- The Handbook on Faith, Hope and Love
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1302.htm
Chapter 38. Jesus Christ, According to the Flesh, Was Not Born of the Holy Spirit in Such a Sense that the Holy Spirit is His Father.
Nevertheless, are we on this account to say
that the Holy Ghost is the father of the man Christ,
and that as God the Father begot the Word,
so God the Holy Spirit begot the man,
and that these two natures constitute the one Christ;
and that as the Word He is the Son of God the Father,
and as man [He is] the Son of God the Holy Spirit,
because the Holy Spirit as His father begot Him of the Virgin Mary?
Who will dare to say so?
Nor is it necessary to show by reasoning how many other absurdities flow from this supposition,
when it is itself so absurd that no believer's ears can bear to hear it.
Hence, as we confess, Our Lord Jesus Christ,
who of God is God,
and as man was born of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary,
having both natures, the divine and the human,
is the only Son of God the Father Almighty, from whom proceeds the Holy Spirit.
Now in what sense do we say that Christ was born of the Holy Spirit,
if the Holy Spirit did not beget Him?
Is it that He (HS) made Him (JC),
since our Lord Jesus Christ,
though as God all things were made by Him,
yet as man was Himself made;
as the apostle says, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh?
But as that created thing
which the Virgin conceived and brought forth
though it was united only to the person of the Son,
was made by the whole Trinity
(for the works of the Trinity are not separable),
why should the Holy Spirit alone be mentioned as having made it?
Or is it that, when one of the Three is mentioned as the author of any work,
the whole Trinity is to be understood as working?
That is true, and can be proved by examples.
But we need not dwell longer on this solution.
For the puzzle is, in what sense it is said, born of the Holy Ghost,
when He is in no sense the Son of the Holy Ghost?
For though God made this world,
it would not be right to say that it is the Son of God,
or that it was born of God;
we would say that it was created, or made, or framed, or ordered by Him, or whatever form of expression we can properly use.
Here, then, when we make confession that Christ was born of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary,
it is difficult to explain how it is that He is not the Son of the Holy Ghost and is the Son of the Virgin Mary,
when He was born both of Him and of her.
It is clear beyond a doubt that He was not born of the Holy Spirit as His father,
in the same sense that He was born of the Virgin as His mother.
* 拉丁文原文。
- http://www.augustinus.it/latino/enchiridion/enchiridion.htm
ENCHIRIDION AD LAURENTIUM LIBER UNUS
(DE FIDE, SPE ET CARITATE LIBER UNUS)
12. 38. Numquid tamen ideo dicturi sumus patrem hominis Christi esse Spiritum Sanctum, ut Deus Pater Verbum genuerit, Spiritus Sanctus hominem, ex qua utraque substantia Christus unus esset, et Dei Patris filius secundum Verbum et Spiritus Sancti filius secundum hominem, quod eum Spiritus Sanctus tamquam pater eius de matre virgine genuisset? Quis hoc dicere audebit? Nec opus est ostendere disputando quanta alia sequantur absurda, cum hoc ipsum iam ita sit absurdum ut nullae fideles aures id valeant sustinere. Proinde sicut confitemur, Dominus noster Iesus Christus, qui de Deo Deus, homo autem natus est de Spiritu Sancto et de virgine Maria, utraque substantia, divina scilicet atque humana, Filius est unicus Dei Patris omnipotentis, de quo procedit Spiritus Sanctus. Quomodo ergo dicimus Christum natum de Spiritu Sancto, si non eum genuit Spiritus Sanctus? An quia fecit eum? Quoniam Dominus noster Iesus Christus in quantum Deus est, omnia per ipsum facta sunt 81; in quantum autem homo est, et ipse factus est , sicut Apostolus dicit: Factus est ex semine David secundum carnem 82. Sed cum illam creaturam quam virgo concepit et peperit, quamvis ad solam personam Filii pertinentem, tota Trinitas fecerit; neque enim separabilia sunt opera Trinitatis; cur in ea facienda solus Spiritus Sanctus nominatus est? An et quando unus trium in aliquo opere nominatur, universa operari Trinitas intellegitur? Ita vero est, et exemplis doceri potest. Sed non est in hoc diutius immorandum. Illud enim movet, quomodo dictum sit: Natus de Spiritu Sancto 83, cum filius nullo modo sit Spiritus Sancti. Neque enim quia mundum istum fecit Deus, eum fas est dici filium, aut eum natum de Deo; sed factum vel creatum vel conditum vel institutum ab illo, vel si quid huiusmodi recte possumus dicere. Hic ergo, cum confiteamur natum de Spiritu Sancto et Virgine Maria, quomodo non sit filius Spiritus Sancti et sit filius Virginis Mariae cum et de illo et de illa sit natus, explicare difficile est; procul dubio quippe non sic de illo ut de patre, sic autem de illa ut de matre natus est.
奥古斯丁时代，是拉丁文通用的时代，虽然在东方仍然是希腊文为主流。奥古斯丁会这么说，完全是根据圣经的字句 （见 附七）。
* 奥古斯丁说 “作为人，他却是被造的” 乃是忠实地根据拉丁文圣经译本。
- 以下是拉丁原文。奥古斯丁 按照拉丁文译本，使用 factus/facio “被造”。
http://www.augustinus.it/latino/enchiridion/enchiridion.htm
-- 《论信望爱》的拉丁原文版
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=quantum&la=la#lexicon
-- 拉丁文-英文 字典
in quantum-as autem-but homo-man est-be,
et-also ipse-(him)self factus-made est-be
.....
Sed-but cum-when illam-that creaturam-creating
quam-how/as virgo- concepit-conceive et-and peperit-bear/create,
拉丁-中文对照：
in quantum-如同 autem-但是 homo-人 est-(他)是,
et-也 ipse-他自己 factus-被造 est-是
.....
Sed-但是 cum-当 illam-那 creaturam-造(之物)
quam-如 virgo- concepit-怀孕 et-和 peperit-生,
但是，被引用经文（罗1:3）的翻译似乎与中文圣经译本不同，于是进一步查考奥古斯丁时代的拉丁文圣经译本（见 附三），不懂拉丁文，要另外再查考每个字的字义。
* 罗马书1:3，拉丁文译本 - 武加大译本，
- http://www.sacredbible.org/studybible/NT-06_Romans.htm
Latin-English Study Bible
Anno 2009 Vulgatæ Editionis CPDV, OE
[Romani 1]
[Romans 1]
{1:3} de Filio suo, qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem,
{1:3} about his Son, who was made for him from the offspring of David according to the flesh,
http://www.latin-dictionary.net/q/latin/factus.html
fio, feri, factus, v
Conjugation: f
1. (facio PASS)
2. it is being done]
3. [fiat => so be it, very well
4. |be made/become
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=factus&fromdoc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0060
factus adj.
P. of facio, elaborate, finished, artistic : oratio: argentum, silver-ware : negare Versiculos magis factos, H.: ad unguem Factus homo, complete , H.
http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Latin/
fio, fieri, factus : be made, be done, become.
是的，拉丁文译本真的翻译成 “被造” ，于是回过头来对照英文圣经译本（见 附四），发现只有钦定本（KJV）翻译成 “made 被造”。可能是早期的翻译仍然受到拉丁文译本的影响。
* 罗马书1:3，英文译本
- * 只有 KJV 钦定本，翻译成 《made》
http://bible.cc/romans/1-3.htm
(factus = to be made)
New International Version (©1984)
regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David,
New Living Translation (©2007)
The Good News is about his Son. In his earthly life he was born into King David's family line,
English Standard Version (©2001)
concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh,
International Standard Version (©2008)
regarding his Son. He was a descendant of David with respect to his humanity
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
This Good News is about his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. In his human nature he was a descendant of David.
