General Information 一般資料

Incarnation denotes the embodiment of a deity in human form. The idea occurs frequently in mythology. 化身,是指體現了神在人類形式。想法經常出現在神話中。 In ancient times, certain people, especially kings and priests, were often believed to be divinities.在遠古時代,一些人,尤其是國王和祭司,往往相信他們是神。 In Hinduism, Vishnu is believed to have taken nine incarnations, or Avatars. For Christians, the incarnation is a central dogma referring to the belief that the eternal son of God, the second person of the Trinity, became man in the person of Jesus Christ.在印度教, vishnu相信已採取九個化身,或者替身。 基督徒,化身,是一個中心法則是指一種信念,即永恆上帝的兒子,第二人的三位一體,成為人,在人的耶穌基督。

The incarnation was defined as a doctrine only after long struggles by early church councils.肉身被界定為一種理論,只有經過長期奮鬥,由初期教會議會。 The Council of Nicaea (325) defined the deity of Christ against Arianism; the Council of Constantinople (381) defined the full humanity of the incarnate Christ against Apollinarianism; the Council of Ephesus (431) defined the unity of Christ's person against Nestorianism; and the Council of Chalcedon (451) defined the two natures of Christ, divine and human, against Eutyches.理事會的尼西亞( 325 ) ,確定了神的基督對arianism ;安理會的君士坦丁堡( 381 ) ,確定了充分的人類肉身的基督對亞波里拿留主義;安理會的以弗所( 431 ) ,確定了統一的基督的人對景教;安理會的chalcedon ( 451 ) ,確定了兩種性質的基督,神聖和人力,對歐迪奇。

BELIEVE Religious Information Source web-site相信宗教信息來源
Our List of 2,300 Religious Subjects我們所列出的2300名宗教科目
Reginald H Fuller ( Reginald h更充分

Bibliography 參考書目
B Hebblethwaite, The Incarnation (1987); J Hick, ed., The Myth of God Incarnate (1977); JAT Robinson, The Human Face of God (1973). b hebblethwaite ,化身( 1987 ) ; j hick ,版,神話上帝的肉身( 1977年) ;李祖澤羅賓遜,人類面臨的神( 1973年) 。

Incarna'tion incarna'tion

Advanced Information 先進的信息

The Incarnation was that act of grace whereby Christ took our human nature into union with his Divine Person, became man.化身,是該法的寬限期,讓基督了我們的人性,成為聯盟與他的神人,成為男子。 Christ is both God and man.基督既是人與上帝。 Human attributes and actions are predicated of him, and he of whom they are predicated is God.人的屬性和行動的前提,他和他的人,他們的前提是上帝。 A Divine Person was united to a human nature (Acts 20:28; Rom. 8:32; 1 Cor. 2:8; Heb. 2:11-14; 1 Tim. 3:16; Gal. 4:4, etc.).神的人是美國的一個人的本質(使徒20時28分;光碟。 8時32分, 1肺心病。 2時08分;以弗所書2:11-14 ;一日添。 3:16 ;加爾。 4時04分,等) 。 The union is hypostatical, ie, is personal; the two natures are not mixed or confounded, and it is perpetual.該聯盟是hypostatical ,即是個人;兩個性質不混合或混淆,而且是永久的。

(Easton Illustrated Dictionary) (伊斯頓說明字典)


Advanced Information 先進的信息

(Lat. in and caro, stem carn, meaning "flesh"). ( lat.在和卡羅,幹carn ,意為"肉" ) 。 In the context of Christian theology, the act whereby the eternal Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, without ceasing to be what he is, God the Son, took into union with himself what he before that act did not possess, a human nature, "and so (He) was and continues to be God and man in two distinct natures and one person, forever" (Westminister Shorter Catechism, Q. 21).語境中的基督教神學,法,即永恆上帝的兒子,第二人的聖三一,如果沒有止步不被他的是,上帝的兒子,考慮到聯盟,並由他什麼,他之前的行為並不具備,一個人的本質"等等, (他) ,並繼續被人與上帝在兩種截然不同的性質和一個人,永遠" ( westminister短問答,問: 21 ) 。 Scripture support for this doctrine is replete, eg, John 1:14; Rom.經文支持這一學說充斥,例如約翰1:14 ;光碟。 1:3; 8:3; Gal. 1:3 ; 8時03分;加爾。 4:4; Phil. 4時04分;菲爾。 2:7 - 8; 1 Tim. 2時07 -8 : 1添。 3:16; 1 John 4:2; 2 John 7 (cf. also Eph. 2:15; Col. 1:21 - 22; 1 Pet. 3:18; 4:1). 3:16 1約翰4點02分, 2約翰7 (參見也以弗所書2時15分;上校1:21 -2 2: 1的寵物。 3時1 8分; 4 :1) 。

The Nature of the Incarnation性質的化身

Like many other theological terms, this term can be misleading.像其他許多神學而言,這個詞可以有誤導之嫌。 It might suggest that the eternal Logos by the act of incarnation was confined to the human body of Jesus of Nazareth.這可能意味著永恆的標誌,由該法的化身,僅限於人體的拿撒勒的耶穌。 The implication of such a construction of the result of the incarnation is that God the Son, kenotically "emptying" himself, divested himself of his attribute of being always and everywhere immediately present in his universe.言下之意,這樣的建設成果的體現,是上帝的兒子, kenotically "放空"自己,自己剝奪了他的本質屬性,作為總是處處隨即在他的宇宙。 But to hold such a view is tantamount to contending that he who enfleshed himself as Jesus of Nazareth, while doubtless more than man, is not quite God.但持有這種看法就是,認為他的人enfleshed自己是拿撒勒的耶穌,而毫無疑問,以上的男子,但並不神。 Divine attributes are not, however, characteristics separate and distinct from God's essence that he can set aside when he desires.神的屬性是沒有,不過,特色獨立和獨特的從上帝的本質,他能撥出時,他的慾望。

To the contrary, it is precisely the sum total of God's attributes that constitutes the essence of his deity and expresses his divine glory.正好相反,這正是總和的上帝的屬性構成的本質,他的神性,並表示了他的神的榮耀。 Jesus, during the days of his flesh, claimed omnipresence for himself in Matt.耶穌,在幾天他的肉體,無處不在聲稱自己在馬特。 18:20 and 28:20. 18時20分和28:20 。 Recognizing this, the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451), whose creedal labors produced the Christological definition that fixed the boundaries for all future discussion, declared that Jesus Christ possessed "two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation, the distinctiveness of the natures being by no means removed because of the union, but the properties of each nature being preserved" (emphasis added; cf. also Calvin, Inst. 2.13.4; Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 48).認識到這一點,安理會的chalcedon (公元451 ) ,其creedal勞動力產生了基督論的定義,即固定的界限,為今後所有的討論後,宣布耶穌基督擁有"兩個性質紛亂,沒有改變,沒有分裂,分離,獨特性的性質正在絕非取消,因為該聯盟的,但性能的每一個性質被保存下來" (著重補充;比照也卡爾文斯特。事項2.12.4 ;海德堡問答,問: 48 ) 。 The doctrine, thus clarified, means that in the incarnation the divine Logos, while in the body of Jesus and personally united to it, is also beyond the bounds of the human nature he assumed.該學說認為,從而澄清了,也就是說,在化身神聖的標誌,而在耶穌的身體,並親自為美國給它的,同時也是超越界限的人的本質是他就任。

It is very important, in light of what has just been said, to underscore that in the incarnation the divine Logos did not take into union with himself a human person; otherwise, he would have been two persons, two egos, with two centers of self consciousness.這是非常重要的,針對什麼剛才已說過,要強調指出,在化身神聖標誌,沒有考慮到聯盟與自己是一個人,否則,他將已是兩個人,兩個自我,有兩個中心自我意識。

