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

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

[Events]
Format: Layer, Start, End, Style, Name, MarginL, MarginR, MarginV, Effect, Text
Dialogue: 0,0:00:01.04,0:00:14.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}大家好，欢迎回到历史课程一。我们正在观看第四\N单元的重点视频，这一集我们将讨论第三世纪。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Hi, folks, and welcome back to History 1. We are in the videos for the highlights from Unit 4, and we're going to be talking about the third century in this video.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:14.41,0:00:27.69,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，我们已经从殉道者游斯丁和雅典那哥拉等护教\N学家转向了神学家，我们已经看过了里昂的爱任纽。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, we've already kind of made the shift from the apologists like Justin Martyr and Athenagoras to the theologians, and we've already seen Irenaeus of Lyon.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:27.69,0:00:34.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}请记住，护教学家和神学家之间的区别主要在于他们的受众不同。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And remember, the difference between the apologists and the theologians has a lot to do with who their audience is.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:34.63,0:00:45.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}护教学家是写给非基督徒的，其中一些人还给皇帝写公开信，试图让他们停止迫害基督徒。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The apologists are writing to an audience of non-Christians, and some of them are writing open letters to the emperors to try to get them to stop persecuting the Christians.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:45.74,0:00:49.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}神学家则是写给更内部的受众。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The theologians are writing to a more internal audience.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:49.14,0:00:57.61,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们是写给基督徒的，目的是警告基督徒防范异端，并教导他们正确的教义。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They're writing to Christians, and they're writing to Christians to warn them about heresy,  And to teach them correct doctrine.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:57.61,0:01:01.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}本着这种精神，这就是我们在这里所做的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so in that spirit, that's what we're doing here.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:01.57,0:01:04.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以你们已经读过里昂的爱任纽了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so you've already read Irenaeus of Lyon.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:04.43,0:01:07.13,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在你们要读特土良了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now you're going to read Tertullian.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:07.13,0:01:12.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但在我们讲到特土良之前，我想提一下你们还要读「佩尔佩图阿日记」。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But before we get to Tertullian, I do want to mention you're also going to read the Diary of Perpetua.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:12.83,0:01:18.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}她实际上是我们最早的教会母亲之一。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And she is actually one of our first and earliest church mothers.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:18.38,0:01:27.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以要认真对待这个，因为「佩尔佩图阿日记」确实是那些罕见\N的案例之一，我们可以通过一位早期教会女性的自述来了解她。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So take that seriously because the Diary of Perpetua is really one of those rare cases  where we get a woman from the early church in her own words.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:27.96,0:01:39.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}虽然这本日记本身并不包含太多神学或基督论，但它确实告诉我们\N一些关于早期基督徒如何生活以及普通基督徒信仰的重要事情。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And although the diary doesn't contain a lot of theology or Christology per se, it does tell us some important things about how the early Christians lived,  and what the average Christian believed.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:39.55,0:01:51.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}再说一遍，这是你从其他文献中不常得到的东西，因为让我们面对现实，\N我们的大多数文献都是由主教、高度教育的人写的，而且大多是男性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And again, that's something you don't always get from the other documents too, because most of our documents, let's face it, were written by bishops, highly educated people, mostly men.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:51.26,0:01:54.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以在这里你可以得到更多来自基层的东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so here you get something more from the grassroots.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:54.82,0:01:59.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是一份非常珍贵的文献，我说珍贵并不是居高临下的意思。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's a very precious document, and I don't mean precious in a condescending way.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:59.00,0:02:02.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我的意思是非常非常有价值。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I mean precious in the sense of very, very valuable.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:02.84,0:02:07.21,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，所以要注意「佩尔佩图阿日记」。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay, so pay attention to the Diary of Perpetua.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:07.21,0:02:10.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但现在我们需要谈谈特土良。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But now we need to talk about Tertullian.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:11.41,0:02:24.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，到了第三世纪，我们看到第二世纪发生的事情出现了一些非常有趣的\N变化，就是我们看到，你知道，在第一世纪，我们看到了早期的幻影说。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, with the third century, we see something very interesting happening with what was going on in the second century, which is  We saw, you know, in the first century, we saw early Docetism.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:24.52,0:02:28.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一些幻影说演变成了诺斯替主义。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Some of the Docetism kind of evolves into Gnosticism.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:28.82,0:02:31.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在第二世纪，我们看到了诺斯替主义。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And in the second century, we saw Gnosticism.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:31.52,0:02:41.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当然，爱任纽写了他那篇反对异端的大文献，描述\N了所有不同的诺斯替思想流派和所有那些东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And of course, Irenaeus writes his big document against heresies to describe all the different Gnostic schools of thought and all of that.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:41.54,0:02:47.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}甚至在某种程度上，希波吕托在第三世纪也会写文章反对诺斯替主义。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And even to a certain extent Hippolytus in the 3rd century will write against Gnosticism.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:47.53,0:02:57.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但在第三世纪发生的是，诺斯替派正在脱离教会，形成他们自己真正独立的宗教。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But what's happening in the 3rd century is that the Gnostics are  Moving out of the church and forming their own really separate religion.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:57.53,0:03:01.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它将有自己的生命，但完全脱离教会。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And it will have a life of its own, but completely apart from the church.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:01.86,0:03:07.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以从这个意义上说，它不被视为异端。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So it's not seen as a heresy in that kind of sense.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:07.58,0:03:18.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}诺斯替主义变成了，至少有一个分支变成了摩尼教，这在圣奥\N古斯丁的生平中再次出现，因为他曾有一段时间是摩尼教徒。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And Gnosticism becomes, at least one branch of Gnosticism becomes  Manichaeism, which pops up again in the life of St. Augustine because he will spend some time as a Manichae.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:18.83,0:03:24.05,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}再说一遍，诺斯替主义有自己的生命，但与教会分离。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And again, Gnosticism kind of has a life of its own, but separate from the church.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:24.55,0:03:37.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}取而代之的是教会中一种完全不同的异端，它并非从诺斯替主义\N演变而来，但在某些方面犯了与诺斯替主义相同的错误，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Taking its place in the church is a completely different heresy that does not evolve from Gnosticism, but in some ways makes the same mistake as Gnosticism, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:03:37.01,0:03:44.81,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为诺斯替主义犯了贬低或否认耶稣人性的错误。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because Gnosticism made the mistake  of diminishing or denying Jesus's humanity.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:45.41,0:03:52.51,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在在第三世纪，我们看到了一种似乎是新的异端，它被称为形态论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now in the third century we have what appears to be a kind of new heresy, and it's called modalism.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:52.51,0:04:02.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}实际上它有几个不同的名称，形态论君主制、撒伯流主义，但我们就称之为形态论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now it actually goes by several different names, modalistic monarchianism, Sabellianism, but we're just going to refer to it as modalism.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:02.66,0:04:35.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}简而言之，形态论的做法是假设三位一体的三个位格之间没有差异和区别，实际上\N圣父就是圣子，圣子就是圣灵，或者圣父成为圣子，圣子是圣父的化身，圣父成为\N圣子，圣子成为圣灵，或以某种方式完全抹去三位一体三个位格之间的任何区别。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And the long story short is that what modalism does  It assumes that there is no difference and no distinction between the three persons of the Trinity, that in fact the Father is the Son and the Son is the Spirit, or perhaps the Father becomes the Son, the Son is the Father incarnate, the Father becomes the Son and the Son becomes the Spirit, or in some way that completely erases any distinction between the three persons of the Trinity.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:36.47,0:04:48.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，形态论最大的问题是，这样做实际上是把圣父神放在了十字架上。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, the biggest problem with modalism is that by doing that, it essentially puts God the Father on the cross.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:48.16,0:04:50.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是正统派的指控。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, this is the charge of the Orthodox.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:50.86,0:05:03.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换句话说，你知道，从希波吕托、特土良、诺瓦提安等人，他们都会说，是的\N，形态论把圣父放在十字架上，因此我们要给他们贴上圣父受难论者的标签。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In other words, you know, everybody from, you know, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Novatian, they will all say, yes, modalism puts the Father on the cross, therefore we're going to label them patripassionists.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:03.80,0:05:08.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以它也被称为圣父受难论，意思是圣父的受难，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So it's also called patrapassionism, which means the passion of the Father, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:05:08.48,0:05:11.