King James Bible
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
American King James Version
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
American Standard Version
concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,
Bible in Basic English
About his Son who, in the flesh, came from the family of David,
Douay-Rheims Bible
Concerning his Son, who was made to him of the seed of David, according to the flesh,
Darby Bible Translation
concerning his Son (come of David's seed according to flesh,
English Revised Version
concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,
Webster's Bible Translation
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh.
Weymouth New Testament
who, as regards His human descent, belonged to the posterity of David,
World English Bible
concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,
Young's Literal Translation
concerning His Son, (who is come of the seed of David according to the flesh,
所以，必须回到希腊文新约手抄本（见 附五），倒都是 “genomenou 成为” （见 附六）。
* 罗马书1:3，希腊文 手抄本
- * 手抄本都是用：γενομένου （字根 γινομαι ginomai，成为，出现）。
http://mlbible.com/romans/1-3.htm
(genomenou = to become; aorist 过去式, middle deponent 关身型.主动意)
................................................................................
ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥΣ 1:3 Greek NT: Tischendorf 8th Ed. with Diacritics
περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυεὶδ κατὰ σάρκα,
................................................................................
ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥΣ 1:3 Greek NT: Greek Orthodox Church
περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυῒδ κατὰ σάρκα,
................................................................................
ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥΣ 1:3 Greek NT: Stephanus Textus Receptus (1550, with accents)
περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ κατὰ σάρκα
................................................................................
ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥΣ 1:3 Greek NT: Westcott/Hort with Diacritics
περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα,
................................................................................
ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥΣ 1:3 Greek NT: Tischendorf 8th Ed.
περι του υιου αυτου του γενομενου εκ σπερματος δαυειδ κατα σαρκα
................................................................................
ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥΣ 1:3 Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000)
περι του υιου αυτου του γενομενου εκ σπερματος δαυιδ κατα σαρκα
................................................................................
ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥΣ 1:3 Greek NT: Textus Receptus (1550)
περι του υιου αυτου του γενομενου εκ σπερματος δαβιδ κατα σαρκα
................................................................................
ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥΣ 1:3 Greek NT: Textus Receptus (1894)
περι του υιου αυτου του γενομενου εκ σπερματος δαβιδ κατα σαρκα
................................................................................
ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥΣ 1:3 Greek NT: Westcott/Hort
περι του υιου αυτου του γενομενου εκ σπερματος δαυιδ κατα σαρκα
................................................................................
ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥΣ 1:3 Greek NT: Westcott/Hort, UBS4 variants
περι του υιου αυτου του γενομενου εκ σπερματος δαυιδ κατα σαρκα
................................................................................
ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥΣ 1:3 Greek NT: Tischendorf 8th Ed. - Transliterated
peri tou uiou autou tou genomenou ek spermatos daueid kata sarka
................................................................................
ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥΣ 1:3 Byzantine/Majority Text (2000) - Transliterated
peri tou uiou autou tou genomenou ek spermatos dauid kata sarka
................................................................................
ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥΣ 1:3 Stephens Textus Receptus (1550) - Transliterated
peri tou uiou autou tou genomenou ek spermatos dabid kata sarka
................................................................................
ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥΣ 1:3 Scrivener's Textus Receptus (1894) - Transliterated
peri tou uiou autou tou genomenou ek spermatos dabid kata sarka
................................................................................
ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥΣ 1:3 Westcott/Hort (1881) - Transliterated
peri tou uiou autou tou genomenou ek spermatos dauid kata sarka
................................................................................
ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥΣ 1:3 Westcott/Hort, UBS4 variants - Transliterated
peri tou uiou autou tou genomenou ek spermatos dauid kata sarka
* γενομένου （字根 γὶνομαι）的意思：原意是“成为”
- A. http://biblos.com/romans/1-3.htm
γενομένου genomenou 1096 gínomai V-2ADP-GSM who was made
B. http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/1096.htm
1096 gínomai – properly, to emerge, become, transitioning from one point (realm, condition) to another. 1096 (gínomai) fundamentally means “become” (becoming, became) so it is not an exact equivalent to the ordinary equative verb “to be” (is, was, will be) as with 1510 /eimí (1511 /eínai, 2258 /ēn).
