再一个问题请教L大。 以下是摘录自 尼西亚大会 ON THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA (DE DECRETIS) 又 称 为 尼西亚信经护文 DEFENCE OF THE NICENE DEFINITION 亚他那修/ATHANASIUS 的两个段落。 ------------------------------ 27. As to the Word’s being eternally coexistent with the Father and not of another essence or subsistence (me heteras ousias hypostaseos) but belonging (idion) to the essence of the Father, as those in the council said, you may hear this also from the diligent Origen. Those things which he has written by way of enquiry and speculation one should not take as his own beliefs but of those who are engaged in the contention of an enquiry that is undertaken with a view to debate. But it is the declarations that he makes when he is defining matters freely which represent the mind of that diligent one. Thus, after what he says to the heretics by way of tentative speculation, he immediately puts forward his own words in this way: 道与父的永远并存，不是属於另一种本质或素质(me heteras ousias hypostaseos)，而 是属於（idion）父的本质；就像那些在大会里的所说的，你也可以从聪慧的俄列根（ Origen）听到同样的教导。他乃是以一种追根究底和深思熟虑的方式写下这些教导。故此 ，我们不应该把这些当作他（Origen）自己的信仰。这些乃是在无数的辩论中，从思辨的 角度不断的被研究而产生的。这也是他在洒脱的定义那些展示那位聪慧者的思想的（神学 ）议题的时候，所做的宣告。所以，在他以慎思明辨的方式讲述异端之後，他立刻用他自 己的话，做了如下补充： If he is an image of the ineffable God, then he is an ineffable image. But I will be so bold as to add that, being the likeness of the Father, there is not [any time] when he was not. For when was it that God, who is called “ Light” by John (“For God is light”(Jn1:5)), did not have the radiance of his own glory, so that someone may dare to ascribe a beginning to the Son, as formerly not being? When was he not, who is the image of the ineffable and unnameable and unspeakable subsistence (hypostaisis) of the Father, the reflection (Heb 1:3) and Word who “knows the Father” (Jn 10:15)? Let the one who dares to say, “there was when the Son was not,” observe well that he is also saying that Wisdom once was not and the Word once was not and the Life once was not.[67] 若祂是那不可言喻之神的像，那麽祂就是不可言喻的像。但是我可以很大胆的加上，作为 神的形像，祂不可能有一时不存在。因为那位被约翰称为“光”（“因为神是光”（约翰 1：5））的神，怎麽可能在祂的荣耀里没有光辉呢？好叫有些人胆敢将一个开始赋予子（ Son），如同祂之前是不存在的一样？当祂不存在的时候，谁又是那不可言喻，不可称名 的，和无法描述之父的存在（hypostaisis，本身也有存在的意思）呢?谁又是（神的）反 照（希伯来1：3），和那位“认识父”（约翰10：15）的道呢？让那些胆敢宣称，“曾有 一时子（Son）不存在”的人，仔细看清楚，他实际上就是在教导，曾有一时没有智慧， 曾有一时没有道，和曾有一时没有生命。 And also in another place, he says, “But it is neither proper nor without danger if, through our weakness, we deprive God, as far as that lies within us, of his only begotten Word which coexists always with him, being the Wisdom in whom he rejoiced (Prov 8:30). In this way he will be conceived as not always rejoicing?”[68] 在另一处，他说，“然而，若说因为神在我们里面，因我们的软弱，我们剥夺了神（的神 性或神性特质）。这不但是错误的，更不可能是没有危险的。因为祂乃是被生的道，永远 与祂（父）同时并存（coexist），并作为智慧在祂（父）中喜乐（箴言8：30）。”若是 这样，难道祂就会被认为是不是永远喜乐的吗？ See, then, how we prove that this conception has been transmitted from fathers to fathers. But you, O new Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, which fathers do you have to show for your sayings? You cannot speak of any among those who are understanding and wise, for all reject you, except only the devil. It is he alone who has become the father of such apostasy, he who from the beginning has sown this impiety in you and now has persuaded you to revile the ecumenical council because it did not decree your terms, but those which the eyewitnesses and servants of the Word from the beginning have handed down. For the faith which the council confessed in writing is that the Catholic Church, and this is what was vindicated by the blessed fathers when they made their declaration the way they did and condemned the Arian heresy. But that is especially why these ones are trying to overturn the council. It is not the words that pain them, but the fact that by these words they are shown to be heretics and their heresy more audacious than the others. 你们要看清楚【我是如何证明这个观念是如何从父老们（指初期教会）一代一代传下来的 】。但是，你们这些新犹太人和该亚法的门徒！你们所传讲的，是根据哪些父老们的呢？ 除了魔鬼外，你们（亚流派）根本说不出他们中间哪一位是明白和有智慧的。而他们（正 统的父老们）都否定了你们。难道他（魔鬼）不是背道的父？从起初他就在你们里面撒下 不敬虔的种子，说服你们去譭谤大公教会的大会。因为大会不但不同意你们的用词，反而 见证，并接受了那些从起初就被那些道的见证人和仆人所传下来的用词。因为这是在大会 中，那些蒙福的父老们在制定宣告并定罪亚流异端时，所证明并写下来的。这就是大公教 会的信仰。特别是当这些人想要推翻大会的时候，其实并不是（会议所使用的）字眼让他 们痛苦难捱，而是因为他们自己的用词被证明是异端的。并且他们的异端（教训）比其他 别的异端更肆无忌惮实。 25. It is in this same sense that those gathered in Nicaea decreed these terms. But let us now prove that they did not invent these things and manufacture them on their own, as these ones allege, but spoke what they received from those before them. So this pretence also will be snatched away from them. Learn, therefore, O Christ fighting Arians, that Theognostus,[64] that learned man, did not shirk from saying “from the essence.” Writing on the Son in the second book of the Hypotyposes, he peaks thus: 在这个同样的意义上，那些在尼西亚聚集的（主教们）制定了这些名词。但是，我们现在 要证明不是他们发明了这些词，他们也并不是如同那些为自己辩解的人（译者：亚流派） 随己意扭曲它们，反而是从他们的先辈们（主教们）所领受的。所以这些装模作样的人会 被从他们（在尼西亚聚集的主教们）中间赶出去。所以，噢，好好学习吧！你们这些抵挡 基督的亚流派，提诺斯图那位饱学之士，并没有避免提及“从……的本质而来。”在《 Hypotyposes》这本书的第二卷中，写到： The essence (ousia) of the Son is not something adjoined from outside, nor is it acquired from non-being, but it came forth from the essence of the Father, as the radiance of the light and the water’s vapor. The radiance and the vapor are not the sun itself nor the water itself, yet neither is the relationship between them one of otherness. And neither is the essence (ousia) of the Son itself the Father, nor is it other; but it is an outflow of the essence of the Father, which does not thereby undergo division. Just as the sun remains itself and is not lessened by the rays emanated by it, so neither does the essence of the Father undergo alternation in having the Son as an image of itself. 子（Son）的本质不是从外界粘结来的，也不是从虚无中而有的，而是从父的本质来的。 如同光辉从光而来，也如同水气从水而来。光辉和水气不是太阳自己也不是水的自己，但 是它们彼此之间的关系并非相异不同。同样的，子本身的本质并不是父（译者：指父的位 格），反之亦然；它（子的本质）乃是父的本质的流出，所以两者不可分割。就像太阳在 发出光辉後仍然是它自己，不会减低，同样的，父的本质在有了子作为自己的像後，也不 会经历（任何）的变化。 That is how Theognostus spoke, having previously investigated by way of enquiry and later putting this forward as his own opinion. As for Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, he was writing against Sabellius and explaining in detail the economy of Salvation according to the flesh, thereby refuting the Sabellians and showing that it is not the Father who became flesh but his Word, as John said (Jn 1:14).