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但形态论者自己否认这个指控。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the modalists themselves denied that charge.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:11.24,0:05:12.42,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是重点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And here's the point.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:12.42,0:05:16.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}形态论者说，不，我们没有把圣父放在十字架上。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The modalists said, no, we're not putting the Father on the cross.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:16.83,0:05:20.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}事实上，整个十字架的事情都是幻觉。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In fact, the whole cross thing is an illusion.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:20.87,0:05:23.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}从未真正发生过，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Never really happened, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:05:23.01,0:05:38.37,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，无论他们如何回应这个指控，他们本质上是在说耶稣是伪装的圣父，\N因此，因为我们不想把圣父神放在十字架上，所以十字架从未真正发生过。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, however they answer the charge, what they're essentially doing is they're saying that Jesus is the Father in disguise,  And therefore, because we don't want to put God the Father on the cross, the cross never really happened.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:38.37,0:05:40.29,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}十字架是一个幻觉。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The cross is an illusion.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:40.43,0:05:49.21,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所有这些都削弱了耶稣基督的人性，因为道成肉身不是真实的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And all of this diminishes the humanity of Jesus Christ because the incarnation is not real.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:49.51,0:05:51.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是一个幻觉。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's an illusion.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:51.01,0:05:53.69,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是一个伪装。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's a disguise.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:53.69,0:05:58.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}整个道成肉身被简化为圣父所穿的一个伪装，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The whole incarnation is reduced to a disguise worn by the Father, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:05:58.77,0:06:11.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以再说一遍，形态论的问题是，很多人不明白这一\N点，但形态论的根本问题是它削弱了耶稣的人性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so again,  The problem with modalism, and a lot of people don't get this, but the bottom line problem with modalism is that it diminishes the humanity of Jesus.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:11.45,0:06:15.81,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}形态论的基督不再是我们中的一员。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The modalistic Christ is no longer one of us.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:15.83,0:06:24.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这样做，他们犯了与幻影说和诺斯替主义相同的错\N误，尽管他们是通过不同的路径达到这一点的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And in doing that, they make the same mistake as the Docetics and the Gnostics, even though they get there by a different path.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:24.74,0:06:39.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}幻影说和诺斯替主义通过二元论的路径达到这一点，也就是说一切属灵的都是\N好的，一切物质的都是坏的，因此道不能成为肉身，所以耶稣不可能是人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Docetics and the Gnostics get there by the path of dualism, which is to say that everything spiritual is good, everything material is bad, therefore the Word could not become flesh, so Jesus can't be human.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:40.01,0:06:43.93,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们的二元论导致他们否认耶稣的人性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Their dualism leads them to deny the humanity of Jesus.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:44.41,0:06:49.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}形态论通过一条完全不同的路径达到这一点，那就是一元论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Modalism gets there by a completely different path, which is monism.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:49.51,0:06:54.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一元论是一种哲学，它说一切都是一个东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Monism is a philosophy that says,  Everything is one thing.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:54.34,0:06:55.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}万物都是相连的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}All things are connected.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:55.44,0:06:57.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我的意思是，这几乎就像星球大战中的原力。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I mean, it's almost the Force from Star Wars.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:57.90,0:07:02.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}就是说一切都如此紧密相连，以至于一切实际上都是一个东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's that everything is so connected that everything is really one thing.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:02.76,0:07:22.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果一切都是一个东西，那么圣父和圣子之间，或者圣子和圣灵之间当然就\N不可能有任何区别，等等。因此，对于形态论者来说，他们的一元论使他们\N最终达到了与幻影说和诺斯替主义相同的结果，那就是否认耶稣的人性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And if everything is one thing, certainly there couldn't be any difference between the Father and the Son, or the Son and the Spirit, etc. And so, for the modalists, their monism leads them to the same place  the Docetics and the Gnostics ended up which was the denial of Jesus's humanity.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:22.97,0:07:26.37,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以当我们谈论形态论时，要始终记住这一点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So always keep that in mind when we talk about modalism.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:27.89,0:07:40.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我们发现自己处在第三世纪，正统信仰一如既往地是\N极端选择之间的一种中庸之道，这些极端被标记为异端。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So we find ourselves here in the third century and as always orthodoxy is a kind of middle way between the extreme alternatives which are labeled as heresies.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:40.96,0:07:45.09,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}请记住，我们所说的中庸之道并不意味着妥协。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And remember by middle way we don't mean a compromise.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:45.09,0:07:54.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们的意思是正统信仰总是对问题的「两者兼具」的回答，而不是「非此即彼」的回答。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We mean that  Orthodoxy is always the both-and answer to the question as opposed to the either-or answer to the question.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:54.35,0:08:01.89,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以在第二世纪，对吧，大问题是，耶稣是人性的还是神性的，还是两者兼具？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So in the second century, right, the big question was, is Jesus human or divine or both?
Dialogue: 0,0:08:01.97,0:08:06.87,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}正统信仰从一开始就说两者兼具，既是人性的也是神性的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Orthodoxy, from the beginning,  said both, human and divine.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:06.95,0:08:14.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}厄便派和早期的嗣子论者说，不，他只是人，不是神。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Ebionites and early adoptionists were saying, no, he's only human, not divine.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:15.06,0:08:20.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}幻影说和诺斯替主义者说，不，他是神，但不是人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Docetics and the Gnostics were saying, no, he's divine, but not human.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:20.26,0:08:26.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，正统信仰，也就是主流教会的回答是「两者兼具」的答案。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so the answer of Orthodoxy, the mainstream church, was the both-and answer.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:26.34,0:08:36.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不允许将耶稣的位格过于简单化为一种本性或另一种\N本性，而是接受两种本性的悖论，即人性和神性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}not allowing an oversimplification of the person of Jesus to one nature or the other, but embracing the paradox of two natures, humanity and divinity.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:36.57,0:08:48.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，现在当我们进入第三世纪，我们发现自己仍然处在一个地\N方，你知道，正统信仰是这些极端异端之间的中庸之道，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay, now as we move into the third century, we still find ourselves in a place where, you know, orthodoxy is this middle way between these heresies on the extremes, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:08:48.56,0:08:51.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一个极端仍然是嗣子论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}One extreme is  It's still adoptionism.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:51.80,0:09:02.33,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它现在已经发展成了第三世纪版本的嗣子论，在\N这种观点中，耶稣基督被理解为人而不是神。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It is now sort of, you know, developed into a third century version of adoptionism where Jesus Christ is understood to be human but not divine.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:02.53,0:09:20.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而另一个极端现在是形态论，我们看到形态论最终做的是削弱耶稣的人性，\N你最终得到的是一个神性的耶稣，因为他与圣父相同，但并不真正是人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And the other extreme now is modalism in which we see that ultimately what modalism does is it diminishes the humanity of Jesus and you end up with a Jesus who's divine because he's the same as the Father but not really human.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:20.87,0:09:31.29,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}尽管如此，我们还需要指出，第三世纪的异端不仅仅是基督论的异端。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Having said that, though, we also need to point out that the heresies of the third century are not just Christological heresies.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:31.29,0:09:34.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它们不仅仅是关于基督位格的异端。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They're not just heresies about the person of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:35.03,0:09:42.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它们也是三位一体的异端，因为它们误解了三位一体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They are also Trinitarian heresies in the sense that they are a misunderstanding of the Trinity.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:42.56,0:09:48.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我的意思是，你知道，在第二世纪，问题是基督的两性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And what I mean by that is, you know, in the second century, the question was, you know, the two natures of Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:48.92,0:09:50.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是其中之一还是两者兼具。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}one or the other or both.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:50.72,0:09:55.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在在第三世纪，大问题将是三位一体的三个位格。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now in the third century, the big question is going to be the three persons of the Trinity.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:56.37,0:10:01.69,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们在多大程度上是一体的，又在多大程度上是三位的？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}How much are they one versus how much are they three?