1096 (ginomai) means “to become, and signifies a change of condition, state or place” (Vine, Unger, White, NT, 109).
M. Vincent, “1096 (gínomai) means to come into being/manifestation implying motion, movement, or growth” (at 2 Pet 1:4). Thus it is used for God's actions as emerging from eternity and becoming (showing themselves) in time (physical space).
C. http://bible.fhl.net/gbdoc/new/s.php?N=0&k=1096&m=
1096 ginomai {ghin'-om-ahee}
基本字型, 以关身语态出现; TDNT - 1:681,117; 动词
AV - be 255, come to pass 82, be made 69, be done 63, come 52,
become 47, God forbid + 3361 15, arise 13, have 5, be fulfilled 3,
be married to 3, be preferred 3, not tr 14, misc 4, vr done 2; 678
1) (自然) 生成
2) 被制作, 被创造
3) 升起, 出现, 发展 (事件或现象)
4) 发生, 成为 (過程或结果)
5) 变成 (改变进入新的状况)
6) 迁移
7) 结果是 (成为某种状态或拥有某些特质)
8) 出席, 到场
9) 属於
10) 在, 在...里面 (一個地方)
3a) 指出现在公众中的人物
4) 实行, 完成
4a) 行神迹
5) 变成为, 被做成
6) 是, 有, 拥有
1096 ginomai {ghin'-om-ahee}
a prolongation and middle voice form of a primary verb;
TDNT - 1:681,117; v
AV - be 255, come to pass 82, be made 69, be done 63, come 52,
become 47, God forbid + 3361 15, arise 13, have 5, be fulfilled 3,
be married to 3, be preferred 3, not tr 14, misc 4, vr done 2; 678
1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
2) to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen
2a) of events
3) to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage
3a) of men appearing in public
4) to be made, finished
4a) of miracles, to be performed, wrought
5) to become, be made
因此，问题出在拉丁文译本，于是就比对希腊文-拉丁文圣经之间的翻译，发现：希腊文 “ginomai 成为” 多半被翻译成 拉丁文 “facio 造。” 拉丁文圣经译本在创世记使用 creo（创造） 和 facio（造）（见 附八），
* 拉丁文的 “造” 。
- https://www.51zanmei.net/thread-22637-1-1.html
这几节经文，希腊文是 ginomai （成为，to become）。
拉丁文译本做 facio （造，to make），不过 facio 还是有 to bring to pass （发生）的意思。
英文译本做 made （造，约1:3）和 born （生，加4:4）。
首先，希腊文的“造”有 ktizo，西1:16 的拉丁文译本做 condita/condio 和 creata/creo 。就创世记里的“造”，拉丁文译本使用 creo 和 facio 。不可否认：facio 有“造”的意思，但是 facio 就只有这个意思吗？
其次，徒10:40 第三日， 神叫他复活，显现出来。文中的“显现”，希腊文是 ginomai ，拉丁文译本做 facio 。基本上，凡是 ginomai ，拉丁文译本都做 facio 。但是，很明显的，在徒10:40的 facio 不能是“造”。 否则，复活后，还又被造一次 ，那么，会引发许多争议，其中一个就是：耶稣的人性是何时存在的（许多人认为在第一次道成肉身之后，才存在的）。所以，一味地把 facio 翻译成“made 被造”，这样并不妥当。
第三，factus 是个分词，在这里作形容词。动词原本是描述主词的动作，但是动词要形容一个名词或句子时，就改成分词字型。作形容词的分词，就具备有动词和形容词两者的特性和意思。
factus est 意思是：是 被造的。就有两种意思：被造成的，有被造性的。
所以在圣经里，facio 是有 “造” 的意思。但 是，“成为” 和 “造” 两者的意思差太多了，但是 “成为” 勉强有 “做成” 的意思，接近 “造” 。
复杂的论述，不可断章取义，也不可漠视出处的原始用意、原始目的。
在《论信望爱》，奥古斯丁说 “他（耶稣基督）却是被造的” ，出处的原始目的是在否定 ：从人来看，耶稣的父是圣灵。
第一，因为耶稣基督是全能神的独生子。第二，因为耶稣基督是三一神共同造的。第三，因为被造的并不一定是神的儿子。所以，基督是圣灵和马利亚生的，但是圣灵不是基督的父亲，相对地，马利亚是基督的母亲。坦白说，我看不懂奥古斯丁的论证，连奥古斯丁自己也承认：这是难以解释。
回到我们的争议，奥古斯丁提到：耶稣基督自己也是被造。
奥古斯丁也引用圣经，来佐证他的话。是的，武加大-拉丁文译本是这么说的：被造，但是，希腊文的手抄本多是说：成为。可能会有一本希腊手抄本说：被造，但是目前还没有出现。回到拉丁文译本的经文来看，罗马书说：从肉体来看，他为了他从大卫的后裔被造。“被造”的本身讲的不是本质：被造成为人，被造成为肉体。“被造”所强调的是职分：被造成为大卫的后裔，被造成为弥赛亚。再进一步的争议是：出自于人，被造。被造时，为什么把神排除了？回到奥古斯丁论述的前后文，奥古斯丁使用一个奇特的字眼“THAT created THING”（那个-被造的-东西），当然这个是英文翻译。如果奥古斯丁用奇怪的论证，来定论： 圣灵生耶稣，但是圣灵不是耶稣的父亲 。那么，用类似的论证，也可以定论出： 耶稣是被造的，但是耶稣还不算是被造的 。
在《三位一体论》，
1. 奥古斯丁认为：耶稣的被造方式 乃是取了被造物的形象。2. 奥古斯丁认为：人不会成为神。3. 奥古斯丁认为：道成肉身 为的是：彰显神性，成就救赎。4. 奥古斯丁一再强调：耶稣的人神两性不可分，神的三一性不可分。
那么，“神成为人，为了使人成为神” 这个论述成立吗？
从永生、不朽、审判来看，是的，这个论述成立。但是，从神的本质来看，这个论述是错的，成为神的人并没有完全的神性，只不过是有分于神性。因为子-耶稣自始至终都有着完整的神性，人自始至终都是有限的 受造物。造物主与受造物最大的、永远的不同就是：神具备神格，受人敬拜。没有神格的神，好比死的活人、猪狗不如的人，勉强称得上是神，但是一点价值都没 有。相对地，浪子回头的故事里，败家子也没有一点父性（父亲的德行），但是父亲却赐给他父权（戒指）。人成为神，教父们所要强调的是人的神格（与基督同作王），不是人的神性。这样才符合圣经的教导。
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 参考资料
- http://book.kuanye.net/files/article/fulltext/0/714.html
三位一体论 - 奥古斯丁着
第一部
第七章、子如何比父小，也比祂自己小
十四、我已说到我们的前辈应用圣经中上述和类似的见证，来揭露异端派的错谬，将教义所示三位一体的合一和平等给向我们证明。
由于上帝的道成为肉身，作成我们得救的工夫，好叫为人的基督耶稣可以作神人间的中保，
所以在圣经中有许多事说起来，好像是表明甚或是很明显地说，父是比子大的；以致人们不求甚解，或不顾圣经的全盘意义，企图将那些从肉体论耶稣基督所说的事，转移到祂道成肉身以前永恒的本体上去。
例如，他们说，子比父小，因为经上记着主自己说：“父是比我大的”（约24：28）。
但真理证明，按照同一意义子也是比祂自己小；因为祂既“虚己，取了奴仆的形像，”祂怎得不成为比祂自己小呢？
祂之取了奴仆的形像 ，并不使祂失去那使祂与父同等的上帝之形像。
倘若 祂取了奴仆的形像 ，而并不是使祂失去上帝的形像，因为祂自己在奴仆的形像里和在上帝的形像里同是父上帝的独生子，在上帝的形像里是与父同等，在奴仆的形像里是神人间的中保，即为人的基督耶稣；
那么谁个不能看见祂在上帝的形像里比祂自己大，可是在奴仆的形像里却比祂自己小呢？
而后者照着奴仆的形像加以了解，就没有混乱之处。其实这将全部圣经弄清楚这问题的准则，是在使徒保罗一封书信的一章里揭橥了。他在那里足够清楚地将这区分介绍给我们，说：
“他本有上帝的形像，不以自己与上帝同等为强夺的；反倒虚己， 取了奴仆的形像 ，成为人的样式；并有人的样子”（腓2：7）。
于是在本性上上帝的儿子与父上帝同等，但在“样子”上比父小。因为在祂所取的奴仆形像上，祂比父小；但在祂取了奴仆的形像以前所有父得形像上，祂与父同等。
祂在上帝的形像上是道，“万物是祂造的”（约1：3）；但祂在奴仆的形像上“为女子所生，且生在律法以下，要把律法以下的人赎出来”（加4：4，5）。
照样祂在上帝的形像里造了人；祂在奴仆的形像里被造为人。
因为假如父独自造了人，而子没有分，经上就不会记着说：“我们要照着我们的形像，按着我们的样式造人”（创1：26）。
所以，既然 上帝的形像取了奴仆的形像 ，所以祂是二者，是上帝也是人：是上帝，乃是由于上帝去取；也是人，乃是由于人被取。
二者中之一，既不因取的动作而变成了另一，即神并未被改变成受造者，以致不再是神；而受造者也并不改变成为神，以致不再是受造者。
第八章、将被人误解论子服在父以下的经文加以说明。基督将国交与父，并不把国舍弃。得以看见祂，乃是合一切行动所应许的目的。圣灵与父一样能赐福给我们。
十五、使徒说：“万物既服了祂，那时，子也要自己服那叫万物服祂的”（林前15：28）。
这段经文 使人不得把基督所取人的样子看为在后来变成了神性 ，或（说得更确切些）变成了不是受造者，而是合一的三位一体神——一种无形的，不变的，合质的，与本身同永恒的本性。
如若有人主张说，经文“那时，子也要自己服那叫万物服祂的”，是要使人可以相信“服”乃指受造者后来变成创造主的本体或本质，那就是说，本来受造者的本体要变成创造主的本体，
那么这种人至少承认无法置疑的真理，即他所主张的，在主说“我父是比我大的”时候，尚没有实现。
因为祂说这话，不仅是在祂升天以前，也是在祂受难从死复活以前。
但若他们设想祂的人性将变成神的本质，而“那时，子也要自己服那叫万物服祂的”经文便是这么说，
即宛如是说：那时， 人子自己和上帝的道所取的人性，也要变成那叫万物服祂的上帝的本性 ，那么他们就也必须设想这将在审判日后，即当“祂将国交与父上帝”时，才实现出来。
按照这种意见说，甚至在这时以后父还是比那从童女所取奴仆的形像大。
但若有人进一步主张说，基督耶稣这人已经变成了上帝的本体，至少他们不能否认祂在受难以前说：“因为父是比我大的”时，祂的人性还存留着；从此这话的意思无疑是父是：比奴仆的形像大，但子在上帝的形像里是与父同等。
谁听到使徒说：“祂既说万物都服了祂，明显那叫万物服祂的不在其内了”（林前15：47），
谁也不得想那叫万物服祂的话，乃是单指父说的，好像子自己没有叫万物服祂自己。
因为这就是使徒向腓利比人所明白宣说的：“我们却是天上国民；并且等候救主就是主，耶稣基督从天上降临。祂要按着那能叫万有归服自己的大能，将我们这卑贱的身体改变形状，和祂自己荣耀的身体相似”（腓3：20，21）。
可见父和子的行动是分不开的。
否则，父也没有将万物服自己，但子叫万物服了父，因为子把国交与祂，将一切执政的，掌权的，有能的，都废弃了。
因为使徒论子说：“祂就把国交与父上帝；将一切执政的，掌权的，有能的，都废弃。”那将一切废弃的，也使一切服从。
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130101.htm
On the Trinity (Book I)
Chapter 7.— In What Manner the Son is Less Than the Father, and Than Himself.
