与父平等的等级地位呢？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What if he didn't grasp hierarchical equality with the father? Dialogue: 0,1:10:36.77,1:10:38.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他会成为分离的吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Would he be something separate? Dialogue: 0,1:10:38.73,1:10:43.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}据我所知，早期教会没有人走这条路或做这种推测。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}As far as I know, no one in the early church went down that road or speculated that. Dialogue: 0,1:10:44.45,1:10:54.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我认为他们会说，如果你试图描述没有等级制度的三位一体，你就是在描述三个神。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What I think they would say is, if you tried to describe the Trinity without the hierarchy, you would be describing three gods. Dialogue: 0,1:10:54.58,1:11:02.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但实际上，永远不可能有三个神，因为仍然是一\N个神和一个实质，所以那个实质是不可分割的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But in reality, there could never be three gods, because it's still one god and one substance, so that substance is indivisible. Dialogue: 0,1:11:05.86,1:11:13.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}除非你想走这条路：如果你必须造一块连他自己都举不起的石头，神不能分割神自己。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Unless you want to go down the path of if you've got to make a rock so big that even he can't lift it, God can't divide God's self. Dialogue: 0,1:11:13.25,1:11:17.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是一个有趣的问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's an interesting question. Dialogue: 0,1:11:17.33,1:11:18.19,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}还有其他问题吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Anything else? Dialogue: 0,1:11:21.94,1:11:26.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，你们今晚真的做得很好，问了很好的问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Alright, well you have really done some good work tonight, good questions. Dialogue: 0,1:11:26.97,1:11:31.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我很感谢你们的关注和对这些难题的思考。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I appreciate the attention and thinking through these tough issues. Dialogue: 0,1:11:31.43,1:11:37.49,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果你们有问题，记得去Facebook页面\N，你们知道，可以在那里提出问题，互相讨论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Remember the Facebook page if you've got questions, you want to, you know, throw stuff out there, talk amongst yourselves. Dialogue: 0,1:11:37.49,1:11:42.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不一定总是要问我问题，可以是'你们怎么看'，你们知道，所以不要害怕表达意见。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It doesn't always have to be a question for me, it can be a, what do you all think, you know, so don't be afraid to vote.