The Scriptures will not tolerate such a view.念經,絕對不會容忍這種看法。 Never does Jesus Christ, when referring to himself, say "we" or "us" or "our"; he always uses "I" or "me" or "my."從來沒有耶穌基督,當談到自己,說"我們"或"我們"或"我們" ,他一直以"我"或"我"或者"我的" 。 What the divine Logos, who was already and eternally a person, did do, through the operation of the Holy Spirit, was to take into union with himself a human nature with the result that Jesus Christ was one person with a divine nature (ie, a complex of divine attributes) and a human nature (ie, a complex of human attributes).什麼神聖的標識,他們已經和大智一個人,做了,通過運作聖靈,是考慮到聯盟與自己是一個人的本性其結果是,耶穌基督是一個人與神性(即一個複雜的神的屬性)和人性(即,這是個複雜的人類屬性) 。 This is not to say that the human nature of Christ is impersonal; "the human nature of Christ was not for a moment impersonal. The Logos assumed that nature into personal subsistence with Himself. The human nature has its personal existence in the person of the Logos. It is in - personal rather than impersonal" (L. Berkhof).這並不是說,人的本質的基督是人性, "人性的基督不是由某一個時刻人性。徽標假設性質轉化為自身的生存與自己的人性有其個人的存在,在人的標識,它是在-個人,而不是客觀的" (屬,伯克霍夫) 。 John Murray writes: "The Son of God did not become personal by incarnation. He became incarnate but there was no suspension of his divine self identity."約翰穆雷寫道: "上帝的兒子並沒有成為個人所化身,他成為肉身的,但並沒有中止了他的神聖的自我認同" 。

The Effecting Means of the Incarnation在實施手段的化身

The means, according to Scripture, whereby the incarnation came about is the virginal conception (a more accurate description than virgin birth) of the Son of God by the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary (Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:16, 18, 20, 23, 25; Luke 1:27, 34 - 35; 2:5; 3:23; Gal. 4:4).手段,根據經文,而化身來的,是處女(一個更準確的描述比處女出生)的上帝的兒子,由聖靈在子宮裡的瑪麗(以賽亞7時14分;馬特1 : 16日, 18日, 20日, 23日, 25日;盧克1:27 ,第34條-第3 5條; 2 :5; 3時2 3分;加爾。 4時0 4分) 。 Due to the interpenetration of the persons within the Godhead (cf. John 14:20; 17:21 - 23; Heb. 9:14), the Holy Spirit, by means of the virginal conception, insured the divine personality of the God - man without creating at the same time a new human personality.由於要相互滲透的人,神的源頭(參見約翰14:20 ; 17:21 -2 3歲;以弗所書9 :14) ,聖靈,即通過處女,被保險人的神的人格神-男子又不造成在同一時間,一個新的人的人格。 As Berkhof says: "If Christ had been generated by man, He would have been a human person, included in the covenant of works, and as such would have shared the common guilt of mankind. But now that His subject, His ego, His person, is not out of Adam, He is not in the covenant of works and is free from the guilt of sin. And being free from the guilt of sin, His human nature could also be kept free, both before and after His birth, from the pollution of sin."因為,伯克霍夫地說: "如果基督已經產生的人,他會一直一個人的人,包括在公約的作品的,正因為如此,將有共同的共同有罪的人類,但現在,他的主題,他的自我,他的人,是並不過分的亞當,他是沒有在公約的工程,並是免費的,由有罪,罪的,而且不受有罪,罪的,他的人性,也可隨時免費的,之前和他出生後,從污染的罪惡" 。

Scriptural Representations of the Incarnate Person聖經交涉的肉身的人

Because Jesus Christ is the God - man (one person who took human nature into union with his divine nature in the one divine person), the Scriptures can predicate of his person whatever can be predicated of either nature.因為耶穌是上帝-男子(其中一人上台人性成聯盟與他的神性是在一個神聖的人) ,經文可以始發他的人,無論可以推測,這兩種性質。 In fact, can be predicated of either nature.事實上,可以推測,這兩種性質。 In fact, the person of Christ may be designated in terms of one nature while what is predicated of him so designated is true by virtue of his union with the other nature (cf. Westminister Confession, VIII, vii).事實上,人的基督,可在指定的條件之一,性質是什麼,而前提是他的指定是真正憑藉其聯盟與其他性質(參見westminister供述,八,七) 。 In other words:或者換句話說:

RL Reymond研究部主管reymond
(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary) ( Elwell宣布了福音字典)

Bibliography 參考書目
L Berkhof, Systematic Theology; C Hodge, Systematic Theology, II; J Murray, Collected Writings, II; BB Warfield, The Person and Work of Christ.升,伯克霍夫的,有系統的神學; c Hodge的,有系統的神學,二; j默里,收集道具,二; BB心跳沃菲爾德,個人和工作中的基督。