14. In these and like testimonies of the divine Scriptures, by free use of which, as I have said, our predecessors exploded such sophistries or errors of the heretics, the unity and equality of the Trinity are intimated to our faith. But because, on account of the incarnation of the Word of God for the working out of our salvation, that the man Christ Jesus might be the Mediator between God and men, many things are so said in the sacred books as to signify, or even most expressly declare, the Father to be greater than the Son; men have erred through a want of careful examination or consideration of the whole tenor of the Scriptures, and have endeavored to transfer those things which are said of Jesus Christ according to the flesh, to that substance of His which was eternal before the incarnation, and is eternal. They say, for instance, that the Son is less than the Father, because it is written that the Lord Himself said, My Father is greater than I. But the truth shows that after the same sense the Son is less also than Himself; for how was He not made less also than Himself, who emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant? For He did not so take the form of a servant as that He should lose the form of God, in which He was equal to the Father. If, then, the form of a servant was so taken that the form of God was not lost, since both in the form of a servant and in the form of God He Himself is the same only-begotten Son of God the Father, in the form of God equal to the Father, in the form of a servant the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; is there any one who cannot perceive that He Himself in the form of God is also greater than Himself, but yet likewise in the form of a servant less than Himself? And not, therefore, without cause the Scripture says both the one and the other, both that the Son is equal to the Father, and that the Father is greater than the Son. For there is no confusion when the former is understood as on account of the form of God, and the latter as on account of the form of a servant. And, in truth, this rule for clearing the question through all the sacred Scriptures is set forth in one chapter of an epistle of the Apostle Paul, where this distinction is commended to us plainly enough. For he says, Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and was found in fashion as a man. The Son of God, then, is equal to God the Father in nature, but less in fashion. For in the form of a servant which He took He is less than the Father; but in the form of God, in which also He was before He took the form of a servant, He is equal to the Father. In the form of God He is the Word, by whom all things are made; but in the form of a servant He was made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law. In like manner, in the form of God He made man; in the form of a servant He was made man. For if the Father alone had made man without the Son, it would not have been written, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Therefore, because the form of God took the form of a servant, both is God and both is man; but both God, on account of God who takes; and both man, on account of man who is taken. For neither by that taking is the one of them turned and changed into the other: the Divinity is not changed into the creature, so as to cease to be Divinity; nor the creature into Divinity, so as to cease to be creature.
Chapter 8.— The Texts of Scripture Explained Respecting the Subjection of the Son to the Father, Which Have Been Misunderstood. Christ Will Not So Give Up the Kingdom to the Father, as to Take It Away from Himself. The Beholding Him is the Promised End of All Actions. The Holy Spirit is Sufficient to Our Blessedness Equally with the Father.
15. As for that which the apostle says, And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him:
either the text has been so turned,
lest any one should think that the fashion of Christ, which He took according to the human creature, was to be transformed hereafter into the Divinity,
or (to express it more precisely) the Godhead itself, who is not a creature, but is the unity of the Trinity,— a nature incorporeal, and unchangeable, and consubstantial, and co-eternal with itself;
or if any one contends, as some have thought, that the text, Then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, is so turned
in order that one may believe that very subjection to be a change and conversion hereafter of the creature into the substance or essence itself of the Creator,
that is, that that which had been the substance of a creature shall become the substance of the Creator;
— such an one at any rate admits this, of which in truth there is no possible doubt, that this had not yet taken place, when the Lord said, My Father is greater than I.
For He said this not only before He ascended into heaven, but also before He had suffered, and had risen from the dead.
But they who think that the human nature in Him is to be changed and converted into the substance of the Godhead, and that it was so said, Then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him,
— as if to say, Then also the Son of man Himself, and the human nature taken by the Word of God, shall be changed into the nature of Him who put all things under Him—must also think that this will then take place, when, after the day of judgment, He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father. And hence even still, according to this opinion, the Father is greater than that form of a servant which was taken of the Virgin. But if some affirm even further, that the man Christ Jesus has already been changed into the substance of God, at least they cannot deny that the human nature still remained,
when He said before His passion, For my Father is greater than I; whence there is no question that it was said in this sense, that the Father is greater than the form of a servant, to whom in the form of God the Son is equal. Nor let any one, hearing what the apostle says,
But when He says all things are put under Him, it is manifest that He is excepted which did put all things under Him, think the words, that He has put all things under the Son, to be so understood of the Father, as that He should not think that the Son Himself put all things under Himself.
For this the apostle plainly declares, when he says to the Philippians, For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like His glorious body, according to the working whereby He is able even to subdue all things unto Himself.
For the working of the Father and of the Son is indivisible.
Otherwise, neither has the Father Himself put all things under Himself, but the Son has put all things under Him, who delivers the kingdom to Him, and puts down all rule and all authority and power.
For these words are spoken of the Son:
When He shall have delivered up, says the apostle, the kingdom to God,
even the Father; when He shall have put down all rule, and all authority, and all power.
For the same that puts down, also makes subject.
- ardmore
- Thanks for your explanitation. 明白了很多！
Hi Big, if chapter 38 can be translated into Chinese, it would be great. I had a difficult time to understand the article.
另外，再请教一下，清教徒John Owen 关于被造的论述是出于何等的考虑？
彩虹炫 | 编辑 删除Big -
Is it that He (HS) made Him (JC),
是他（圣灵）造他（耶稣基督）吗
since our Lord Jesus Christ,
因为我们的主耶稣基督
though as God all things were made by Him,
作为神，万物借着他被造，
yet as man was Himself made;
作为人，他自己被造
as the apostle says, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh?
如使徒说的，就肉体看，他从大卫的后裔被造？
But as that created thing
但是作为那被造物
which the Virgin conceived and brought forth
童贞女怀孕、生产
though it was united only to the person of the Son,
它只有被联合到子的位格
was made by the whole Trinity
被整个三一神所造
(for the works of the Trinity are not separable),
（因为三一神的工作不是分开的）
why should the Holy Spirit alone be mentioned as having made it?
为什么圣灵单独被提到如同已经造了他？
- 彩虹炫 | 编辑 删除Big
-
The bottom line is that Jesus has two natures UNITED into one person.