Dialogue: 0,0:10:01.89,0:10:05.87,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果你能预想到，你已经可以看到这将走向何方。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And if you're thinking ahead, you can already see where this is going.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:05.99,0:10:12.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一种异端将过分强调一体性以至于失去了三位性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}One heresy is going to lean so heavy into the oneness that they lose the threeness.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:12.78,0:10:14.10,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那就是形态论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That's modalism.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:14.26,0:10:39.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}另一个极端异端是嗣子论，我们可以说他们过分强调三位性以至于失去了一体性，但\N问题是他们甚至不再真正将神视为三位一体，因为对嗣子论者来说，只有第一位格，\N即圣父，是创造者和永恒的，并具有我们在课程开始时学习的所有那些神性属性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The other extreme heresy, which is adoptionism,  Well, we could say they lean so heavily into the threeness that they lose the oneness, but the problem is that they don't even really see God as a trinity anymore, because to the adoptionists, only the first person, the Father, is creator and eternal and has all those divine attributes that we studied at the beginning of the course.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:39.04,0:10:45.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对他们来说，第二位格和第三位格，即圣子和圣灵，是被造的存在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And the second person and third persons, the Son and the Spirit, are created beings for them.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:45.25,0:10:51.89,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以他们在圣父和圣子之间划分了如此大的界限，以至于圣子不再是神了，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So they've got so much separation between, let's say, the Father and the Son, that the Son isn't God anymore, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:10:51.89,0:11:01.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我们讨论这个问题的方式是从三位一体中的合一性和区别性之间的平衡来看。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so the way we talk about this is in terms of the balance between unity and distinction in the Trinity.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:01.74,0:11:05.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}合一性和区别性之间的平衡。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The balance between unity and distinction.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:05.12,0:11:11.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}正统对三位一体的理解是神既是一又是三。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Orthodox understanding of the Trinity is that God is one and three.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:12.47,0:11:24.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以神是一体的，三位一体的三个位格都是同一神\N性实体，同一神性，同一能力，同一永恒，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So there are ways in which God is one and all three persons of the Trinity are the same divine substance, same divinity, same power, same eternity, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:11:24.14,0:11:29.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但三位一体的位格在某些方面是三个，彼此是有区别的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But there are ways in which the persons of the Trinity are three and are distinct from each other.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:29.54,0:11:31.18,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣父不是圣子。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Father is not the Son.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:31.18,0:11:32.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣子不是圣灵。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Son is not the Spirit.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:33.48,0:11:41.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，问题是异端要么过分强调合一性，要么过分强调区别性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, the problem is that the heresies lean too hard either toward the unity or the distinction.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:42.07,0:11:54.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}形态论过分强调三个位格的合一性，以至于失去了区别性，\N三个位格不再是三个位格，而是一个有三个名字的位格。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Modalism leans so hard on the unity of the three persons that they lose the distinction, that the three persons are no longer three persons at all, but one person with three names.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:55.04,0:12:08.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗣子论过分强调圣父和圣子之间的区别，特别是圣子不再\N是神性的，只有圣父是，因此他们完全失去了合一性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Adoptionism leans so hard into the distinction between the father and the son, especially,  that the Son is no longer divine, only the Father is, and so they completely lose the unity.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:08.42,0:12:13.21,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，所以特土良写了他最重要的文献。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}All right, so Tertullian writes his most important document.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:13.29,0:12:23.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它被称为《驳普拉克西亚》，普拉克西亚是形态论的一\N位教师，所以特土良写这篇文献是为了反驳形态论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's called Against Praxeus, and Praxeus was a teacher of modalism, and so Tertullian is writing this document against modalism.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:25.43,0:12:28.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，这份文献因为很多原因而重要。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, this document is important for a lot of reasons.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:28.23,0:12:33.49,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}事实上，我认为它是最重要的早期教会文献之一。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In fact, I think it's one of the most important early church documents.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:33.57,0:12:42.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果我只能给我的学生指定一份教父的文献，我可能会选择这一份。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And if I could only assign to my students one document from the church fathers, I might choose this one.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:42.00,0:12:52.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它如此重要的原因之一是特土良本人创造了拉丁语中的Trinitas\N这个词，这就是我们英语中Trinity（三位一体）一词的来源。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And one of the reasons why it's so important is that Tertullian himself coins the term Trinitas in Latin, which is where we get our English word Trinity.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:53.81,0:13:07.17,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你可能已经注意到Trinity这个词实际上并不在圣经中，但\N它是我们用来描述神在新约中，特别是在旧约中如何被理解的词。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You may have noticed the word Trinity is not actually in the Bible, but it's a word that we use to describe how God is understood in the New Testament especially, but also in the Old Testament.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:07.41,0:13:17.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当然，耶稣自己在马太福音28章介绍洗礼公式时，也将神称为圣父、圣子和圣灵。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And, of course, Jesus himself referred to God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in Matthew 28 when he introduces the baptismal formula.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:17.92,0:13:23.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当然，显然他知道他自己就是那公式中的圣子。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And, of course, obviously he knows that he himself is the Son within that formula.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:23.48,0:13:32.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但重点是，即便如此，三位一体的概念在那里，但Trinity这个词并不在那里。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the point is that even so, the Trinity is there, but the word Trinity isn't there.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:32.15,0:13:40.19,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以希腊教父们出现了，他们想出了这个词，神是一\N个三位一体，在希腊语中这个词是triados。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so the Greek church fathers come along, and they come up with this word, God is a triad, and in Greek that's the word triados.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:40.25,0:13:58.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}然而拉丁语中并没有真正对应的词，所以特土良出现了，他是第一\N位用拉丁语写作的教父，他创造了三位一体的拉丁语词，即Tri\Nnitas，我们的英语词Trinity就是从这里来的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And yet there isn't really a Latin word for this, so Tertullian comes along, and he's the first church father to write in Latin,  and he coins the Latin term for the Trinity, which in Latin is Trinitas, and from that we get our English word Trinity.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:58.28,0:14:05.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我的意思是，从某种意义上说，它几乎就是tri\Nunity这个词的混合体，但你明白这个意思。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I mean, in a way it's almost just a mash-up of the words triunity, but you get the idea.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:05.32,0:14:20.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，特土良为我们创造了这个术语，我们至今仍在使用，他还使用了其他一些术语来讨\N论三位一体，这些术语成为我们神学的标准语言，成为我们讨论三位一体的专业术语。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, Tertullian coins that term for us, which we still use, and there are other terms  that he uses to talk about the Trinity that become our standardized language for theology, that become our technical terms for the Trinity.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:21.91,0:14:36.46,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}其中一个术语是实体，拉丁语是substantia，但他实际上只是用\N拉丁语substantia作为希腊语usia或本质的拉丁语翻译。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}One of those terms is substance, in Latin substantia, but all he's really doing there is he's using the Latin word substantia as a Latin translation for the Greek word usia, or essence.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:36.46,0:14:55.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以正如我们之前讨论的，当我们谈论三位一体的三个位格具有相同\N的本质时，特土良现在说的是同样的事情，但他使用的是拉丁语su\Nbstantia，所以他说三位一体的三个位格都是同一实体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So as we've talked about before,  When we talk about the three persons of the Trinity being of the same essence, now Tertullian is saying the same thing, but he's using the Latin word substantia, so he's saying the three persons of the Trinity are all the same substance.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:55.48,0:15:01.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在英语中，我们使用substance这个词，但请记住，我们不是指物质实体，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In English, we use the word substance, but remember, we don't mean material substance, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:15:01.75,0:15:05.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们只是指它是神本质的所是。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We just mean it is the essence of who God is.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:05.03,0:15:10.72,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}任何事物的实体就是那个事物的本质，是使它成为它所是的东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The substance of anything is the essence of that thing, that which makes it what it is.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:10.72,0:15:21.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以三位一体的实体就是神性本身，可以用我们在课\N程开始时看到的所有那些神性属性来定义，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the substance of the Trinity is divinity itself, which can be defined with all of those divine attributes that we looked at at the beginning of the course, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:15:21.28,0:15:25.