[65] But since he was alleged to have said that the Son was something made, and came to be (geneton) and not of one essence (homoouios) with the Father, he wrote to his namesake, Dionysius the bishop of Rome, and defend himself, saying that this was a slander against him. He assured him that he did not say that the Son was made, but rather confessed him even to be “of one essence.” His words are as follows: 这就是提诺斯图所说的，我们之前先用钻研的方式研究後，又把它当作他自己的看法列出 来。对於【丢尼修，亚历山大的主教，他在写（书）反驳撒伯流的时候】，根据（基督的 ）肉身解释了救赎的经纶(economy of Salvation)，除了驳斥了撒伯流外，还清楚的表明 了，不是父成为肉身，而是祂的道（成为肉身），如同约翰所说的（约翰1：14）。但是 因为他（丢尼修）被认为有教导子是某种是从无而有的，并且不是与父同质的被造之物的 嫌疑。他为了自己的名声，写信给罗马的主教丢尼修，为自己辩护，说这是对他的中伤。 他（丢尼修）向他（提诺斯图）保证他并没有说子是被造的，反而承认祂就是“（与父） 同质”。他的教导如下： I also wrote another letter, in which I refuted the false accusation which was brought against me to the effect that I did not say that the Son was of one essence (homooousion) with God. For although I say that I do not find this title anywhere in the Holy Scriptures, yet the following proposals, of which they are silent, are not discordant with this meaning. I offered the example of human birth as being clearly as a case of homogeneity and I said that surely the parents are other than the children only in that they are not themselves the children; otherwise, there would necessarily be neither parents nor children. As I said before, I do not have this letter to hand, because of circumstances. Otherwise, I would have sent you the words used there, or rather a copy of the whole letter, which, if I find a way, I will still do. But I do know and recall that I offered many likenesses of kinship. I said that the plant which comes forth from the seed or the root is other than that from which it sprouts, and yet it is altogether of the same nature. And I said that the stream which flows from a fountain takes a different name,, for neither is the fountain called a stream nor the stream a fountain; both are existent and the stream is the water from the fountain.[66] 我也写了其他的信，在其中，我驳斥了（对我的）虚假的控告，（他们）宣称我没有教导 子（Son）是与神同质的。虽然我说我在圣经里面找不到这样的说法，然而下面的段落使 得他们无话可说，因为他们与这个意义不一致。我提供了人类的诞生作为同质性的范例。 我说父母在与他们的儿女有别，仅他们本身不是他们的子女这件事上，否则就不会有父女 而儿女了。就如同我之前说过的，因着环境，我手上没有这封信。否则，我会把我在那封 信所使用的话寄给你，或者乾脆把整封信的副本寄给你；若有可能，我仍会这样做。但是 我知道，也记得我提供了许多关於血亲（或亲属关系）的说法。我说从种子或根而出的植 物与那些发芽而出的不同，但是他们仍有同样的性质。我也说过，从泉源流出的河流虽有 不同的名字，但泉源却不能被称为河流，河流也不能被称为泉源；两者都有其存在，河流 就是从泉源流出的水。 ------------------------------ 亚他那修在此提及，他对於基督神性与父同质的观念，乃是『从父老们（指初期教会）一 代一代传下来的』。并且，证明这是『亚历山大主教丢尼修反驳撒伯流主义』的时候的教 训。 不知道，您认为，这份材料是『口述传统』还是『文字传统』？ 在同时，亚流方面则宣告他们得到了新的启示，否认基督与父同质，他们宣称自己的解释 才是『从父老们（指初期教会）一代一代传下来的』，但是提不出任何证据——很明显的 ，亚流的说法肯定是100%的『口述』，因为没有任何『文字』支持。不知道您所谓『东方 教会』如何看待亚他那修和亚流的观点？您们的『标准』为何？ --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc), 来自: 49.214.65.220 ※ 文章网址: https://webptt.com/cn.aspx?n=bbs/Christianity/M.1491110363.A.DAA.html 既然觉得荒谬，那麽麻烦您不要浪费您宝贵的生命+精力+时间参与无益的对话！谢谢合作！ ※ 编辑: df31 (49.214.49.30), 04/02/2017 23:12:42