耶稣的人性和神性完美地结合在圣子的位格里。
一味探讨耶稣的被造性，就抹煞了耶稣的两性结合。
对我而言，高唱耶稣的被造性，就是在抹煞耶稣的人性和神性。
圣经所强调的是耶稣的超然性，即使耶稣是人，他还是非常人。
即使耶稣是被造的人，没有神性，耶稣仍然不犯罪，是唯一不犯罪的人。
耶稣不犯罪，不是因为耶稣有神性，不是因为耶稣有圣灵。
耶稣就是天真到不知罪（林后5:21）、没有罪（约一3:5）、不犯罪（彼前2:22）。
圣灵只有在怀孕的时候保守耶稣。
大卫、扫罗都有过圣灵，还是犯罪。
使徒彼得有圣灵后，还是拒绝外邦人，间接地拒绝传福音到万民，这个神的旨意。
耶稣的神性，在小时候并没有显露出来。
..路 2:52 耶稣的智慧和身量（或作：年纪），并 神和人喜爱他的心，都一齐增长。
- 彩虹炫 | 编辑 删除Big
-
是的，欧文主张，耶稣的肉体是被造的。
会支持这样说法的人，通常为了解释灵体的神怎么得到肉体。但是却忽略了在旧约里神已经以肉体的形象出现，又吃又喝，又与人摔跤。也就是限制住神的大能。
其次，是为了解释基督必须是大卫的后裔。这一点通常犯了一个错误，神明确指出大卫的一支后裔不能坐在大卫的宝座上，但是福音书偏偏指出耶稣属于那一支后裔。
..耶 22:30 耶和华如此说：... 他(注：哥尼雅，又名耶哥尼雅，又名约雅斤)后裔中再无一人得亨通，能坐在大卫的宝座上治理犹大。
..太 1:12 ... 耶哥尼雅生撒拉铁；撒拉铁生所罗巴伯；
..路 3:27 ... 所罗巴伯是撒拉铁的儿子；撒拉铁是尼利的儿子；...
第三，为了证明耶稣与我们有相同的肉体。但是从现代生物学来看，马利亚怀孕叫做单性生殖，这个样子生出来的人怎么会跟其他人一样？如果接受单性生殖，为何不接受试管婴儿？如果接受试管婴儿，为何不接受：神说有就有。
注：神说有就有，这样不是叫创造吗？无中生有叫barah，有中生有叫'asah，只要是“有”，都是神的创造，不是吗？（未完）
- 彩虹炫 | 编辑 删除Big
-
重点不是怎么做合理的推论，而是整本圣经怎么说，我们再来做推论。
耶稣的被造没有圣经的直接证据。
- 马利亚怀孕，圣灵来，主要为了荫蔽她，不是来造肉体。
..路1:35 ... 圣灵要临到你身上，至高者的能力要荫庇你，
.. ..如果耶稣是受- 造物的首生者，那么在有马利亚之前就有了耶稣的肉体了。
- 按肉体说，是从大卫后裔生（原文：被造）的。但是那个“生”是主动式，那个“生”也有“成为”的意思。
- 如果说取了人的样式，就是取了一个被造的肉体；那么人有神的形象，人应该有一个非受造的灵体，那是神的灵体，不是天使的灵体。
圣经只是很简单地说：道成了肉身。
不是“穿上”，是“成为”。
不需要科学论证，因为经文已经白纸黑字地写出来。
神成为人，为了叫人成为神，成为耶稣那样的神人。这个是谬论。
- 人经过领养，才成为神的孩子；耶稣是神的独生子。
- 认为人经过复活后成为真正的神人；耶稣在复活前已经是真正的神人了。
总之，“人成为神”的主张很荒唐。
圣经只应许永生，其它多余的幻想都源自不知足、不感恩。
- 删除 回复oldfish
- 神成为人，为了叫人成为神，成为耶稣那样的神人。这个是谬论。
================================================
big,我现在在做一些亚他那修著作的翻译，这个观念是古教父很重要的观念，您可以参考《致Serapion的信—关于圣灵》（http://athanasius.jimdo.com/%E4%BA%9A%E4%BB%96%E9%82%A3%E4%BF%AE%E4%BD%9C%E5%93%81%E9%9B%86/%E8%87%B4serapion%E7%9A%84%E4%BF%A1-%E5%85%B3%E4%BA%8E%E5%9C%A3%E7%81%B5-357ad-letter-to-serapoin-on-the-holy-spirit/）和《书信40：致亚代腓犹，主教和认信者，反对亚流党人 》（http://athanasius.jimdo.com/%E4%BA%9A%E4%BB%96%E9%82%A3%E4%BF%AE%E4%BD%9C%E5%93%81%E9%9B%86/%E4%B9%A6%E4%BF%A140-%E8%87%B4adelphiu-%E4%B8%BB%E6%95%99%E5%92%8C%E8%AE%A4%E4%BF%A1%E8%80%85-%E5%8F%8D%E5%AF%B9%E4%BA%9A%E6%B5%81%E5%85%9A%E4%BA%BA-370ad-letter-40-to-adelphius-bishop-and-confessor-against-the-arians/）。若你注意到，亚他那修用【神化】来证明基督和圣灵都是神，估计您就不会这样说了。
另外，在亚他那修的另一篇作品中，有提到基督之为神（的儿子）和我们之为神（的儿子）具有by nature(基督)和by participation(我们)的不同。看见这点，会帮助你对于基督教的整个【救赎论】有完全不同的看法和领会。想看这篇文章的话，跟我私下联络。:)
- 删除 回复oldfish
- 《致Serapion的信—关于圣灵》
[28] A creature cannot join other creatures to God and grant other creatures participation in divine life. This argument had been used by Athanasius in defense of the divinity of the Son; cf., for example, Or. Ar. 2:41, 2:69, 2:70. This reasoning is taken up by Gregory of Nazianzus, Orations 31:4.
一个被造之物不能使得其他的被造之物与神联合，并给其他的被造之物分享神生命的机会。这个论点被亚他那修用来捍卫子的神格；参考，《反亚流论文》2:41,2:69,2:70。这个推理也被拿先斯的贵格利在《神学论文集》31:4中所采用。
反而，若我们只是与一个被造之物联合，我们仍然无份于神性。然而，我们如今被称为基督的分享者和神的分享这，这就足以表明，在我们里面的膏油和印记不是被造的，而是具有子的本质。他借由在他里面的圣灵，将我们联于父。
《书信40：致亚代腓犹，主教和认信者，反对亚流党人 》
He became a human being that we might be divinized in him; he came to be in a woman and was begotten of a virgin in order to transport our errant race into himself and in order that from then on we may become a holy race and “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4), as the blessed Peter has written.
祂成为人，好叫我们在祂里面能被神化（divinized）；祂来到女人里，被童女所生，好把我们这个悖谬的族类带进祂自己里面，并从那一刻开始，我们能够成为圣别的族类和“神性的分享者”（彼后1：4），如同蒙福的彼得所写的。
- 彩虹炫 | 编辑 删除Big
-
目前的两大争议：人成为神，耶稣受造。
耶稣的身体是受造的，基本上没有圣经的直接证据；目前举出的例子，都会造成其它的问题。
起初，是为了希伯来书说耶稣与我们有相同的性情，所以说耶稣必须是受造的；但是，没有肉体的生父，耶稣的肉体是不会与我们的肉体一样。
基督教（新教）的精神就是根据圣经，教父到底根据哪几节经文，得出耶稣的身体是受造的？
人成为神，教父言语中的deification 或 divination到底指什么？是完全成为神，除了没有神格？还是得到永生，分享或参与神的部分性情？
- 删除 回复oldfish
- 关于神化，你就要看亚他那修的著作了。他讲的就是老李讲的。我的电邮iamanaoldfish@gmail.com。有兴趣，发电邮来，我给你文章。
关键基督人性，用经文支持这个教义的教父太多了。问题是你是不是真的认可他们。若认可，就会接受他们引用的经文，若不认可，讲再多都没有用。有个网站你可以看看:athanasius.jimdo.com
- 删除 回复oldfish
- 起初，是为了希伯来书说耶稣与我们有相同的性情，所以说耶稣必须是受造的；但是，没有肉体的生父，耶稣的肉体是不会与我们的肉体一样。
==========================================
你的问题就是路德在定罪士闵克非时所谓的：在【属性相通】上烦了错误。其实，这些问题对于【制定正统（请注意，所谓‘新教’的正统就是他们制定的）】古教父们根本都不是问题，而且，他们认为，这都应该是尝试。athanasius.jimdo.com下面《反亚流四论文》14篇就正面回答了你的问题。
- 彩虹炫 | 编辑 删除Big
-
电邮不通。直接发到 tomhsu9@gmail.com .