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以神是一个实体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So God is one substance.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:25.51,0:15:33.42,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}特土良使用的另一个后来成为标准的术语是位格，拉丁语是personae。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The other term that Tertullian uses and then becomes standard is the word persons, personae in Latin.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:33.42,0:15:35.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们简单地说位格，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We simply say persons, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:15:35.60,0:15:37.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它不是人们。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's not people.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:37.34,0:15:38.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们已经讨论过这个。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And we've talked about this.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:38.76,0:15:44.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这就是为什么你永远不会听到我用「位格」这个词来指代一群人，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So this is why you will never hear me use the word persons to talk about just a bunch of humans, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:15:45.38,0:15:49.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我保留这个词作为三位一体位格的专业术语。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I reserve that word as a technical term for the persons of the Trinity.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:49.71,0:15:57.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}房间里可能有一个人，可能有三个人，但三位一体有三个位格，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}There might be one person in a room, there might be three people in a room, but there are three persons of the Trinity, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:15:57.53,0:16:03.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这是我们使用的词，这真的是我们唯一合适的词，所以我们必须坚持使用它。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so this is the word we use, and this is really the only good word we've got, so we've got to stick with it.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:03.80,0:16:05.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但这里是重点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But here's the point.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:05.68,0:16:18.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当我们谈论神既是三又是一时，「位格」这个词描述\N了神的三位性，「实体」这个词描述了神的一体性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}When we talk about God being both three and one, the word persons describes God's threeness,  The word substance describes God's oneness.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:18.99,0:16:28.05,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}或者换一种说法，「位格」这个词描述了神的三重性，「实体」这个词描述了神的合一性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Or another way to say it is the word persons describes God's triplicity, and the word substance describes God's unity.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:28.20,0:16:40.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这些术语以及特土良使用它们的方式从第三世纪开始成为谈论神的标\N准方式，我们现在仍然以这种方式谈论神，这也是我们应该做的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And these terms and the way Tertullian uses them become the standardized way of talking about God from the third century on, and we still talk about God this way, as we should.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:41.56,0:16:50.69,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不过，我想指出，当你读《驳普拉克西亚》时，你可能会注意到一些没有成为标准的东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I want to point out, though, that when you read against Praxeas, you may notice a couple of things that did not become standardized.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:50.69,0:17:00.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你知道，正如我们在讨论教义发展的背景时所说的，有时\N早期教会作者会尝试一些东西，但它们没有被保留下来。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And, you know, as we've talked about in the context of the development of doctrine, there are sometimes things that early church writers will try out, but they don't stick.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:00.43,0:17:08.98,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它们经不起时间的考验，因为后来的作者会出现，对这些小细节进行微调或纠正。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They don't stand the test of time because later authors will come along and will sort of nuance or correct these little things.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:08.98,0:17:10.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这不是教义的败坏。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's not a corruption of doctrine.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:10.68,0:17:15.65,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这不是异端变成正统或反之亦然的例子，也不是类似的情况。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's not an example of heresy becoming orthodoxy or vice versa or anything like that.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:15.65,0:17:22.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这只是随着教义的发展和时间的推移而进行的一些微小调整，使教义变得更加清晰。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's just these minor little tweaks as doctrine develops and it becomes clarified over time.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:23.99,0:17:34.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，现在我只想谈谈两件小事，你在阅读《驳普拉克西亚》时可\N能注意到也可能没注意到，特土良说了一些经不起时间考验的话。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay, so right now I just want to talk about two little things that you may or may not have noticed when you were reading against Praxeas, where Tertullian says some things that don't stand the test of time.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:34.43,0:17:38.17,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以只是给你一个例子，说明这些东西是如何发展的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So just to give you an example of how these things develop.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:38.17,0:17:52.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}第一个有点基于你所读的英文翻译，但你可能注意到，特土\N良偶尔会使用「部分」这个词来谈论三位一体的三个位格。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And the first is a little bit based on the English translation you're reading, but you may have noticed that every once in a while, Tertullian does use the word part or parts to talk about the three persons of the Trinity.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:52.34,0:17:57.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你们中的一些人在论文中已经遇到过这种情况，我会说，你知道，我们不这样做。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And some of you have encountered this in your papers already where I'll say, you know, we don't do that.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:57.34,0:18:00.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们不应该这样做，因为记住，神是单一的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We should not do that because remember, God is simplex.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:00.86,0:18:03.33,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}神不能被分解成部分。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}God cannot be broken up into parts.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:03.38,0:18:08.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以即使是三位一体的三个位格也不是神的部分。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so even the three persons of the Trinity are not parts of God.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:08.04,0:18:15.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为神不能被分割，三位一体的三个位格也不是各自占神的三分之一。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because God cannot be divvied up and the three persons of the Trinity are not each one-third of God.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:15.34,0:18:19.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们每个都不只是拥有三分之一的神性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They don't each only have one-third of the divinity.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:19.01,0:18:23.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}神不是可以切成三片的披萨或类似的东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}God is not a pizza that can be cut up into three slices or anything like that.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:24.23,0:18:30.42,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我们不想用「部分」这个词来谈论三位一体的位格。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So we don't want to use the word part or parts to talk about the persons of the Trinity.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:30.42,0:18:38.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}正如我所说，「位格」这个词大概是我们唯一真正可以作为专业术语使用的词。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}As I said, the word persons  is about the only word we have that really works as a technical term.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:38.39,0:18:50.72,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}有时你可以说神有三种显现，意思是神可能以三种方式显明自己，但即\N使这样也可能造成混淆，而且这也不是我们在日常对话中使用的词。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Sometimes you can get away with saying there are three manifestations of God in the sense that three ways God may reveal himself, but even that can be confusing and it's not a word we use in regular conversation anyway.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:50.72,0:18:55.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以就坚持使用「位格」这个词，不要使用「部分」。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So just stick with the word persons and don't use part or parts.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:55.34,0:19:02.17,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但是，你知道，说到点上，有时即使是特土良仍然这\N样做，尽管在特土良之后我完全没有看到这种情况。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But, you know, to the point, sometimes even Tertullian still does that, although I don't see it after Tertullian at all.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:02.63,0:19:10.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我认为到了诺瓦提安的时代，他是第三世纪的下\N一位主要神学家，我想这种做法已经被废弃了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And I think by the time of Novation, who is the next major theologian in the third century, I think that's gone by the wayside.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:10.62,0:19:21.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}诺瓦提安纠正特土良的另一件事是关于三位一体第二位格的生成，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The other thing where Novation corrects Tertullian is in talking about the generation of the second person of the Trinity, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:19:21.62,0:19:25.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们知道圣子是由圣父所生的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We know that the Son is begotten of the Father.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:25.58,0:19:39.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}「所生」这个词是一个有点古老的英语词。一个更现代的词，虽然\N不一定更清晰，但更现代的说法是圣子是从圣父的存在中生成的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And that word begotten is kind of an archaic English word  A more modern word, though not necessarily more clear, but a more modern word would be to say that the Son is generated out of the Father's existence.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:39.33,0:19:42.87,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你知道，这里有很多我们需要解释的内容。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And, you know, there's a lot that we have to unpack there.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:42.87,0:19:44.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这并不是不言自明的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's not self-evident.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:44.53,0:19:45.