The Incarnation化身

Catholic Information 天主教資訊

I. The Fact of the Incarnation一,事實的化身

(1) The Divine Person of Jesus Christ ( 1 )神人耶穌基督

A. Old Testament Proofs答:舊約證明

B. New Testament Proofs乙新約聖經的證據

C. Witness of Tradition三證人的傳統

(2) The Human Nature of Jesus Christ ( 2 )人性的耶穌基督

(3) The Hypostatic Union ( 3 )本質聯盟

A. The Witness of the Scriptures答:見證會念經

B. Witness of Tradition乙證人的傳統

II.二。 The Nature of the Incarnation性質的化身

(1) Nestorianism ( 1 )景教

(2) Monophysitism ( 2 ) monophysitism

(3) Monothelitism ( 3 ) monothelitism

(4) Catholicism ( 4 )天主教

III.三。 Effects of the Incarnation影響的化身

(1) On Christ Himself ( 1 )對基督本人

A. On the Body of Christ答:對基督的身體

B. On the Human Soul of Christ乙對人的靈魂的基督

C. On the God-Man丙對神人

(2) The Adoration of the Humanity of Christ ( 2 )崇拜的人性基督

(3) Other Effects of the Incarnation ( 3 )其他影響的化身

The Incarnation is the mystery and the dogma of the Word made Flesh.化身,是個謎和教條的字,取得了血和肉。 ln this technical sense the word incarnation was adopted, during the twelfth century, from the Norman-French, which in turn had taken the word over from the Latin incarnatio. LN的這項技術意義一詞化身獲得通過,在12世紀,從諾曼-法國人,而這又進一步採取了字,是從拉丁語incarnatio 。 The Latin Fathers, from the fourth century, make common use of the word; so Saints Jerome, Ambrose, Hilary, etc. The Latin incarnatio (in: caro, flesh) corresponds to the Greek sarkosis, or ensarkosis, which words depend on John (i, 14) kai ho Logos sarx egeneto, "And the Word was made flesh".拉丁美洲的父親,從四世紀時,共同使用這個詞,所以聖徒杰羅姆,劉漢銓,希拉蕊等拉丁語incarnatio (在:卡羅,肉) ,對應於希臘語sarkosis ,或ensarkosis ,換言之取決於約翰。 (一, 14 )啟何標識扎爾克斯egeneto "一詞是肉" 。 These two terms were in use by the Greek Fathers from the time of St. Irenæus--ie according to Harnack, AD 181-189 (cf. lren., "Adv. Haer." III, l9, ni; Migne, VII, 939).這兩個名詞在使用由希臘教父,從當時的聖irenæus -即根據的H arnack,公元1 81-189(參見l ren, "副h aer" 。三, 1 9,倪;米涅,七, 939 ) 。 The verb sarkousthai, to be made flesh, occurs in the creed of the Council of Nicaea (cf. Denzinger, "Enchiridion", n. 86).動詞sarkousthai ,以肉身,是發生在信條理事會的尼西亞(參見登青格" , enchiridion " , 12月31日86 ) 。 In the language of Holy Writ, flesh means, by synecdoche, human nature or man (cf. Luke 3:6; Romans 3:20).在語文的神聖令狀,肉體的方式,由提喻,人的本性還是人為的(參見路加福音3時06分;入鄉隨俗默3:20 ) 。 Francisco Suárez deems the choice of the word incarnation to have been very apt.弗朗西斯科蘇亞雷斯認為選擇這個詞的化身已非常恰當的。 Man is called flesh to emphasize the weaker part of his nature.男子叫肉強調較弱的部分,其性質。 When the Word is said to have been incarnate, to have been made Flesh, the Divine goodness is better expressed whereby God "emptied Himself . . . and was found in outward bearing (schemati) like a man" (Phil. ii, 7); He took upon Himself not only the nature of man, a nature capable of suffering and sickness and death, He became like a man in all save only sin (cf. Francisco Suárez, "De Incarnatione", Praef. n. 5).當一詞據說已經肉身,已取得了肉體,神聖的善,是更好地表達,即上帝"掏空自己… … 。以及被發現在向外軸承( schemati )像男人" ( phil.二,七日)他上台後,自己不僅是大自然的人,自然有能力的痛苦和疾病和死亡,他成為像男人在所有拯救只有單仲偕(參見弗朗西斯科蘇亞雷斯, "德incarnatione " , praef 。 12月31日5 ) 。 The Fathers now and then use the word henanthropesis, the act of becoming man, to which correspond the terms inhumanatio, used by some Latin Fathers, and "Menschwerdung", current in German.父親現在,然後用這個詞henanthropesis ,該法案成為男子,以對應條款inhumanatio ,所用的一些拉丁語的父親,和" menschwerdung " ,目前在德國。 The mystery of the Incarnation is expressed in Scripture by other terms: epilepsis, the act of taking on a nature (Hebrews 2:16): epiphaneia, appearance (2 Timothy 1:10); phanerosis hen sarki, manifestation in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16); somatos katartismos, the fitting of a body, what some Latin Fathers call incorporatio (Hebrews 10:5); kenosis, the act of emptying one's self (Phil., ii, 7).這個神秘的化身,是表示在經文中,由其他條款: epilepsis說,該法案的同時就其性質(希伯來書2:16 ) : epiphaneia ,外觀(提摩太後1:10 ) ; phanerosis母雞sarki ,表現在肉體中( 1提摩太後3:16 ) ; somatos katartismos ,裝修的一個機構,與一些拉美父親呼籲incorporatio (希伯來書10時05分) ; kenosis說,該法案的排空一個人的自我( phil. ,二, 7 ) 。 In this article, we shall treat of the fact, nature and effects of the Incarnation.在這篇文章中,我們會處理的事實,性質和後果的化身。


The Incarnation implies three facts: (1) The Divine Person of Jesus Christ; (2) The Human Nature of Jesus Christ; (3) The Hypostatic Union of the Human with the Divine Nature in the Divine Person of Jesus Christ.化身意味著三個事實: ( 1 )神人耶穌基督; ( 2 )人性的耶穌基督; ( 3 )本質聯盟的人與神性,在神的人的耶穌基督。


We presuppose the historicity, of Jesus Christ -- ie that He was a real person of history (cf. JESUS CHRIST); the Messiahship of Jesus; the historical worth and authenticity of the Gospels and Acts; the Divine ambassadorship of Jesus Christ established thereby; the establishment of an infallible and never failing teaching body to have and to keep the deposit of revealed truth entrusted to it by the Divine ambassador, Jesus Christ; the handing down of all this deposit by tradition and of part thereof by Holy Writ; the canon and inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures--all these questions will be found treated in their proper places.我們假定歷史性,耶穌基督-即他是一個真正的人的歷史(參見耶穌基督) ; m essiahship耶穌;歷史價值和真實性的福音和行為;神聖駐印度大使耶穌基督從而確立;建立一個犯錯從來沒有教學機構,以有,並隨時向礦床的發現真理賦予它的神聖大使,耶穌基督;移交下來的全部存款,這是由傳統的一部分時,由聖令狀;佳能和感召力的神聖經文-所有這些問題都將被發現,治療,在適當的地方。 Moreover, we assume that the Divine nature and Divine personality are one and inseparable (see TRINITY).此外,我們假定了神性和神聖的人格是一個不可分割的(見三一) 。 The aim of this article is to prove that the historical person, Jesus Christ, is really and truly God, --ie has the nature of God, and is a Divine person.本文的目的是要證明歷史的人,耶穌基督,是實實在在地神-即有天主的本性,是一個神聖的人。 The Divinity of Jesus Christ is established by the Old Testament, by the New Testament and by tradition.神耶穌基督,建立了舊約,新約聖經和傳統。

A. Old Testament Proofs答:舊約證明

The Old Testament proofs of the Divinity of Jesus presuppose its testimony to Him as the Christ, the Messias (see MESSIAS).舊約的證明神性的耶穌假定其證詞中,以他為基督, messias (見messias ) 。 Assuming then, that Jesus is the Christ, the Messias promised in the Old Testament, from the terms of the promise it is certain that the One promised is God, is a Divine Person in the strictest sense of the word, the second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Son of the Father, One in nature with the Father and the Holy Spirit.假設當時,耶穌是基督,是messias答應在舊約,從條款的承諾,這是肯定的是一個承諾,是上帝,是一個神聖的人,在嚴格的意義上的字,第二人的聖三一,兒子的父親,一個在性質上與父親和聖靈。 Our argument is cumulative.我們的論點是越積越多。 The texts from the Old Testament have weight by themselves; taken together with their fulfilment in the New Testament, and with the testimony of Jesus and His apostles and His Church, they make up a cumulative argument in favour of the Divinity of Jesus Christ that is overwhelming in its force.該文從舊約有重量本身;連同其履行在新約聖經,並與見證耶穌和他的門徒和他的教會,他們彌補累計論點支持神耶穌基督是壓倒在它的力量。 The Old Testament proofs we draw from the Psalms, the Sapiential Books and the Prophets.舊約證明,我們從中吸取了詩篇, sapiential書籍和先知。