> 有兴趣，发电邮来，我给你文章。
> 关键基督人性，用经文支持这个教义的教父太多了。
那你就发过来吧！
> 你的问题就是路德在定罪士闵克非时所谓的：在【属性相通】上烦了错误。
这个也一并发给我吧！
谢了！
- 删除 回复oldfish
- 发了。事实上，根据亚他那修的著作，当时亚流也是承认神化的。但是，亚流的问题乃是在于，以神化把基督贬低为一个被神化了的普通人。所以，亚他那修特别在《两会报告》中，花了大量篇幅讨论什么是be God's Son by nature 和be God's sons by participation。这点你可以注意。
路德那篇讲的其实就是加克顿的【四不】。换句话说，把神的属性归于祂的神性，把人的属性归于祂的人性，所有的问题就迎刃而解。你虽然查考出古教父确实承认基督人性被造，但是并没有把属性（在此，为被造）归于其相应的本性。所以你还在犹豫呢！
- 彩虹炫 | 编辑 删除Big
-
一般教会的信条都承认：耶稣又是人、又是神，甚至耶稣是完全的人、也是完全的神。
这个信条有两大目的，一是驳斥耶稣只是人、或者耶稣只是神；二是驳斥耶稣时而是人、时而是神。
教父时期要面对的议题是：耶稣基督是人、还是神。面对着希腊哲学的思维。
宗改时期要面对的是：耶稣是人、基督是神。开始从实物、科学来检查教会的教导。
基本上，都是在探讨耶稣的两性问题：人神合一、两性相通。但是，重点不是怎么论证，而是圣经说了什么，圣经怎么说。
近代的议题，不是在于耶稣又没有人性，乃是耶稣的人性怎么形成的。
一般教会认为耶稣成了受造物，耶稣不是经过被造、或附身才成为受造物。耶稣的身体是受造物，但是耶稣的身体不是受造成的。
- 删除 回复oldfish
- 耶稣的身体是受造物，但是耶稣的身体不是受造成的。
=================================================
您前面的说法切中要害！不过上面这个说法正好就是近代基督论最危险的盲点。就好像，我告诉你，我去超市‘买’了张椅子，这张椅子是我‘买’的，所以不是工厂‘造’的一样荒谬。更危险的是，否定基督人性（这是正确的说法）不是被造，而只是被取得，正是给‘幻影论’开了边门，让他们能够偷偷摸摸的否定基督有真实的人性。
这也是为什么，不论是亚他那修，奥古斯丁，或路德，都必须坚决抵制这样的说法。
而亚他那修在他的Orations14章更是明确的说：
For so long as we are confessing that He became man, there is no question about saying, as was observed before, whether ‘He became,’ or ‘He has been made,’ or ‘created,’ or ‘formed,’ or ‘servant,’ or ‘son of an handmaid,’ or ‘son of man,’ or ‘was constituted,’ or ‘took His journey,’ or ‘bridegroom,’ or ‘brother’s son,’ or ‘brother.’ All these terms happen to be proper to man’s constitution; and such as these do not designate the Essence of the Word, but that He has become man.
因着这个原因，使徒说，‘祂向那造祂者尽忠。’在箴言中，甚至称祂为被造之物。只要我们承认祂成为人，不论我们说‘祂成为，’或‘祂被造作（has been made），’或‘被造（created），’或‘被塑造（formed），’或‘奴仆，’或‘使女之子（son of an handmaid），’或‘人子，’或‘被构成（was constituted），’或‘走了祂的旅程，’或‘新郎’或‘兄弟的儿子，’或‘兄弟，’都是没有问题的。这些词汇都能够合适的别用来描述人的构成。它们都不代表道的素质，而是祂的成为人。
既然如亚他那修这样的【大师】对于基督人性被造的说法都是支持的，我们这些【小人物】又何必用一些杞人忧天的理由，去反对【大师】审核通过的教训呢？
- 彩虹炫 | 编辑 删除Big
-
说过了，教父们关心的是“耶稣是不是人”，不去理会“耶稣怎么成为人”。
自从李氏喊出“耶稣是受造的”，才引起“受造”这个风浪。
先是辩护说“拒绝耶稣是受造”就是“拒绝耶稣是人”。
接着又辩护说教父也是这么说。
如您的引述，教父根本不理会“耶稣怎么成为人”。
因此，这个议题的解答还是在圣经。
圣经明确地否定了“耶稣是受造的”这个议题。
“他到自己的地方来，..... 道成了肉身，住在我们中间”。
老话，修辞学的问题，
动词：受造的，受造成的，
形容词：受造性的，属受造物的，
神成为人，为了替人死，好叫人成为神，得到永生。
人就是人，永远是人。有永生的人也还是人。
- 删除 回复oldfish
- 自从李氏喊出“耶稣是受造的”，才引起“受造”这个风浪。
===
奇怪，你不是自己都承认这是近代神学的问题，怎么又怪在李身上？你应该怪今日基督教界对于真理认识的偏差才对。
先是辩护说“拒绝耶稣是受造”就是“拒绝耶稣是人”。
接着又辩护说教父也是这么说。
=======================
事实就是如此。不论是奥的《三位一体论》或我给你的路德《基督神性和人性》都直接否定了你这说法。欢迎【引经据典】反驳。
圣经明确地否定了“耶稣是受造的”这个议题。
============================
所以，你还是否定基督是人。而你前面做的奥古斯丁的研究刚好就定罪了你的这个说法。
老话，修辞学的问题，
动词：受造的，受造成的，
形容词：受造性的，属受造物的，
===================================
嘻嘻，那么你的意思是：被造的（形容词）不是被造的（动词）？那么创造的（形容词）也不一定是创造（动词）的了，不是吗？还是，你要告诉我，我从超市‘买来（形容词）’的一块肉不是我‘买来（动词）’的？
这样的【逻辑】，无疑是【反智】，【反神学】的。 （这样的话出自于您Big的口，实在令我伤心欲绝 
）
神成为人，为了替人死，好叫人成为神，得到永生。
人就是人，永远是人。有永生的人也还是人。
=================
谁否定了这点？你吗？还是我？
Big，别在【神学】里迷失的方向。劝您，还是【用指定正统教义的正统教父对于正统教义的正统定义来定义正统教义】。否则，基督教的教义不但可以随人【乱掰】，那些什么信条，信经的都可以进焚化炉升天了！
哎，令人感慨的是，坚持信条信经和神学的，实际上在否定信条信经和神学。而没有信条信经甚至被人攻击为反神学的，却在捍卫信条信经和神学。讽刺啊！
- Big
-
是的，拉丁文译本真的翻译成 “被造” ，于是回过头来对照英文圣经译本，发现 只有钦定本（KJV）翻译成 “made 被造” 。
回到希腊文新约手抄本，倒 都是 “genomenou 成为” 。圣经的翻译，希腊文 “ginomai 成为” 多半被翻译成 拉丁文 “facio 造”。有 徒10:40 的 “显现” ，因此 facio 必定还有 “成为” 的意思。
参考：http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words.exe?factus
罗1:3拉丁文译本的factus是分词-完成式-被动态，factus的字根（或字源）有两个可能：facio（造）或fio（发生），而fio是假被动态，也就是说被动态的fio其实是主动的意思，因此，拉丁文译本忠实于希腊文经文。
所以，奥古斯丁没有【错】，是英文翻译错了，导致奥氏成为千古罪人。
- 彩虹炫 | 编辑 删除Big
-
> 事实就是如此。不论是奥的《三位一体论》或我给你的路德《基督神性和人性》
> 都直接否定了你这说法。欢迎【引经据典】反驳。
前面说了，奥氏和路德只关心耶稣是不是人，没有讨论到耶稣如何被造。他们说“被造”，是引述拉丁文圣经；但是拉丁文的“被造”其实不应该翻译成英文的“被造”，一字多义导致了翻译错误。
拉丁文译本翻译成“被造”，但是希腊文是“成为”，既然新约先是用希腊文写成的，所以我仍然维持我既有的立场。
> 你还是否定基督是人。
是的，基督不是人，因为基督既是人、又是神。
> 我从超市‘买来（形容词）’的一块肉不是我‘买来（动词）’的？
我只是在列举一些可能得意思。
> Big，别在【神学】里迷失的方向。劝您，
> 还是【用指定正统教义的正统教父对于正统教义的正统定义来定义正统教义】。
新教的立场就是回归圣经，我只问：圣经怎么说。
神学的目的不过是总结圣经里的真理。
没有圣经根据，那么定义出来的教义顶多冠名为“正统”。
正统教父们没有提到：人将会成为神，只是没有神格。
教父们提到：耶稣再来之前，信耶稣的人已经被神化了。
所以，成为神的人只是有一份永生而已。
在新天新地里，人所拥有的神性还是很有限。
- 彩虹炫 | 编辑 删除Big
- 一些拉丁文网站
http://www.latinvulgate.com/lv/verse.aspx?t=1&b=6
1 3
Concerning his Son, who was made to him of the seed of David, according to the flesh,
de Filio suo qui factus est ex semine David secundum carnem
http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words.exe?factus
fact.us VPAR 3 1 NOM S M PERF PASSIVE PPL
facio, facere, feci, factus V (3rd) TRANS [XXXAO]
make/build/construct/create/cause/do; have built/made; fashion; work (metal);
act/take action/be active; (bowels); act/work (things), function, be effective;
produce; produce by growth; bring forth (young); create, bring into existence;
compose/write; classify; provide; do/perform; commit crime; suppose/imagine;
fact.us VPAR 3 3 NOM S M PERF PASSIVE PPL
fio, feri, factus sum V SEMIDEP [XXXAO]
happen, come about; result (from); take place, be held, occur, arise (event);