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但问题是这样的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But here's the thing.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:45.85,0:19:57.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}直到特土良时期，教父们仍然把圣子的生成，或圣子从圣父而生，说成是一个事件。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}As late as Tertullian, the church fathers are still speaking of the generation of the Son, or the begetting of the Son from the Father, as an event.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:57.73,0:20:04.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当然，他们知道圣子是永恒的，所以他们并不是说这是一个发生在时间中的事件。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, of course, they know that the Son is eternal, so they're not saying it's an event that had happened in time.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:04.28,0:20:08.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们并不是说这是按时间顺序的，比如圣父先来，圣子后来。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They're not saying it's chronological, like the Father came first and the Son came later.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:08.82,0:20:19.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们并不是在说这些事情，但他们不太知道如何\N谈论它而不把它说成是发生的事情，一个事件。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They're not saying any of those things, but they don't know quite how to talk about it without talking about it as something that happened, as an event.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:19.58,0:20:26.06,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当诺瓦提安出现时，他会澄清圣子从圣父而生不是一个事件。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}When Novation comes along, he will clarify that the generation of the Son from the Father is not an event.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:26.06,0:20:28.18,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这不是发生的事情。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It is not a thing that happened.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:28.18,0:20:35.41,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是一种谈论圣父和圣子之间永恒和不变关系的方式。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It is a way of talking about the eternal and unchanging relationship between the Father and the Son.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:35.41,0:20:45.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们谈到这一点是关于三位一体中的等级制度，圣子\N的存在依赖于圣父的存在，这种方式是不互惠的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We talked about this with regard to the hierarchy in the Trinity, that the existence of the Son is dependent on the existence of the Father in a way that is not reciprocal.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:45.53,0:20:48.21,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但同时，这也不是按时间顺序的，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But at the same time, it's also not chronological, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:20:48.21,0:20:51.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不是说圣父先来，圣子后来。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's not that the Father came first and the Son came later.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:51.35,0:21:03.21,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}三位一体的三个位格都是永恒的，然而圣子，正如我们所\N说，是由圣父所生的，意味着从圣父的存在中生成的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}All three persons of the Trinity are eternal, and yet the Son is, as we say, begotten of the Father, meaning generated of the Father's existence.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:03.26,0:21:24.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以对诺瓦提安来说，他要澄清这种生成，这种圣子的被生，不是发\N生的事件，而实际上是永恒的。因此我们称之为永恒生成的教义。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So for Novation, he's going to clarify that this generation, this begetting of the Son, is not an event that happened, but it is in fact the eternal  And so we call that the doctrine of eternal generation.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:24.11,0:21:27.87,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}然而当你读特土良的作品时，他并没有完全把我们带到那里。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And yet when you read Tertullian, he doesn't quite get us there.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:27.87,0:21:42.66,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以无论如何，如果你注意到特土良，或者早期神学家谈论圣子\N的生成是一个事件，这也需要在第三世纪后期被澄清和细化。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So anyway, if you notice that Tertullian, or early theologians for that matter, talk about the generation of the Son as an event, that too will have to be clarified and nuanced later in the third century.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:43.97,0:21:54.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，现在我要为你总结一下第三世纪关于基督论和三位一体神学的状况。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay, so now I'm going to just summarize for you the sort of state of things in the third century with regard to Christology and Trinitarian theology.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:54.76,0:21:58.98,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但首先我想提醒，别忘了书中的图表，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But first I want to mention, don't forget the charts in the book, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:21:58.98,0:22:04.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对于第三世纪，图表在这本《阅读教父》的282页。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So for the third century, the chart is on page 282 in this book, Reading the Church Fathers.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:04.96,0:22:16.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在282页上，有一个非常清晰的图表，显示了三列：\N中间是正统信仰，一边是嗣子论，另一边是形态论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}On page 282, there's a very clear chart that shows you the three columns  orthodoxy in the middle, adoptionism on one side, and modalism on the other.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:16.29,0:22:24.87,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我只是快速总结这些内容，然后再回到书中查看所有细节。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so I'm just going to summarize these things quickly and then again go back to the book for all the details.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:24.87,0:22:31.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我们在第三世纪的一个极端是嗣子论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So what we have here in the third century is on one extreme we have adoptionism.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:31.69,0:22:33.21,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这并不是新的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And this is not new.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:33.21,0:22:39.19,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们在第二世纪就看到了，厄便派，然后是后来的嗣子论者。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We saw it in the second century, the Ebionites and then later adoptionists.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:39.19,0:22:45.05,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在到了第三世纪，我们没有更具体的名称来称呼它。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And now in the third century, we don't really have a more specific name to call it.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:45.05,0:22:51.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们没有任何一位足够突出的教师可以用他们的名字来命名它。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We don't have any one teacher of this who was prominent enough that we put their name on it.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:51.99,0:22:53.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们就称它为嗣子论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We just call it adoptionism.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:53.78,0:22:55.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}为什么我们称它为嗣子论？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Why do we call it adoptionism?
Dialogue: 0,0:22:55.52,0:23:01.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为对嗣子论者来说，耶稣基督并不是真正天生的神的儿子。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because for the adoptionists,  Jesus Christ is not really the natural Son of God.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:01.80,0:23:12.18,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他不是本性上的神的儿子，就是说他没有与圣父相同的神性或相同的神圣本质或实体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He's not the Son of God by nature, in the sense of having the same divine nature or the same divine essence or substance as the Father.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:12.18,0:23:26.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，对嗣子论者来说，神的儿子耶稣基督实际上只是一\N个普通人，通过自己的自律和对神的顺服，达到了完美。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, the Son of God, Jesus Christ, for the adoptionists, is really just a mere human who, through his own discipline and obedience to God, achieved perfection.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:26.57,0:23:38.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}通过达到完美，他被神奖赏以提升的地位和某种程度的神圣力量，可能是通过圣灵的内住。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And by achieving perfection, he was rewarded by God with an elevated status and some measure of divine power, perhaps through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:38.48,0:23:45.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但即便如此，他们也认为圣灵是一个被造的存在，像天使或类似的东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But even then, they saw the Holy Spirit as also being a created being, like an angel or something.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:45.90,0:23:57.45,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}顺便说一句，如果你真的想要更多信息，真的想深入研究早期教会中这些替代性的基督论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, by the way, I'll just say as an aside, if you really want more information and you really want to dig in to these alternative Christologies,  in the early church.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:57.45,0:24:03.89,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我有另一本书，里面有更详细的内容。这不是给我的历史1课程的学生指定的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I have another book where I go into much greater detail  This is not assigned for my History 1 students.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:03.89,0:24:06.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你知道，这是我会为选修课指定的一本书。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This is, you know, a book I would assign for electives.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:06.85,0:24:10.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它更高级，但它叫做《最早期的基督论》。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's more advanced, but it's called The Earliest Christologies.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:11.23,0:24:18.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在早期教会基本上有五种方式，你有五个选项来理解基督。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And there are basically five ways in the early church, five options you had for how to understand Christ.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:18.100,0:24:24.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我把它们都列出来了，包括正统信仰的那一个，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And I lay them all out, including the one that is orthodoxy, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:24:24.56,0:24:26.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果你想要更多细节，可以查看那本书。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So you can check out that book if you want more detail.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:27.06,0:24:32.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但现在，这是你需要了解的关于嗣子论的内容，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But for now, here's what you need to understand about adoptionism, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:24:32.27,0:24:36.69,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗣子论实际上不是三位一体的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Adoptionism is not really Trinitarian.