再一個問題請教L大。 以下是摘錄自 尼西亞大會 ON THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA (DE DECRETIS) 又 稱 為 尼西亞信經護文 DEFENCE OF THE NICENE DEFINITION 亞他那修/ATHANASIUS 的兩個段落。 ------------------------------ 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: 道與父的永遠並存，不是屬於另一種本質或素質(me heteras ousias hypostaseos)，而 是屬於（idion）父的本質；就像那些在大會裏的所說的，你也可以從聰慧的俄列根（ Origen）聽到同樣的教導。他乃是以一種追根究底和深思熟慮的方式寫下這些教導。故此 ，我們不應該把這些當作他（Origen）自己的信仰。這些乃是在無數的辯論中，從思辨的 角度不斷的被研究而產生的。這也是他在灑脫的定義那些展示那位聰慧者的思想的（神學 ）議題的時候，所做的宣告。所以，在他以慎思明辨的方式講述異端之後，他立刻用他自 己的話，做了如下補充： 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，那麼祂就是不可言喻的像。但是我可以很大膽的加上，作為 神的形像，祂不可能有一時不存在。因為那位被約翰稱為“光”（“因為神是光”（約翰 1：5））的神，怎麼可能在祂的榮耀裏沒有光輝呢？好叫有些人膽敢將一個開始賦予子（ Son），如同祂之前是不存在的一樣？當祂不存在的時候，誰又是那不可言喻，不可稱名 的，和無法描述之父的存在（hypostaisis，本身也有存在的意思）呢?誰又是（神的）反 照（希伯來1：3），和那位“認識父”（約翰10：15）的道呢？讓那些膽敢宣稱，“曾有 一時子（Son）不存在”的人，仔細看清楚，他實際上就是在教導，曾有一時沒有智慧， 曾有一時沒有道，和曾有一時沒有生命。 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] 在另一處，他說，“然而，若說因為神在我們裏面，因我們的軟弱，我們剝奪了神（的神 性或神性特質）。這不但是錯誤的，更不可能是沒有危險的。因為祂乃是被生的道，永遠 與祂（父）同時並存（coexist），並作為智慧在祂（父）中喜樂（箴言8：30）。”若是 這樣，難道祂就會被認為是不是永遠喜樂的嗎？ 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. 你們要看清楚【我是如何證明這個觀念是如何從父老們（指初期教會）一代一代傳下來的 】。但是，你們這些新猶太人和該亞法的門徒！你們所傳講的，是根據哪些父老們的呢？ 除了魔鬼外，你們（亞流派）根本說不出他們中間哪一位是明白和有智慧的。而他們（正 統的父老們）都否定了你們。難道他（魔鬼）不是背道的父？從起初他就在你們裏面撒下 不敬虔的種子，說服你們去譭謗大公教會的大會。因為大會不但不同意你們的用詞，反而 見證，並接受了那些從起初就被那些道的見證人和僕人所傳下來的用詞。因為這是在大會 中，那些蒙福的父老們在制定宣告並定罪亞流異端時，所證明並寫下來的。這就是大公教 會的信仰。特別是當這些人想要推翻大會的時候，其實並不是（會議所使用的）字眼讓他 們痛苦難捱，而是因為他們自己的用詞被證明是異端的。並且他們的異端（教訓）比其他 別的異端更肆無忌憚實。 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: 在這個同樣的意義上，那些在尼西亞聚集的（主教們）制定了這些名詞。但是，我們現在 要證明不是他們發明了這些詞，他們也並不是如同那些為自己辯解的人（譯者：亞流派） 隨己意扭曲它們，反而是從他們的先輩們（主教們）所領受的。所以這些裝模作樣的人會 被從他們（在尼西亞聚集的主教們）中間趕出去。所以，噢，好好學習吧！你們這些抵擋 基督的亞流派，提諾斯圖那位飽學之士，並沒有避免提及“從……的本質而來。”在《 Hypotyposes》這本書的第二卷中，寫到： 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）的本質不是從外界粘結來的，也不是從虛無中而有的，而是從父的本質來的。 如同光輝從光而來，也如同水氣從水而來。光輝和水氣不是太陽自己也不是水的自己，但 是它們彼此之間的關係並非相異不同。同樣的，子本身的本質並不是父（譯者：指父的位 格），反之亦然；它（子的本質）乃是父的本質的流出，所以兩者不可分割。就像太陽在 發出光輝後仍然是它自己，不會減低，同樣的，父的本質在有了子作為自己的像後，也不 會經歷（任何）的變化。 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: 這就是提諾斯圖所說的，我們之前先用鑽研的方式研究後，又把它當作他自己的看法列出 來。對於【丟尼修，亞曆山大的主教，他在寫（書）反駁撒伯流的時候】，根據（基督的 ）肉身解釋了救贖的經綸(economy of Salvation)，除了駁斥了撒伯流外，還清楚的表明 了，不是父成為肉身，而是祂的道（成為肉身），如同約翰所說的（約翰1：14）。但是 因為他（丟尼修）被認為有教導子是某種是從無而有的，並且不是與父同質的被造之物的 嫌疑。他為了自己的名聲，寫信給羅馬的主教丟尼修，為自己辯護，說這是對他的中傷。 他（丟尼修）向他（提諾斯圖）保證他並沒有說子是被造的，反而承認祂就是“（與父） 同質”。他的教導如下： 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] 我也寫了其他的信，在其中，我駁斥了（對我的）虛假的控告，（他們）宣稱我沒有教導 子（Son）是與神同質的。雖然我說我在聖經裏面找不到這樣的說法，然而下麵的段落使 得他們無話可說，因為他們與這個意義不一致。我提供了人類的誕生作為同質性的範例。 我說父母在與他們的兒女有別，僅他們本身不是他們的子女這件事上，否則就不會有父女 而兒女了。就如同我之前說過的，因著環境，我手上沒有這封信。否則，我會把我在那封 信所使用的話寄給你，或者乾脆把整封信的副本寄給你；若有可能，我仍會這樣做。但是 我知道，也記得我提供了許多關於血親（或親屬關係）的說法。我說從種子或根而出的植 物與那些發芽而出的不同，但是他們仍有同樣的性質。我也說過，從泉源流出的河流雖有 不同的名字，但泉源卻不能被稱為河流，河流也不能被稱為泉源；兩者都有其存在，河流 就是從泉源流出的水。 ------------------------------ 亞他那修在此提及，他對於基督神性與父同質的觀念，乃是『從父老們（指初期教會）一 代一代傳下來的』。並且，證明這是『亞歷山大主教丟尼修反駁撒伯流主義』的時候的教 訓。 不知道，您認為，這份材料是『口述傳統』還是『文字傳統』？ 在同時，亞流方面則宣告他們得到了新的啟示，否認基督與父同質，他們宣稱自己的解釋 才是『從父老們（指初期教會）一代一代傳下來的』，但是提不出任何證據——很明顯的 ，亞流的說法肯定是100%的『口述』，因為沒有任何『文字』支持。不知道您所謂『東方 教會』如何看待亞他那修和亞流的觀點？您們的『標準』為何？ --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 49.214.65.220 ※ 文章網址: https://webptt.com/m.aspx?n=bbs/Christianity/M.1491110363.A.DAA.html 既然覺得荒謬，那麼麻煩您不要浪費您寶貴的生命+精力+時間參與無益的對話！謝謝合作！ ※ 編輯: df31 (49.214.49.30), 04/02/2017 23:12:42