be made/created/instituted/elected/appointed/given; be prepared/done; develop;
be made/become; (facio PASS); [fiat => so be it, very well; it is being done];
fact.us VPAR/动词-分词 3/第3类 1/第1种变化 NOM/主词 S/单数 M/阳性 PERF/完成式 PASSIVE/被动态 PPL/分词
facio, facere, feci, factus V/动词 (3rd) TRANS/及物动词-接受词 [XXXAO]
make 做/build 造/construct/create 创造/cause/do; have built/made; fashion; work (metal);
act 行/take action/be active; (bowels); act/work (things), function, be effective;
produce; produce by growth; bring forth (young); create, bring into existence;
compose 编/write 写; classify; provide 供应; do 做/perform; commit crime; suppose/imagine;
fact.us VPAR 3 3 NOM S M PERF PASSIVE PPL
factus 动词-分词 第3类 第3种变化 主词 单数 阳性 完成式 被动态 分词
fio, feri, factus sum V SEMIDEP/半假被动态（完成式的被动态实为主动意） [XXXAO]
happen 发生, come about; result (from); take place, be held, occur, arise (event);
be made 被造/created/instituted/elected 被选/appointed 被指定/given; be prepared/done; develop;
be made/become; (facio PASS); [fiat => so be it, very well; it is being done];
- 删除 回复oldfish
- 新教的立场就是回归圣经，我只问：圣经怎么说。
神学的目的不过是总结圣经里的真理。
没有圣经根据，那么定义出来的教义顶多冠名为“正统”。
=============================================
看您这态度，我还真要开始认为天主教的【使徒统续】还真是有点道理的！
我现在在做亚他那修的翻译，他的《Orations》整个第二部，基本上就是在讨论箴言8:22的翻译。并且，指出亚流派的‘唯独圣经’是违反了大公教会对于该节的正确诠释，而落入异端。
【唯独圣经】并不是只要圣经，不要正统。而这正是新教的误区，也是新教对于【唯独圣经】的误解。若这是您的认知，那么就很麻烦了。因为任何人都可以用【他所认为圣经所含示的意义】去推翻【正统教义】，而使得所谓正统和信经完全失去其应有的功效。（当然，亚他那修，奥古斯丁，马丁路德的正统论点，只要跟这样的人的认知相悖逆，该归正的，不会是与他们观点不同的人，反而会是这三位大师了！ ）这点，我估计是您在轻易抛出所谓【唯独圣经】的时候，所没有思考的。
这是你我认知的根本差距。若在这点上面我们没有共识，任何的讨论都是没有意义的。
- 删除 回复oldfish
- 所以，奥古斯丁没有【错】，是英文翻译错了，导致奥氏成为千古罪人。
=================================================
请参考路德《论基督2性》和亚他那修《反亚流四论文》14章。
- 彩虹炫 | 编辑 删除Big
-
1521年，在沃木斯召开会议（Diet of Worms），路德说，“除非是圣经或真理说服我 — 我不接纳教皇和议会的权威。这个就是新教的精神。
所谓正统，除了是公认，更是因为合乎圣经。
亚他那修，奥古斯丁，马丁路德的正统论点，我说他们支持我，你说他们支持你。这才是你我认知的根本差距。
- 删除 回复oldfish
- 呵呵，估计你对路德当时的情况不了解吧？他难道在教导大家【干啃】圣经？还是以圣经作为验证真理的标准？
我们的差距，乃是在于，我们是否尊重所谓的正统，并愿意在正统的框架里面，来探讨基督教的教义罢了！
- 彩虹炫 | 编辑 删除Big
- 箴言8:22 的“有了我”，英文译本多做“possessed” （有），除了少数，如2007 New Living Translation， Bible in Basic English。拉丁文译本也做“possessed” （有）。
有问题的是七十士译本，做“created”（造）。七十士译本是新约时代通行的希腊文译本，耶稣和使徒多次引用里面的经文。神学上承认翻译无误，否则大家都要回头学习希伯来文、希腊文。但是七十士译本和希伯来文圣经有些出入，除了包括次经外，创世记第11章的家谱也加上一百岁。
- 彩虹炫 | 编辑 删除Big
-
亚他那修《反亚流四论文》14章
“3. As we have shown then they are guilty of great extravagance who say that the Lord is not Son of God, but a work , and it follows that we all of necessity confess that He is Son. ... For terms are not prior to essences, but essences are first, and terms second. ... But when the Essence is an Offspring and Son, then 'He made,' and 'He became,' and 'He created,' no longer properly belong to it, nor designate a work; but 'He made' we use without question for 'He begot.' ”
“For as Solomon, though a son, is called a servant, so, to repeat what was said above, although parents call the sons springing from themselves 'made' and 'created' and 'becoming,' for all this they do not deny their nature. ... He uses then 'make' for 'beget,' and he calls them who were to spring from him, 'made,' and no one questions whether the term has reference to a natural offspring. ”
不要见猎心喜，要仔细看清楚。
首先，奥氏的动机或主题是什么，耶稣不是神的一件作品。
其次，奥氏引用许多其它经文，来解释“造”是指“生”的意思。这个就是唯独圣经的奇妙。我完全单单考查圣经，居然与奥氏长篇大论的结论是相同的。
你引用了许多正统教义来支持你的论述，但是常常在我看过上下文后，我发觉你的引用多半是支持我的，有些也只是有支持你的可能性。长久的讨论，使我越来越坚信唯独圣经，因为圣经把真理、正统、教父都拉在一起。别人或许害怕教父言论会出错，我却因为长期的讨论和考查，反而更加确信教父对圣经的忠实性。
- 删除 回复oldfish
- 哎，你先搞清楚老奥在论基督的神性？还是人性？别断章取义。仔细看看14章的结论：
11. Hence it holds that the Apostle’s expression, ‘He made,’ does not prove that the Word is made, but that body, which He took like ours; and in consequence He is called our brother, as having become man. But if it has been shewn, that, even though the word ‘made’ be referred to the Very Word, it is used for ‘begat,’ what further perverse expedient will they be able to fall upon, now that the present discussion has cleared up the word in every point of view, and shewn that the Son is not a work, but in Essence indeed the Father’s offspring, while in the Economy, according to the good pleasure[271]of the Father, He was on our behalf made, and consists as man? For this reason then it is said by the Apostle, ‘Who was faithful to Him that made Him;’ and in the Proverbs, even creation is spoken of. For so long as we are confessing that He became man, there is no question about saying, as was observed before, whether ‘He became,’ or ‘He has been made,’ or ‘created,’ or ‘formed,’ or ‘servant,’ or ‘son of an handmaid,’ or ‘son of man,’ or ‘was constituted,’ or ‘took His journey,’ or ‘bridegroom,’ or ‘brother’s son,’ or ‘brother.’ All these terms happen to be proper to man’s constitution; and such as these do not designate the Essence of the Word, but that He has become man.