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:36.69,0:24:40.17,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗣子论的神不是三位一体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The adoptionist God is not a Trinity.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:40.31,0:25:03.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗣子论的神是一个神圣的父，有两个被造的代理，一个被称为儿子，一个\N普通人获得了提升的地位，另一个被称为圣灵，可能是，你知道，一个智\N天使或者什么的，智天使是复数，可能是一个智天使或类似的东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The adoptionist God is a divine Father with two created agents, one called the Son, a mere human who earned an elevated status,  and one called the Holy Spirit who is probably, you know, a seraphim or some, seraphim is plural, who is probably a seraph or something like that.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:03.44,0:25:04.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但你明白这个意思。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But you get the idea.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:04.76,0:25:06.98,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它不是三个神圣的位格。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It is not three divine persons.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:06.98,0:25:13.87,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它是一个神圣的位格和两个被造的存在，一个是人，一个是天使。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It is one divine person and two created beings, one human, one angelic.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:14.69,0:25:25.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这里的重点是，如果你要在创造者和被造物之间\N画一条分界线，那条线必须在圣父和圣子之间。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And the point there is that if you were to draw a dividing line between creator and created,  That line would have to be between the Father and the Son.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:25.08,0:25:27.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}只有圣父在线上。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Only the Father is above the line.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:27.32,0:25:32.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}只有圣父是创造者，甚至圣子和圣灵都是被造的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Only the Father is creator, and even the Son and the Spirit are created.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:32.74,0:25:35.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这就是嗣子论，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So that's adoptionism, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:25:36.21,0:25:52.09,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这里的底线是，在试图在合一性和区别性之间找到平衡时，嗣子\N论有太多的区别，以至于在圣父、圣子和圣灵之间产生了分离。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The bottom line here is that in this attempt at finding a balance between unity and distinction, adoptionism has way too much distinction  To the point of a separation between the Father and the Son and the Spirit.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:52.51,0:25:58.09,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，区别太多以至于分离，合一性不够。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, too much distinction to the point of separation, not enough unity.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:59.41,0:26:05.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在另一个极端，你有形态论，它做的正好相反。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}On the other extreme, you have modalism, which does the exact opposite thing.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:05.26,0:26:14.87,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在试图在合一性和区别性之间找到平衡时，形态\N论者过分倾向于合一性，以至于失去了区别性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In the attempt to find a balance between unity and distinction, the modalists lean so heavy into the unity that they lose the distinction.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:14.87,0:26:20.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，形态论者的形态论也不是真正的三位一体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, the modalists  Modalism as well is also not really Trinitarian.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:20.38,0:26:28.46,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它不是真正的三位一体，因为它使三位一体的三个位格都成为一个相同的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's not really a Trinity because it makes the three persons of the Trinity all one and the same.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:29.32,0:26:35.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不仅仅是在一个实体的意义上是一，而是完全相同，它们之间没有区别。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Not just one in the sense of one substance, but one and the same with no distinction between them.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:35.22,0:26:38.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣父就是圣子，圣子就是圣灵。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Father is the Son, the Son is the Spirit.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:38.74,0:26:46.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，耶稣不过是伪装的圣父，所以他不是人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so Jesus is nothing more than the Father in disguise,  And therefore he is not human.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:47.19,0:26:58.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们给位格贴的标签实际上只是描述他们在那一刻恰好在做什么的标签，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And the labels that we put on the persons are really just labels that describe what they happen to be doing at that moment, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:26:58.20,0:27:03.51,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以如果神在创造，我们称他为圣父。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So if God is creating, we call him the Father.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:03.51,0:27:13.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果神在拯救我们，我们称他为圣子，等等。但问题再次出现，这不是一个神有三个位格。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If God is saving us, we call him the Son, etc. But the problem again is that this is not one God in three persons.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:13.57,0:27:22.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是一个位格有三个名字，这些名字是基于他们的活动方式或启示方式。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This is one person with three names, the names based on their mode of activity or their mode of revelation.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:22.97,0:27:30.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}有时他们可能会说，神在旧约中是圣父，在新约中是圣子，在教会中是圣灵，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Sometimes they might say that God is the Father in the Old Testament, the Son in the New Testament, the Holy Spirit in the church, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:27:30.07,0:27:43.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但所有这些的要点是，它模糊了三位一体三个位格之间的区\N别，它之所以是异端，恰恰是因为它削弱了耶稣的人性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the point of all this is that it blurs the distinctions between the three persons of the Trinity, and it is a heresy precisely because it diminishes the humanity of Jesus.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:43.15,0:27:49.05,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果耶稣被简化为只是伪装的圣父，那么他就不是人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If Jesus is reduced to just the Father in disguise, then he's not human.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:49.05,0:27:51.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果他不是人，他就不是我们中的一员。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And if he's not human, he's not one of us.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:51.63,0:28:06.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果他不是我们中的一员，他就不能在十字架上代表我们，他就不能偿还我们\N的罪债，等等。所以问题是，形态论削弱了耶稣的人性和他与我们的团结。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If he's not one of us, he cannot represent us on the cross, he cannot pay our debt of sin, etc. So the problem is that modalism diminishes the humanity of Jesus and his solidarity with us.
Dialogue: 0,0:28:06.90,0:28:12.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是为什么你不能用替代公式施洗。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And this is why you cannot baptize in alternative formulas.
Dialogue: 0,0:28:12.68,0:28:18.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你必须使用奉圣父、圣子和圣灵的名的公式施洗。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You must baptize using the formula in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Dialogue: 0,0:28:18.58,0:28:36.05,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为如果你试图使用形态论的公式，如创造者、救赎者、维持者\N，你所说的，你所暗示的，你在这样做时所教导人的是，只有三\N位一体的第一位格是创造者，第二位格不是，这是不正确的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Because if you try to use modalist formulas like Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer, what you're saying, what you're implying, what you're teaching people when you do that is that only the first person of the Trinity is the Creator and the second person is not, which is not true.
Dialogue: 0,0:28:36.05,0:28:39.09,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}读约翰福音第一章，万物是借着他造的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Read John 1, all things were created through him.
Dialogue: 0,0:28:39.24,0:28:45.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}或者你在说只有第二位格是救主，第一位格不是，这也是不正确的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Or you're saying that only the second person is the Savior and the first person is not, which is not true.
Dialogue: 0,0:28:45.39,0:28:47.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}读出埃及记，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Read the Exodus, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:28:47.01,0:29:00.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以重点是，那些三位一体的替代公式，如创造者、救赎者、维\N持者或圣化者之类的，这些替代公式实际上是形态论的异端。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the point is that those alternative formulas for the Trinity, like Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer, or Sanctifier, something like that, those alternative formulas are actually the heresy of modalism.
Dialogue: 0,0:29:00.71,0:29:12.41,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}无论是有意还是无意，它们所做的是削弱或否认耶稣的\N人性，以及他与我们的团结和他作为我们救主的能力。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And what they do, whether intended or not, is diminish or deny the humanity of Jesus  And his solidarity with us and his ability to be our Savior.
Dialogue: 0,0:29:12.41,0:29:20.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以你不能用那些替代公式施洗，否则你就是在进行无效的洗礼。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So you cannot baptize in those alternative formulas or you are engaging in an invalid baptism.
Dialogue: 0,0:29:20.77,0:29:21.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这根本就不是洗礼。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's just not a baptism.
Dialogue: 0,0:29:21.95,0:29:24.61,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这是一个巨大的问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so that is a huge problem.
Dialogue: 0,0:29:24.61,0:29:25.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以不要这样做。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So don't do that.
Dialogue: 0,0:29:25.81,0:29:32.19,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}总是要奉圣父、圣子和圣灵的名施洗，正如它应该的那样。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Always baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as it's supposed to be.
Dialogue: 0,0:29:32.19,0:29:39.69,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，现在让我们来谈谈正统信仰，它与这两个极端相对。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay, so now let's talk about orthodoxy  In opposition to the two extremes.