Psalm 2:7.詩篇2時07分。 "The Lord hath said to me: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee." "主對我說:祢是我的兒子,在這一天我有造物主祢" 。 Here Jahweh, ie, God of Israel, speaks to the promised Messias.這裡jahweh ,即上帝的以色列,說話應許之messias 。 So St. Paul interprets the text (Hebrews 1:5) while proving the Divinity of Jesus from the Psalms.所以聖保祿解釋文(希伯來書1:5 ) ,而要證明神的耶穌從詩篇。 The objection is raised that St. Paul is here not interpreting but only accommodating Scripture.該提出異議,認為聖保羅是在這裡,看不到解釋,但只可容納經文。 He applies the very same words of Psalm 2:7 to the priesthood (Hebrews 5:5) and to the resurrection (Acts 13:33) of Jesus; but only in a figurative sense did the Father beget the Messias in the priesthood and resurrection of Jesus; hence only in a figurative sense did He beget Jesus as His Son.他運用同樣的話詩篇2時07分,以成為神職人員(希伯來書5:5 ) ,並在復活(使徒13時33分)耶穌的,但只有在一個形象化的責任感做父親帶來了messias在神職人員和復活耶穌的,因此只有在一個比喻的意義上,他才會有耶穌是他的兒子。 We answer that St. Paul speaks figuratively and accommodates Scripture in the matter of the priesthood and resurrection but not in the matter of the eternal generation of Jesus.我們回答說,聖保羅講形象,並同時容納經文在這件事的神職人員和復活,而不是在這件事的永恆一代的耶穌。 The entire context of this chapter shows there is a question of real sonship and real Divinity of Jesus.整個背景這一章的說明是有問題的實質sonship和真正的神性的耶穌。 In the same verse, St. Paul applies to Christ the words of Jahweh to David, the type of Christ: "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son".在同一首詩,聖保祿適用於基督的話jahweh大衛,類型的基督: "我一定會向他的父親,他應是我的兒子" 。 (2 Samuel 7:14) In the following verse, Christ is spoken of as the first-born of the Father, and as the object of the adoration of the angels; but only God is adored: "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever. . . Thy God, O God, hath anointed thee" (Ps. xliv, 7, 8). ( 2塞繆爾7時14分)在下列詩句,基督是口語的,因為頭胎生的父親,並為對象的崇拜天使,但只有上帝是崇拜: "你的寶座,上帝啊,是永遠到永遠… … 。你的上帝,上帝啊,祂所不信任你" (詩篇四十四,第7 ,第8條) 。 St. Paul refers these words to Christ as to the Son of God (Hebrews 1:9).聖保祿指這些話,以基督為中心,以上帝的兒子(希伯來1時09分) 。 We follow the Massoretic reading, "Thy God, O God".我們按照massoretic上面寫著: "你的上帝,上帝啊" 。 The Septuagint and New Testament reading, ho theos, ho theos sou, "O God, Thy God", is capable of the same interpretation.該septuagint和新約聖經讀,何theos ,何theos藪, "上帝啊,你的上帝" ,是有能力,同時解釋。 Hence, the Christ is here called God twice; and his throne, or reign, is said to have been from eternity.因此,基督是這裡所謂上帝兩次和他的王位,或者在位,據說他已被從永恆。 Ps.聚苯乙烯。 cix, 1: "The Lord said to my Lord (Heb., Jahweh said to my Adonai): Sit thou at my right hand". cix , 1 : "耶和華說:我的主(希伯來書, jahweh說,我adonai ) :仰臥起坐你在我的右手" 。 Christ cites this text to prove that He is Adonai (a Hebrew term used only for Deity), seated at the right hand of Jahweh, who is invariably the great God of Israel (Matthew 22:44).基督引用了這一案文,以證明他是在adonai (一希伯來語任期僅用於神) ,在座位上的右手jahweh ,他們始終是偉大的神的以色列(馬太22時44分) 。 In the same psalm, Jahweh says to Christ: "Before the day-star, I begat thee".在同一詩篇, jahweh說基督說: "前一天明星,我begat祢" 。 Hence Christ is the begotten of God; was begotten before the world was, and sits at the right hand of the heavenly Father.因此,基督是造物主的神;是造物主在世界面前是,坐落於右手的天父。 Other Messianic psalms might be cited to show the clear testimony of these inspired poems to the Divinity of the promised Messias.其他彌賽亞詩篇可能引以顯示清楚地證明了這些靈感,詩歌到神的應許之messias 。


So clearly do these Sapiential Books describe uncreated Wisdom as a Divine Person distinct from the First Person, that rationalists have resort to a subterfuge and claim that the doctrine of uncreated Wisdom was taken over by the authors of these books from the Neo-Platonic philosophy of the Alexandrian school.如此明確地做這些sapiential書籍描述uncreated智慧,因為神的人,有別於第一人,即有理性訴諸一個說辭,並宣稱該學說uncreated智慧被接管的作者,這些書由新柏拉圖哲學在亞歷山大的學校。 It is to be noted that in the pre-sapiential books of the Old Testament, the uncreated Logos, or hrema, is the active and creative principle of Jahweh (see Psalm 32:4; 32:6; 118:89; 102:20; Isaiah 40:8; 55:11).這是值得注意的是在會前sapiential書籍的舊約, uncreated標識,或hrema ,是積極和創造性的原則jahweh (見詩篇32:4 ; 32:6 ; 118:89 ; 102:20 ;以賽亞書40:8 ; 55:11 ) 。 Later the logos became sophia, the uncreated Word became uncreated Wisdom.後來標識成為索菲亞, uncreated聖言成了uncreated智慧。 To Wisdom were attributed all the works of creation and Divine Providence (see Job 28:12: Proverbs 8 and 9; Sirach 1:1; 24:5-12; Wisdom 6:21; 9:9).以智慧,是由於所有的作品創作和神聖的普羅維登斯(見就業28:12 :諺語8日和9日;西拉奇1:1 24:5-12 ;智慧6點21分; 9時09分) 。 In Wis., ix, 1, 2, we have a remarkable instance of the attribution of God's activity to both the Logos and Wisdom.在威斯康辛州,九,一,二,我們有一個顯著的實例歸於上帝的活動,無論是標識和智慧。 This identification of the pre-Mosaic Logos with the Sapiential Wisdom and the Johannine Logos (see LOGOS) is proof that the rationalistic subterfuge is not effective.這個鑑定前花葉標識與sapiential智慧和johannine標識(見標識) ,這證明了理性的說辭是不能奏效的。 The Sapiential Wisdom and the Johannine Logos are not an Alexandrian development of the PIatonic idea, but are a Hebraistic development of the pre-Mosaic uncreated and creating Logos or Word.該sapiential智慧和johannine標識,是不是亞歷山大發展的piatonic想法,但是是一個hebraistic發展前花葉uncreated和創造的標識,或者一句話。

Now for the Sapiential proofs: In Ecclus., xxiv, 7, Wisdom is described as uncreated, the "first born of the Most High before all creatures", "from the beginning and before the World was I made" (ibid., 14).現為sapiential證明材料:在ecclus ,二十四,七,智慧被稱為uncreated , "首先來自於最高級之前,所有的動物" , "從一開始,並在世界面前,是我" (同上,第14 ) 。 So universal was the identification of Wisdom with the Christ, that even the Arians concurred with the Fathers therein; and strove to prove by the word ektise, made or created, of verse 14, that incarnate Wisdom was created.如此普遍的是查明智慧與基督,連arians贊同父親;和奮鬥,以證明所字ektise ,取得或製造,韻文14 ,即肉身的智慧創造。 The Fathers did not make answer that the word Wisdom was not to be understood of the Christ, but explained that the word ektise had here to be interpreted in keeping with other passages of Holy Writ and not according to its usual meaning,--that of the Septuagint version of Genesis 1:1.父親沒有回答這個字的智慧是不被理解的基督,但解釋說,這個詞ektise曾在這裡被解釋為配合其他的神聖令狀,而不是根據其通常含義, -即該septuagint版的1:1 。 We do not know the original Hebrew or Aramaic word; it may have been the same word that occurs in Prov.我們不知道原來希伯來語或阿拉米文詞,它可能已被同一個詞表示,發生在省。 viii, 22: "The Lord possessed me (Hebrew gat me by generation; see Genesis 4:1) in the beginning of His ways, before He made anything from the beginning, I was set up from eternity."八, 22 : "耶和華擁有我(希伯來語GAT實現我的這一代,見成因4:1 ) ,在開始時,他的方法之前,他作了什麼,從一開始我是成立由永恆" 。 Wisdom speaking of itself in the Book of Ecclesiasticus cannot contradict what Wisdom says of itself in Proverbs and elsewhere.智慧,在談到自己在書中的ecclesiasticus不能違背了什麼智慧說,將自己的諺語及其他地方。 Hence the Fathers were quite right in explaining ektise not to mean made or created in any strict sense of the terms (see St. Athanasius, "Sermo ii contra Arianos", n. 44; Migne, PG, XXVI, 239).因此,父親說得不錯,在解釋ektise不等於取得或創造,在任何嚴格意義上的條款(見聖athanasius , " sermo二矛盾arianos " , 12月31日44 ;米涅,編號, 26 , 239 ) 。 The Book of Wisdom, also, speaks clearly of Wisdom as "the worker of all things . . . a certain pure emanation of the glory of the almighty God . . . the brightness of eternal light, and the unspotted mirror of God's majesty, and the image of his goodness."這本書的智慧,也講清楚的智慧"工人的一切事物… … 。某純洩漏的榮耀,全能的上帝… … 。亮度永恆的光,和unspotted鏡子上帝的陛下,並的形象,他的善" 。 (Wisdom 7:21-26) St. Paul paraphrases this beautiful passage and refers it to Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:3). (智慧7:21-26 )聖保祿段是這個美麗的通道,並指它以耶穌基督(希伯來書1:3 ) 。 It is clear, then, from the text-study of the books themselves, from the interpretation of these books by St. Paul, and especially, from the admitted interpretation of the Fathers and the liturgical uses of the Church, that the personified wisdom of the Sapiential Books is the uncreated Wisdom, the incarnate Logos of St. John, the Word hypostatically united with human nature, Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father.它是明確的話,那麼,從文本研究的書籍,從口譯的這些書,由聖保祿,尤其是從承認詮釋父親和禮儀用途的教會,即人格化的智慧該sapiential書籍是uncreated智慧,肉身標識的聖約翰,字hypostatically美與人性的,耶穌基督,他們兒子的永恆之父。 The Sapiential Books prove that Jesus was really and truly God.該sapiential書籍,證明耶穌是真真正上帝。