别告诉我基督是神，不是人！
- 彩虹炫 | 编辑 删除Big
-
关乎基督神性与人性的辩论，由马丁路德博士作于1483-1546；
translated from the Latin text 路德没有违背圣经，圣经也没有违背真理。
英文的 to be made 有 to become （成为）的意思，拉丁文的 factus 也有“成为”的意思。
老话一句，路德所要强调的是：耶稣是人。
路德不正面回应“耶稣的人性是否被造”。 路德认为，耶稣是受造物，那是因为耶稣有人性。人性是一个性质，耶稣穿上了、取了人性。 路德一再强调是“人的性情”。
第13条是个争议，“an errantly” 被翻译成中文 “明显的”。
但是从上下文，以及“it is said”，意思应该是 “错误地说”。
- 删除 回复oldfish
- 呵呵，难道路德他跟你一样，否认基督是被造的吗？你引用路德的话“因这缘故，有人能大胆的说：“基督是受造之物”， 因为明显的，基督是被造的。”就否定了你所谓基督有被造的人性，但是他的人性不是被造的说法。
Big，劝你，停在这里才是上策。你引用的资料，都在定罪你那种‘基督有一个不是被造的被造的人性’的怪异理论。
所以，路德的话再次证明，‘取’无法被用来否定基督人性就是‘被造’的事实。如此而已！
- 彩虹炫 | 编辑 删除Big
-
爱莫能助！
老是这么断章取义地胡乱引用别人的话，吃亏的还是自己。
知道你们很仔细在考查，但是但是，请你们把前后文的意思读通顺了之后，才引用，不要张冠李戴。
还有，中文翻译的部分，要请教熟稔英文的人。比如“an errantly”到底是什么意思。
- 彩虹炫 | 编辑 删除Big
-
就上文。神造，不是话 Word 被造，而是身体被造。他取了这个身体，像我们一样。“造”是用作“生”。圣子不是一件作品，在本质上是圣父的后裔。对人被造的各样描述并不表明话的本质（the Essence of the Word），但是他成为人。
亚他尼亚企图保持耶稣的神性，而努力解释“造”的背后含义，最后说出“他成为人”。
- 删除 回复oldfish
- 1. 哎，是【亚（他那修）】！不是【奥（古斯丁）】。
2. 你自己的话有定罪了你！你明明否定基督人性是被造的，甚至声称圣经没有这样的教导！现在又承认亚他那修教导基督人性被造？（请注意，亚他那修可是认为箴言8:22就是指基督的人性是被造的！）到底是你对？还是亚他那修对？
3. 我们从来没有教导基督的神性是被造的，就如同亚他那修一样。这点，麻烦别再‘扯’进来，免得浪费时间。
- 删除 回复oldfish
-
别再扯了。当年在海外基督徒论坛，光明看见改革宗讲不过，就拼命拿这个字做文章，笑到肚皮都快破了。她就说，就算一个字翻译错了，也不影响路德整篇文章的意思。
Big，别学那些改革宗小肚鸡肠的搞这些。不值得。
- 彩虹炫 | 编辑 删除Big
-
亚氏说了，“被造”怎么讲都行，但是对人说的，不关于耶稣的本质，总之耶稣是成为人。
对于亚氏来说，耶稣的“被造”都是“生”的意思。
“亚他那修可是认为箴言8:22就是指基督的人性是被造的！”
这个就再查查了。 亚氏在讨论耶稣的神性，亚氏认为异端所引用的经文并不能证实耶稣是受造的。
亚氏根本不理会经文在说什么，一股劲地捍卫耶稣的神性。
后来，如我前面提的，亚氏采用“造可造，非常造”来回应，总之耶稣不是一般受造的。我还算客气，会提示一字多义、字义交集，会提示经文出处的主旨。
不要急于引用教父的话，不要教父提到什么就认定教父同意什么。
另外，箴言8:22不是亚氏提出来的，亚氏被动回应这个问题。
箴言8:22 的“有了我”，英文译本多做“possessed” （有），除了少数，如2007 New Living Translation， Bible in Basic English。拉丁文译本也做“possessed” （有）。有问题的是七十士译本，做“created”（造）（参考：http://www.newadvent.org/bible/pro008.htm#verse22）。 ἔκτισεν 有两个字根 ἐκτίνω （付清）和 κτίζω （造）。（参考：http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=e)%2Fktisen&la=greek&prior=po/lin#lexicon）
这个问题怎么解决，我也不知道。耶稣和使徒都用七十士译本，答案一，他们欣然接受（耶稣在起初就造好了，那么为什么要投胎？）；答案二，不是“造”的意思；答案三，不是指耶稣（是圣灵，或智慧）。
- 删除 回复oldfish
- 归根究底，一个问题：
你说基督人性不是被造的
亚他那修说基督人性是被造的
你对？还是他对？
附注：我对于你胆敢批判亚他那修【不理会经文在说什么】这种说法深感震惊！（希望你不会真的认为他‘私意解经’，甚至‘不会解经’。）你若知道npnf204中的Orations16-22（基本上是Orations2的80%）解箴言8:22，你就不会敢这样轻率的批判他了。最后，解决之道很简单，你只要承认【正统不是你Big指定的，你Big该以指定正统者对于正统的定义来看基督教的神学】，你就不会陷入如此进退两难的尴尬之地！如此而已。
No comments:
Post a Comment