Dialogue: 0,0:29:41.69,0:29:49.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}记住，并不是异端先出现，然后正统信仰后来才出现试图创造一个妥协。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And remember, it is not that the heresies came first and orthodoxy came along later to try to create a compromise.
Dialogue: 0,0:29:49.33,0:29:51.89,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不，正统信仰是最先出现的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}No, orthodoxy came first.
Dialogue: 0,0:29:51.89,0:30:09.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}异端是与正统信仰相对的替代选择，但在教义发展的每个阶段，正\N统信仰都被迫澄清什么是正确的教导，以对抗那些极端的异端。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The heresies are alternatives in opposition to orthodoxy, but then orthodoxy at every stage in the development of doctrine is sort of forced to clarify  What correct teaching is in opposition to the heresies, which are the extremes on the outside.
Dialogue: 0,0:30:09.71,0:30:22.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以正统信仰，与一边的嗣子论和另一边的形态论相\N对，在三位一体中保持了合一性和区别性的平衡。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So orthodoxy, as opposed to adoptionism on one side and modalism on the other, orthodoxy has that balance of unity and distinction in the Trinity.
Dialogue: 0,0:30:22.28,0:30:25.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}神是一，但神也是三。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}God is one, but God is also three.
Dialogue: 0,0:30:25.24,0:30:31.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}三位一体的三个位格都是同一实体、神性、能力和永恒。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The three persons of the Trinity are all the same substance, divinity, power, eternity.
Dialogue: 0,0:30:31.62,0:30:39.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}然而有些东西使圣父与圣子不同，圣子与圣灵不同。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And yet there are things that make the Father different from the Son and the Son different from the Spirit.
Dialogue: 0,0:30:39.77,0:30:41.87,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们稍后会讨论这些。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We're going to talk about those things later.
Dialogue: 0,0:30:41.87,0:30:58.31,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但重点是，如果嗣子论过分强调分离，强调位格之间的区别，而形态论\N过分强调位格的合一，那么正统信仰则保持了合一性和区别性的平衡。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the point is that if adoptionism leans too hard into the separation, into the distinction between the persons, and modalism leans too hard into the unity of the persons, orthodoxy has that balance of unity and distinction.
Dialogue: 0,0:30:58.31,0:31:04.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}神的一体性并不否定有三个神圣位格的事实。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The oneness of God does not take away the fact that there are three divine persons.
Dialogue: 0,0:31:04.24,0:31:12.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而神圣位格的三位性也丝毫不减少只有一位神这一事实的合一性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And the threeness of the divine persons does not at all diminish the unity of the fact that there is only one God.
Dialogue: 0,0:31:12.50,0:31:21.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以三位一体的三个位格是一体的，但不是完全相同的，是有区别的，但不是分离的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the three persons of the Trinity are one, but not one in the same, distinct, but not separate.
Dialogue: 0,0:31:21.71,0:31:35.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这些是我希望你们在论文和教学中使用的词，因为我们所说的，\N我们选择的词，它们教导并传达意义，我们需要尽可能精确。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And these are words that I want you to use in your essays and in your teaching because  What we say, the words we choose, they teach and they convey meaning, and we need to be as precise as possible.
Dialogue: 0,0:31:35.99,0:31:47.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你可能记得当我们开始这整个课程时，我说的其中一件事是，我们在阐\N述教义的方式上，在我们教导人们这些事情的方式上，追求精确性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You may remember when we started this whole class, that's one of the things I said, is that we are going after precision in the way we articulate doctrine, in the way we teach these things to people.
Dialogue: 0,0:31:47.86,0:31:54.42,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，神是一，但三位一体的三个位格不是完全相同的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, God is one, but the three persons of the Trinity are not one and the same.
Dialogue: 0,0:31:54.44,0:31:56.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它们之间有区别。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}There are distinctions between them.
Dialogue: 0,0:31:56.82,0:32:05.37,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}三位一体的三个位格是有区别的，但它们不是分离的\N，因为「分离」这个词会暗示合一性不够，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The three persons of the Trinity are distinct, but they're not separate, because the word separate would imply not enough unity, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:32:05.37,0:32:06.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这就是我们所寻求的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So this is what we're looking for.
Dialogue: 0,0:32:06.67,0:32:10.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们寻求的是合一性和区别性的平衡。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We're looking for that balance of unity and distinction.
Dialogue: 0,0:32:10.36,0:32:17.46,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}记住，正是三位一体内部的等级制度保持了这种平衡。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And remember, it is precisely the hierarchy within the Trinity that preserves the balance.
Dialogue: 0,0:32:17.50,0:32:24.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们知道三位一体中必须有等级制度的原因之一是为了反对形态论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}One of the reasons we know there has to be a hierarchy in the Trinity is to oppose modalism.
Dialogue: 0,0:32:24.01,0:32:30.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果你去掉三位一体中的等级制度，你要么最终得到形态论，要么最终得到多神论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}you take away the hierarchy in the Trinity and you either end up with modalism or you end up with polytheism.
Dialogue: 0,0:32:30.59,0:32:37.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以三位一体中的等级制度实际上是保证这种合一性和区别性平衡的东西，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so the hierarchy in the Trinity is actually what guarantees this balance of unity and distinction, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:32:37.91,0:32:43.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}就合一性而言，这不是神性或能力的等级制度，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In terms of unity, it is not a hierarchy of divinity or power, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:32:43.74,0:32:50.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}三位一体的三个位格同样具有神性，相同的神性，相同的永恒，相同的能力。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}All three persons of the Trinity are equally divine, the same divinity, the same eternity, the same power.
Dialogue: 0,0:32:50.62,0:32:55.31,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但这是一个权威的等级制度，其中存在区别。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But it is a hierarchy of authority  In which there are distinctions.
Dialogue: 0,0:32:55.41,0:33:01.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}首先，永恒的区别在于只有三位一体的第一位格是非受生的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}First of all, the eternal distinction of the fact that only the first person of the Trinity is unbegotten.
Dialogue: 0,0:33:02.19,0:33:06.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}只有三位一体的第二位格是受生或被生的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Only the second person of the Trinity is begotten or generated.
Dialogue: 0,0:33:06.10,0:33:10.66,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}只有三位一体的第二位格成为人，道成肉身。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Only the second person of the Trinity became human, is incarnate.
Dialogue: 0,0:33:11.24,0:33:21.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这些是描述三位一体位格之间区别的东西，它们帮助我们理解三位一体中的等级制度。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So these are the things that describe the distinctions between the persons of the Trinity and that help us understand the hierarchy in the Trinity.
Dialogue: 0,0:33:21.83,0:33:32.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}最后，永恒生成的教义在正统信仰反对两边的异端方面非常重要。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Finally,  The doctrine of eternal generation is so important with regard to orthodoxy opposing the two heresies on either side.
Dialogue: 0,0:33:32.25,0:33:40.69,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}永恒生成是指圣父和圣子之间那种永恒的存在状态的关系，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Eternal generation is that eternal state of being which is the relationship between the father and son, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:33:40.73,0:33:48.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是一种平等的关系，因为圣父和圣子都同样是永恒的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It is a relationship of equality in the sense that father and son are both equally eternal.
Dialogue: 0,0:33:48.63,0:33:51.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不是一个先来，另一个后来，都不是这样的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}One didn't come first and the other one comes later, none of that.
Dialogue: 0,0:33:51.49,0:33:58.65,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但这也是一种等级关系，因为圣子是由圣父所生，而不是反过来。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But it is also a relationship of hierarchy because the Son is generated from the Father and not the other way around.
Dialogue: 0,0:33:58.71,0:34:07.66,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这个永恒生成的教义对于真正确立合一性和区别性的平衡极其重要。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So this doctrine of eternal generation is extremely important for really nailing that balance of unity and distinction.
Dialogue: 0,0:34:08.86,0:34:20.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，我应该说，作为一种附带说明，当我说这是合\N一性和区别性的平衡时，合一性仍然优先于区别性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, I should say, as a kind of aside, when I say it's a balance of unity and distinction, there is still a priority of the unity over the distinction.