The prophets clearly state that the Messias is God.先知們清楚指出, messias是上帝。 Isaias says: "God Himself will come and will save you" (xxxv, 4); "Make ready the way of Jahweh" (xl, 3); "Lo Adonai Jahweh will come with strength" (xl, 10).伊薩亞斯說: "上帝會,並會為您節省" (第三十五卷, 4 ) ; "作準備的途徑jahweh " (四十, 3 ) , "螺adonai jahweh將與實力" (四十, 10 ) 。 That Jahweh here is Jesus Christ is clear from the use of the passage by St. Mark (i 3).這jahweh這裡就是耶穌基督是明確的,由使用該通道由聖馬克( 3 ) 。 The great prophet of Israel gives the Christ a special and a new Divine name "His name will be called Emmanuel" (Isaiah 7:14).偉大的先知以色列給基督一個特殊的一個新的神的名字" ,他的名字將被稱為靈光" (以賽亞書7時14分) 。 This new Divine name St. Matthew refers to as fulfilled in Jesus, and interprets to mean the Divinity of Jesus.這個新的神的名字聖馬太是指為滿足耶穌,並詮釋,意思是神的耶穌。 "They shall call his name Emmanuel, which, being interpreted, is God with us." "他們會請他的名字靈光,其中,被解釋,是上帝與我們" 。 (Matthew 1:23) Also in ix, 6, Isaias calls the Messias God: "A child is born to us . . . his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Strong One, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace." (馬太1:23 ) ,也於九,六,伊薩亞斯羅呼喚messias上帝說: "孩子出生給我們… … 。他的名字必將被稱為奇妙,參贊,上帝堅強一中,父親的未來世界,和平王子" 。 Catholics explain that the very same child is called God the Strong One (ix, 6) and Emmanuel (vii, 14); the conception of the child is prophesied in the latter verse, the birth of the very same child is prophesied in the former verse.天主教解釋說,同樣是孩子,是所謂的上帝的強烈一(九,六)和Emmanuel (第七章, 14條) ;觀,兒童是預言,在後者的韻文,誕生了非常相同的孩子是預言在原韻文。 The name Emmanuel (God with us) explains the name that we translate "God the Strong One."名稱靈光(上帝與我們)解釋了名字,我們把"上帝強烈的一次" 。 It is uncritical and prejudiced on the part of the rationalists to go outside of lsaias and to seek in Ezechiel (xxxii, 21) the meaning "mightiest among heroes" for a word that everywhere else in Isaias is the name of "God the Strong One" (see Isaiah 10:21).它是批判和偏見,對部分的理性外出的lsaias ,並尋求在ezechiel (三十二, 21 ) ,意思是"最強大的其中英雄" ,為一個詞無處不在,否則伊薩亞斯是名字的"上帝的強烈之一" (見以賽亞書10:21 ) 。 Theodotion translates literally theos ischyros; the Septuagint has "messenger". theodotion翻譯字面上theos ischyros ; septuagint有"信使" 。 Our interpretation is that commonly received by Catholics and by Protestants of the stamp of Delitzsch ("Messianic Prophecies", p. 145).我們的理解是,普遍收到的天主教徒和新教徒的郵票delitzsch ( "彌賽亞預言" ,第145頁) 。 Isaias also calls the Messias the "sprout of Jahweh" (iv, 2), ie that which has sprung from Jahweh as the same in nature with Him.伊薩亞斯還呼籲該messias "萌芽jahweh " (四, 2 ) ,即那些出身於jahweh為同一性質,他的說法。 The Messias is "God our King" (Isaiah 52:7), "the Saviour sent by our God" (Isaiah 52:10, where the word for Saviour is the abstract form of the word for Jesus); "Jahweh the God of Israel" (Isaiah 52:12): "He that hath made thee, Jahweh of the hosts His name" (Isaiah 54:5)".該messias是"上帝我們的國王" (以賽亞書52:7 ) , "救世主派遣我們的上帝" (以賽亞書52:10 ,凡一字救世主,是抽象形式的字為耶穌) ; " jahweh財神以色列" (以賽亞書52:12 )說: "他說,祂所作出祢jahweh的主持人他的名字" (以賽亞書54:5 ) " 。

The other prophets are as clear as Isaias, though not so detailed, in their foretelling of the Godship of the Messias.其他先知都非常清楚伊薩亞斯羅,雖然不是那麼詳細,在他們的預言的godship的messias 。 To Jeremias, He is "Jahweh our Just One" (xxiii, 6; also xxxiii, 16).以jeremias ,他已是" jahweh我們只有一個" (二十三, 6 ,也三十三, 16 ) 。 Micheas speaks of the twofold coming of the Child, His birth in time at Bethlehem and His procession in eternity from the Father (v, 2). micheas談到雙重未來的孩子,他出生在當時在伯利恆和他的遊行隊伍在永恆來自父親(五, 2 ) 。 The Messianic value of this text is proved by its interpretation in Matthew (ii, 6).救世主的價值,這個文本是證明了它的解釋,在馬修(二,六) 。 Zacharias makes Jahweh to speak of the Messias as "my Companion"; but a companion is on an equal footing with Jahweh (xiii, 7).撒迦利亞使得jahweh發言的messias "我的伴侶" ,而是一個伴侶,是在平等的基礎上與jahweh ( 13 , 7 ) 。 Malachias says: "Behold I send my angel, and he shall prepare the way before my face, and presently the Lord, whom you seek, and the angel of the testament, whom you desire, shall come to his temple" (iii, 1).瑪拉基亞亞地說: "看哪,我將我的天使,他應作好準備,然後我的臉,目前主,其中,你尋找,並天使的遺囑,其中你的願望,今後將他的聖殿教" (三, 1 ) 。 The messenger spoken of here is certainly St. John the Baptist.信使談到這裡肯定是施洗者聖約翰。 The words of Malachias are interpreted of the Precursor by Our Lord Himself (Matthew 11:10).話瑪拉基亞亞解釋的先導,由我們的主自己(馬太11:10 ) 。 But the Baptist prepared the way before the face of Jesus Christ.但浸會準備好,然後面對耶穌基督。 Hence the Christ was the spokesman of the words of Malachias.因此,基督是發言人的話瑪拉基亞亞。 But the words of Malachias are uttered by Jahweh the great God of Israel.但話瑪拉基亞亞都是出自jahweh偉大的神以色列。 Hence the Christ or Messias and Jahweh are one and the same Divine Person.因此,基督或messias和jahweh是同一個神的人。 The argument is rendered even more forcible by the fact that not only is the speaker, Jahweh the God of hosts, here one and the same with the Messias before Whose face the Baptist went: but the prophecy of the Lord's coming to the Temple applies to the Messias a name that is ever reserved for Jahweh alone.其論點是,提供更強行通過的事實,不僅是議長, jahweh上帝的主持人,在這裡是同一個與messias之前,他們面臨著浸會去:但預言上帝來廟適用該messias名字是以往任何時候都保留給jahweh單。 That name occurs seven times (Exodus 23:17; 34:23; Isaiah 1:24; 3:1; 10:16 and 33; 19:4) outside of Malachias, and is clear in its reference to the God of Israel.這名字出現7次(出埃及記23時17分; 34:23 ;以賽亞書1:24 ; 3:1 ; [ 10:16和33 ; 19時04分)以外的瑪拉基亞亞,並明確其範圍,以神的以色列。 The last of the prophets of Israel gives clear testimony that the Messias is the very God of Israel Himself.最後一批以色列的先知給出明確的證詞中說,該messias是很神的以色列自己。 This argument from the prophets in favour of the Divinity of the Messias is most convincing if received in the light of Christian revelation, in which light we present it.這個論點,從先知贊成神的messias是最有說服力的,如果收到根據基督教的啟示,其中輕,我們目前它。 The cumulative force of the argument is well worked out in "Christ in Type and Prophecy", by Maas.累積力量的論據,是計算出來的"基督在種類和讖" ,由馬斯。