Dialogue: 0,0:34:20.62,0:34:56.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换句话说，神毕竟仍然是一，最终，对吧，合一性在某种程度上优先于区别性，所\N以当我们谈论神时，例如，除非我们特别谈论三位一体的三个位格以及它们彼此之\N间可能有的区别，除非有真正的理由，我们不会为神使用复数代词，因为例如，把\N神称为「他们」，仅仅从一般意义上说，就以一种不合适的方式削弱了合一性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So in other words,  God is still one after all, and at the end of the day, right, the unity has a certain priority over the distinction, so that when we're speaking of God, for example, unless we are speaking specifically about the three persons of the Trinity and ways in which they may be distinct from each other, unless there's a real reason to, we would not use plural pronouns for God, because to, for example, to call God they,  Just in a general sense, diminishes the unity in a way that's undesirable.
Dialogue: 0,0:34:56.50,0:35:04.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以除非我们特别谈论三位一体的三个位格，否则我们不想为神使用复数代词。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So we don't want to use plural pronouns for God unless we're speaking specifically of the three persons of the Trinity.
Dialogue: 0,0:35:04.36,0:35:10.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}比如我可能会说，你知道，三位一体的三个位格，他们都是永恒的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Like I might say, you know, the three persons of the Trinity, they are all eternal.
Dialogue: 0,0:35:10.54,0:35:17.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但如果我说，你知道，神是永恒的，我就不会用复数代词。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But if I say, you know, God is eternal, I'm not going to use a plural pronoun with that.
Dialogue: 0,0:35:17.62,0:35:18.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我希望这说得通。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So I hope that makes sense.
Dialogue: 0,0:35:18.92,0:35:21.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以最后，就是总结一下，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So finally, just to summarize, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:35:21.82,0:35:30.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在形态论中，合一性如此之强，以至于三位一体的位格之间不再有区别。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In modalism, you have so much unity that there's no distinction anymore between the persons of the Trinity.
Dialogue: 0,0:35:30.59,0:35:39.21,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}区别只是被简化为基于神在任何特定时刻所做的事情的标签，但这不是真正的区别。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The distinction is only reduced to labels based on what God is doing at any given moment, but it's not a real distinction.
Dialogue: 0,0:35:39.39,0:35:46.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在嗣子论中，圣父和圣子之间的区别如此之大，特别是圣子不再是神性的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In adoptionism, you have so much distinction between the Father and Son, especially that the Son isn't divine anymore.
Dialogue: 0,0:35:46.40,0:35:49.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是一种一直到分离程度的区别。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That's a distinction all the way to the point of separation.
Dialogue: 0,0:35:50.58,0:35:56.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在正统信仰中，三位一体的三个位格是有区别的，但不是分离的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In orthodoxy,  The three persons of the Trinity are distinct, but not separate.
Dialogue: 0,0:35:56.32,0:35:58.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}有区别，但不分离。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Distinct, but not separate.
Dialogue: 0,0:35:58.82,0:36:01.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是一，但不是完全相同的一。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}One, but not one in the same.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:02.38,0:36:13.06,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，公平地说，形态论者和嗣子论者可能和正统信仰一样关心维护一神论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, to be fair, the modalists and the adoptionists are probably just as concerned about maintaining monotheism as the Orthodox.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:13.06,0:36:14.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}只是他们做错了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's just that they do it wrong.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:14.94,0:36:16.46,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们用不同的方式做。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They do it in a different way.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:16.88,0:36:21.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对形态论者来说，神是一，因为圣子就是圣父。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}To the modalists, God is one because the Son is the Father.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:21.99,0:36:28.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对嗣子论者来说，神是一，因为耶稣不是神，圣子不是神性的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}To the adoptionists, God is one because Jesus is not God, the Son is not divine.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:29.70,0:36:46.02,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对正统信仰来说，神是一，因为同质同体的教义，因为即使有三个\N神圣位格，他们共同拥有，也就是说，他们共享一个神圣实体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}To the Orthodox, God is one because of the doctrine of consubstantiality, because even though there are three divine persons, they own together, that is, they share the one divine substance.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:46.02,0:36:59.19,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}只有一个神圣实体，三个位格共享，不是分割的意\N义上的共享，而是共同拥有，这就是独一的神。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}There is only a single divine substance which the three persons  share, not share in the sense of divvy up, but own together, and that is the one God.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:59.19,0:37:05.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以再说一遍，我会说一体性甚至比三位性有某种优先性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so again, I would say that the oneness has a certain priority even over the threeness.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:05.95,0:37:20.69,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但我希望这能帮助你理解为什么一边的嗣子论和另一边的形态论都是异端，以\N及为什么正统信仰是中庸之道，不是妥协的意义上，而是平衡点的意义上。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But I hope this helps you understand why adoptionism on one side and modalism on the other are both heresies, and why orthodoxy is the middle way, not in the sense of a compromise, but in the sense of that place of balance.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:20.69,0:37:29.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在对问题的「两者兼具」的回答的意义上，拒绝任何简单化的「非此即彼」的回答。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In the sense of that both-and answer to the question and rejecting any kind of simplistic either-or answer.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:29.56,0:37:39.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}最后，我只想说，如果看起来我讲这些材料讲得很快\N，可能是因为你实际上没有仔细阅读书中的章节。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Finally, I'll just say that if it seems like I went through this material really fast, it might be because you haven't actually carefully read the chapters in the book.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:39.57,0:37:43.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这样做的目的是强调你已经读过的内容。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so the point of this is to highlight what you've already read.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:43.23,0:37:46.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果你还没有读过，好的，现在回去读一读。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If you haven't read it yet, okay, now go back and read it.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:46.85,0:37:50.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果你需要再看一遍这个视频，但所有的内容都在书里。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And if you need to watch this video again, but all the stuff is in the book.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:50.95,0:37:55.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以如果感觉我讲得太快，那是因为我不想让视频太长。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So if it feels like I raced through this, it's because I didn't want the video to be too long.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:55.99,0:38:00.37,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在我通过谈论不想让它变长而让它变得更长了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And now I'm making it longer by talking about not wanting it to be long.
Dialogue: 0,0:38:00.37,0:38:14.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}只要记住，这本书第282页的图表会帮助你直观\N地看到所有这些内容。嘿，感谢你看完这个视频。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Just remember the chart on page 282 in this book is going to help you visually see how all of this  Hey, thanks for watching this video all the way to the end.
Dialogue: 0,0:38:14.22,0:38:15.72,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我真的很感谢。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I really appreciate that.
Dialogue: 0,0:38:15.72,0:38:22.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}请与你的朋友分享这个视频，并请在Locals.com上加入我的原始教会社区。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Please share this video with your friends, and please join me in the original church community on Locals.com.
Dialogue: 0,0:38:22.34,0:38:26.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}别忘了，如果你在Locals.com上加入原始教会社区，\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Don't forget that if you join the original church community on Locals.com,
Dialogue: 0,0:38:26.82,0:38:31.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你可以每周加入我的实时、深入、按时间顺序进行的圣经研究。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}you can join me each week for a live, in-depth, chronological Bible study.
Dialogue: 0,0:38:31.83,0:38:35.49,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}每周六都会直播，但如果你没空的话可以稍后观看。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's livestreamed every Saturday, but you can watch it later if you're not available.
Dialogue: 0,0:38:35.49,0:38:37.89,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以加入我吧，我们那里见。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So join me for that, and I'll see you there.
Dialogue: 0,0:38:37.89,0:38:38.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我希望在那里见到你。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I hope to see you there.
Dialogue: 0,0:38:38.75,0:38:40.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我希望在那里见到你。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I hope to see you there.
Dialogue: 0,0:38:40.62,0:38:41.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们那里见。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And I'll see you there.