B. New Testament Proofs乙新約聖經的證據

We shall give the witness of the Four Evangelists and of St. Paul.我們應讓證人的四個福音和聖保羅。 The argument from the New Testament has a cumulative weight that is overwhelming in its effectiveness, once the inspiration of the New Testament and the Divine ambassadorship of Jesus are proved (see INSPIRATION; CHRISTIANITY).論據來自新約全書已累積重量就是壓倒在其效力,一旦靈感的新約聖經和神駐印度大使耶穌被證實(見靈感;基督教) 。 The process of the Catholic apologetic and dogmatic upbuilding is logical and never-failing.過程中,天主教抱歉的和教條式的建立是符合邏輯的,並永遠的失敗。 The Catholic theologian first establishes the teaching body to which Christ gave His deposit of revealed truth, to have and to keep and to hand down that deposit without error or failure.天主教神學家首先確立了教學機構,以基督了他的存款的揭示真理,有,並隨時與交下來,存款沒有錯誤或失敗。 This teaching body gives us the Bible; and gives us the dogma of the Divinity of Christ in the unwritten and the written Word of God, ie in tradition and Scripture.這個教學機構,使我們有聖經;賜給我們的教條的基督的神在不成文和書面上帝的話,即在傳統和經文。 When contrasted with the Protestant position upon "the Bible, the whole Bible and nothing but the Bible"--no, not even anything to tell us what is the Bible and what is not the Bible--the Catholic position upon the Christ-established, never-failing, never-erring teaching body is impregnable.當對比與新教的立場後, "聖經時,整個聖經,並沒有什麼,但聖經" -不,不,甚至沒有告訴我們什麼是聖經,什麼不是聖經-天主教會的立場後,基督既定,永遠不及格,從未出問題的教學機構,是堅不可摧的。 The weakness of the Protestant position is evidenced in the matter of this very question of the Divinity of Jesus Christ.弱點新教立場是,在可見的事,這非常的問題,神的耶穌基督。 The Bible is the one and only rule of faith of Unitarians, who deny the Divinity of Jesus; of Modernistic Protestants, who make out His Divinity to be an evolution of His inner consciousness; of all other Protestants, be their thoughts of Christ whatsoever they may.聖經是唯一的一首法治的信念unitarians ,他們否認神的耶穌;現代派新教徒,他們做出了他的神性是一個演進他內心的意識;所有其他新教徒,他們的思想基督的話,他們五月。 The strength of the Catholic position will be clear to any one who has followed the trend of Modernism outside the Church and the suppression thereof within the pale.實力天主教會的立場很清楚,任何一個人追隨潮流的現代主義以外的教會和鎮壓,因此內部的蒼白。


We here assume the Gospels to be authentic, historical documents given to us by the Church as the inspired Word of God.我們這裡假設福音書,以真實,歷史文獻給我們的教會作為靈感上帝的話。 We waive the question of the dependence of Matthew upon the Logia, the origin of Mark from "Q", the literary or other dependence of Luke upon Mark; all these questions are treated in their proper places and do not belong here in the process of Catholic apologetic and dogmatic theology.我們免收問題的依賴馬修後, logia ,原產地標記,從"問" ,文學或其他的依賴盧克後,馬克;所有這些問題,是對待自己應有的地方,不屬於這裡,在這個過程中天主教抱歉的和教條式的神學。 We here argue from the Four Gospels as from the inspired Word of God.我們在這裡說,從4個福音,因為從激勵著上帝的話。 The witness of the Gospels to the Divinity of Christ is varied in kind.見證福音,以基督的神是不同的實物。 Jesus is the Divine Messias耶穌是神messias

The Evangelists, as we have seen, refer to the prophecies of the Divinity of the Messias as fulfilled in Jesus (see Matthew 1:23; 2:6; Mark 1:2; Luke 7:27).福音,正如我們所看到的,是指以預言的神的messias作為履行在耶穌(見馬太1:23 ; 2時06分;馬克1:2路加福音7時27分) 。

Jesus is the Son of God耶穌是上帝的兒子

According to the testimony of the Evangelists, Jesus Himself bore witness to His Divine Sonship.根據證詞福音,耶穌親自見證了他的神sonship 。 As Divine Ambassador He can not have borne false witness.作為神的大使,他不能承擔作假見證。

Firstly, He asked the disciples, at Caesarea Philippi, "Whom do men say that the Son of man is?"首先,他要求弟子,在caesarea Philippi撰寫, "誰做的男人說,人子是" ? (Matthew 16:13). (馬太16:13 ) 。 This name Son of man was commonly used by the Saviour in regard to Himself; it bore testimony to His human nature and oneness with us.這個名字人子是常用的救世主,在把自己的,它證明了他的人性和統一性與我們。 The disciples made answer that others said He was one of the prophets.門徒們作了回答這個問題,有的說他是一個先知之上。 Christ pressed them.基督催促他們。 "But whom do you say that I am? "(ibid., 15). " ,但誰,你說我是什麼" (同上, 15 ) 。 Peter, as spokesman, replied: "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God" (ibid., 16).彼得,作為發言人,回答道: "你的藝術是基督,生命的上帝之子" (同上, 16 ) 。 Jesus was satisfied with this answer; it set Him above all the prophets who were the adopted sons of God; it made Him the natural Son of God.耶穌就是不滿意這個回答,而是一套他上述所有先知的人都是通過神的兒子,這使他成為自然神的兒子。 The adopted Divine sonship of all the prophets Peter had no need of special revelation to know.政府所採取的神聖sonship所有先知彼得了,不需要特別的啟示知道。 This natural Divine Sonship was made known to the leader of the Apostles only by a special revelation.這個自然神sonship被告知有關領導人的使徒只由一個特別的啟示。 "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven" (ibid., 17). "血肉祂所沒有透露它向你,但我的父親是誰在天堂" (同上, 17 ) 。 Jesus clearly assumes this important title in the specially revealed and altogether new sense.耶穌清楚地出任這個重要的冠軍,在專門揭示,而且完全新的意義。 He admits that He is the Son of God in the real sense of the word.他坦承,他是上帝的兒子,在真正意義上的字。

Secondly, we find that He allowed others to give Him this title and to show by the act of real adoration that they meant real Sonship.其次,我們發現,他不准別人給他這個稱號,並表明,由該法的真正崇拜,他們的意思實際sonship 。 The possessed fell down and adored Him, and the unclean spirits cried out: "Thou art the Son of God" (Mark 3:12).該擁有的倒下和崇拜他,並在不潔的靈魂哭了出來: "你的藝術上帝的兒子" (馬克3時12分) 。 After the stilling of the storm at sea, His disciples adored Him and said: "Indeed thou art the Son of God "(Matthew 14:33).後,消力的風暴在海上,他的弟子們喜歡他,並說: "實際上,祢上帝的兒子" (馬太14:33 ) 。 Nor did He suggest that they erred in that they gave Him the homage due to God alone.他也沒有提示,他們錯誤地認為,他們給他參拜因為只有上帝。 The centurion on Calvary (Matthew 27:54; Mark 15:39), the Evangelist St. Mark (i, 1), the hypothetical testimony of Satan (Matthew 4:3) and of the enemies of Christ (Matthew 27:40) all go to show that Jesus was called and esteemed the Son of God.在百人對calvary (馬太27:54 ;大關15:39 ) ,傳道的聖馬克( 1 ) ,假設性的證詞撒旦(馬太4:3 )和敵人的基督(馬太27:40 )無不顯示耶穌被稱為和愛戴上帝的兒子。 Jesus Himself clearly assumed the title.耶穌清楚自己承擔的名稱。 He constantly spoke of God as "My Father" (Matthew 7:21; 10:32; 11:27; 15:13; 16:17, etc.).他不斷以神為"我的父親" (馬太7時21分; 10:32 ; 11:27 ; 15時13分; 16:17等) 。

Thirdly, the witness of Jesus to His Divine Sonship is clear enough in the Synoptics, as we see from the foregoing argument and shall see by the exegesis of other texts; but is perhaps even more evident in John.第三,見證耶穌,以他的神sonship是不夠清楚,在synoptics ,因為我們看到從前述論點,並應看到,由訓詁學的其他文本,但或許更明顯,在約翰。 Jesus indirectly but clearly assumes the title when He says: "Do you say of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world: Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God? . . . the Father is in me and I in the Father."耶穌間接,但很明顯,假設標題時,他說: "你說他的人的父聖潔並派遣到世界:你blasphemest的,因為我說,我是上帝的兒子? … … 。父親是在我我在父" 。 (John 10:36, 38) An even clearer witness is given in the narrative of the cure of the blind man in Jerusalem. (約翰福音10:36 , 38 ) ,更清楚見證,是由於在敘事的治本力度的盲人男子在耶路撒冷。 Jesus said: "Dost thou believe in the Son of God?"耶穌說: "除此以外,你相信上帝的兒子" ? He answered, and said: "Who is he, Lord, that I may believe in him? And Jesus said to him: Thou hast both seen him; and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said: I believe, Lord. And falling down, he adored him."他回答,並說: "誰是他的主啊,我可以相信他嗎?耶穌對他說:祢都見過他,並且是他認為talketh祢的,而且他說:我相信,主。和倒下,他崇拜他" 。 (John 9:35-38) Here as elsewhere, the act of adoration is allowed, and the implicit assent is in this wise given to the assertion of the Divine Sonship of Jesus. (約翰福音9:35-38 )在這裡與其他地方一樣,該法案的崇拜,是允許和隱核可,是在這一明智給予斷言的神聖sonship的耶穌。

Fourthly, likewise to His enemies, Jesus made undoubted profession of His Divine Sonship in the real and not the figurative sense of the word; and the Jews understood Him to say that He was really God.第四,同樣與他的敵人,取得了耶穌不容置疑界了他的神聖sonship在現實而不是比喻意義上的字;人和猶太人領悟他說,他真的是神。 His way of speaking had been somewhat esoteric.他的發言已經有點深奧了。 He spoke often in parables.他常常在parables 。 He willed then, as He wills now, that faith be "the evidence of things that appear not" (Hebrews 11:1).他的意志,然後,正如他的遺囑,現在,信仰是"證據的事情,似乎並不" (希伯來書11時01分) 。 The Jews tried to catch Him, to make Him speak openly.猶太人試圖追上他,讓他發言,公開曝光。 They met Him in the portico of Solomon and said: "How long dost thou hold our souls in suspense? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly" (John 10:24).他們見了他在Portico的所羅門說: "有多長多斯特你持有我們的靈魂在懸念?如果你是基督,告訴我們赤裸裸地" (約翰福音10:24 ) 。 The answer of Jesus is typical.答案耶穌的,是典型的。 He puts them off for a while; and in the end tells them the tremendous truth: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).他把它們趕走了一會兒,而且在年底前應告訴他們巨大的真理: "我與父原為一" (約翰福音10:30 ) 。 They take up stones to kill Him.他們採取了石塊要殺死他。 He asks why.他問為什麼。 He makes them admit that they have understood Him aright.他使得他們也承認,他們已明白他的戒律。 They answer: "For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man makest thyself God" (ibid., 33).他們回答: "有一個良好的工作,我們石材祢不是,但對於褻瀆;因為你,被一名男子上使你自己的上帝" (同上, 33 ) 。 These same enemies had clear statement of the claim of Jesus on the last night that He spent on earth.這些相同的敵人,已清楚說明了我的說法,耶穌對昨晚說,他用了地球上。 Twice He appeared before the Sanhedrim, the highest authority of the enslaved Jewish nation.他兩次出現之前,公會,最高權力機關為被奴役的猶太國家。 The first times the high priest, Caiphas, stood up and demanded: "I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us if thou be the Christ the Son of God" (Matthew 26:63).第一倍大祭司, caiphas ,站了起來,並要求: "我adjure祢由活著的上帝,那你告訴我們,如果你是基督上帝的兒子" (馬太26:63 ) 。 Jesus had before held His peace.耶穌面前舉行了他的和平。 Now His mission calls for a reply.現在他的使命要求一個答复。 "Thou hast said it" (ibid., 64). "祢說,它" (同上, 64 ) 。 The answer was likely--in Semitic fashion--a repetition of the question with a tone of affirmation rather than of interrogation.答案可能是-在反猶時尚-重複的問題與語氣肯定,而不是審問。 St. Matthew reports that answer in a way that might leave some doubt in our minds, had we not St. Mark's report of the very same answer.聖馬太報告說,答案在某種意義上說,可能留下一些疑問,在我們的印象中,如果我們不是聖馬克的報告非常相同的答案。 According to St. Mark, Jesus replies simply and clearly: "I am" (Mark 14:62).據聖馬克,耶穌回答簡單而明確: "我是" (馬克14:62 ) 。 The context of St. Matthew clears up the difficulty as to the meaning of the reply of Jesus.背景聖馬太擦亮了困難,因為該條的含義的答复耶穌。 The Jews understood Him to make Himself the equal of God.猶太人的理解,他把自己平等的上帝。 They probably laughed and jeered at His claim.他們大概笑和嘲諷,在他的索賠。 He went on: 'Nevertheless I say to you, hereafter you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God, and coming in the clouds of heaven" (Matthew 26:64). Caiphas rent his garments and accused Jesus of blasphemy. All joined in condemning Him to death for the blasphemy whereof they accused Him. They clearly understood Him to make claim to be the real Son of God; and He allowed them so to understand Him, and to put Him to death for this understanding and rejection of His claim. It were to blind one's self to evident truth to deny the force of this testimony in favour of the thesis that Jesus made claim to be the real Son of God. The second appearance of Jesus before the Sanhedrim was like to the first; a second time He was asked to say clearly: "Art thou then the Son of God?" He made reply: "You say that I am." They understood Him to lay claim to Divinity. "What need we any further testimony?他繼續說: '但是,我告訴你,從此你再也見不到兒子的男子坐在右手的上帝的力量,並即將在雲層的天堂" (馬太26:64 ) 。 caiphas租他的成衣及被告人耶穌的褻瀆,所有加入譴責他死刑,為褻瀆whereof他們指責他,他們清楚地了解他作出聲稱自己是真正的上帝的兒子,以及他讓他們如此了解他,並把他死刑對於這樣的認識,並拒絕他的要求,它被盲目一個人的自我,以明顯的事實否定力量的這一證詞贊成論點,即耶穌所作的聲稱自己是真正的上帝的兒子。第二次出庭耶穌面前公會就像給第一,一個第二次,他被要求說清楚,說: "你的藝術,然後是神的兒子嗎? "他回答: "你說我" ,他們理解他,聲稱神" ,有什麼需要我們任何進一步的證詞? for we ourselves have heard it from his own mouth" (Luke 22:70, 71). This twofold witness is especially important, in that it is made before the great Sanhedrim, and in that it is the cause of the sentence of death. Before Pilate, the Jews put forward a mere pretext at first. "We have found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar, and saying that he is Christ the king" (Luke 23:2). What was the result? Pilate found no cause of death in Him! The Jews seek another pretext. "He stirreth up the people .為我們自己也有聽說,從他自己的嘴巴" (路加福音22:70 , 71 ) ,這雙重的見證,是特別重要,因為它是前大公會,並在這方面,這是造成該判處死刑。之前,比拉多,猶太人提出了一個藉口,僅在第一, "我們已經發現了這名男子貪贓枉法我們的國家,並禁止給予表揚cæsar ,並說他是基督國王" (路加福音23時02分) ,怎麼是結果呢?比拉多沒有發現死亡原因,在他身上!猶太人尋求另一種藉口, "他stirreth了人。 . . from Galilee to this place" (ibid., 5). This pretext fails. Pilate refers the case of sedition to Herod. Herod finds the charge of sedition not worth his serious consideration. Over and again the Jews come to the front with a new subterfuge. Over and again Pilate finds no cause in Him. At last the Jews give their real cause against Jesus. In that they said He made Himself a king and stirred up sedition and refused tribute to Caesar, they strove to make it out that he violated Roman law. Their real cause of complaint was not that Jesus violated Roman law; but that they branded Him as a violator of the Jewish law. How? "We have a law; and according to that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God (John 19:7).從加利利到這個地方" (同上, 5 ) 。以此為藉口失敗。比拉多指的情況下,以煽動叛亂希律。希律找分管煽動叛亂,不值得他認真考慮。超過一再猶太人來向前方一個新的說辭。超過一再比拉多認為,沒有事業,在他最後的猶太人,讓他們的真正原因對耶穌,在那個他們說,他自封為國王,並激起了煽動叛亂,並拒絕敬意愷撒,他們力圖使之列,他違反羅馬法,他們的真正原因的投訴不認為耶穌違反羅馬法,但他們的品牌,他是一個違反了猶太法律怎麼做? "我們有一個法律和根據該法律,他應該死了,因為他自封為神的兒子(約翰19時07分) 。 The charge was most serious; it caused even the Roman governor "to fear the more."收費情況最嚴重,它造成的,甚至羅馬總督"的擔心更多內容" 。 What law is here referred to?什麼法律,是這裡所指的是什麼? There can be no doubt.不可能有任何疑問。 It is the dread law of Leviticus: "He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die: all the multitude shall stone him, whether he be a native or a stranger. He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord dying let him die" (Leviticus 24:17).這是畏懼法律的利未記: "他說, blasphemeth主的名字,被泯滅的,讓他死的:所有千頭萬緒應石材他,無論他是一個本土或一個陌生人,他說, blasphemeth主的名字臨終讓他死" (利未記24:17 ) 。 By virtue of this law, the Jews were often on the very point of stoning Jesus; by virtue of this law, they often took Him to task for blasphemy whensoever He made Himself the Son of God; by virtue of this same law, they now call for His death.根據這項法律,猶太人往往就非常點的石頭砸死耶穌;憑藉這一法律的,他們經常帶他去工作,褻瀆whensoever他自封為上帝的兒子;憑藉這同一法律,他們現在呼籲他的死因。 It is simply out of the question that these Jews had any intention of accusing Jesus of the assumption of that adopted sonship of God which every Jew had by blood and every prophet had had by special free gift of God's grace.這是根本談不上什麼,這些猶太人有任何意圖指責耶穌的假設認為,通過sonship上帝的,其中每一個猶太人曾由血液和每一個先知不得不以特別免費贈送上帝的恩典。

Fifthly, we may only give a summary of the other uses of thee title Son of God in regard to Jesus.第五,我們可能只給予一個簡要的其他用途祢標題上帝的兒子在關於耶穌。 The angel Gabriel proclaims to Mary that her son will "be called the Son of the most High" (Luke 1:32); "the Son of God" (Luke 1:35); St. John speaks of Him as "the only begotten of the Father" (John 1:14); at the Baptism of Jesus and at His Transfiguration, a voice from heaven cries: "This is my beloved son" (Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22; Matthew 17:3); St. John gives it as his very set purpose, in his Gospel, "that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" (John 20:31).天使加布里埃爾宣布向瑪麗說,她的兒子會" ,被稱為兒子的最高" (路1:32 ) , "上帝的兒子" (路加福音1時35分) ;聖約翰談到他為"唯一造物主的父親" (約翰福音1:14 ) ;在耶穌的洗禮,並在他的變形,從天上有聲音呼喊: "這是我親愛的兒子" (馬太3時17分;馬克1時11分;路加3時22分;馬修17:3 ) ;聖約翰賦予它作為非常設的目的,在他的福音, "你可以相信耶穌是基督,是神的兒子" (約翰福音20時31分) 。

Sixthly, in the testimony of John, Jesus identifies Himself absolutely with the Divine Father.第六,在見證著約翰,耶穌確定自己絕對與神的父親。 According to John, Jesus says: "he that seeth me seeth the Father" (ibid., xiv, 9).據約翰,耶穌說: "他說, seeth我seeth父親" (同上,第14章, 9 ) 。 St. Athanasius links this clear testimony to the other witness of John "I and the Father are one" (ibid., x, 30); and thereby establishes the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son.聖athanasius聯繫,這清楚地證明了其他證人的約翰: "我與父原為一" (同上,第十,第30條) ;從而確立了consubstantiality的父親和兒子。 St. John Chrysostom interprets the text in the same sense.聖約翰金口解釋文在同樣的意義。 A last proof from John is in the words that bring his first Epistle to a close: "We know that the Son of God is come: and He hath given us understanding that we may know the true God, and may be in his true Son. This is the true God and life eternal" (1 John 5:20).最後證明他是在說話,使他的教會的第一個收盤: "我們知道,上帝的兒子,是來:和祂所給我們的理解是,我們可能知道的真神,並且可能會在他的真兒子這才是真正的上帝和永恆的生命" ( 1約翰5點20分) 。 No one denies that "the Son of God" who is come is Jesus Christ.沒有人會否認"上帝的兒子" ,又是來就是耶穌基督。 This Son of God is the "true Son" of "the true God"; in fact, this true son of the True God, ie Jesus, is the true God and is life eternal.這是神的兒子,是"真正的兒子"的"真神" ,事實上,真有這樣的兒子真上帝,即耶穌,這才是真正的上帝,是永恆的生命。 Such is the exegesis of this text given by all the Fathers that have interpreted it (see Corluy, "Spicilegium Dogmatico-Biblicum", ed. Gandavi, 1884, II, 48).這是訓詁學的這一案文所給予的一切,父親已經解釋它(見corluy , " spicilegium dogmatico - biblicum "外,教育署。 gandavi , 1884年第一,二, 48 ) 。 All the Fathers that have either interpreted or cited this text, refer outos to Jesus, and interpret "Jesus is the true God and life eternal."所有的父親有任何解釋或引用這個文本,是指outos以耶穌,並解釋: "耶穌是真正的上帝和永恆的生命" 。 The objection is raised that the phrase "true God" (ho alethisnos theos) always refers, in John, to the Father.該提出異議,認為"真正的上帝" (何alethisnos theos )始終是指,在約翰,是父親。 Yes, the phrase is consecrated to the Father, and is here used precisely on that account, to show that the Father who is, in this very verse, first called "the true God", is one with the Son Who is second called "the true God" in the very same verse.是的,這句話是consecrated給父親,在這裡是用來正是在該帳戶,以證明父親是誰,在這個非常韻文,首先所謂的"真神" ,是一次與兒子,誰是第二個所謂的"真神" ,在同一首詩。 This interpretation is carried out by the grammatical analysis of the phrase; the pronoun this (outos) refers of necessity to the noun near by, ie His true Son Jesus Christ.這個解釋是由語法分析語;代詞今( outos )指的必要性,以名詞附近,即其真正的兒子耶穌基督。 Moreover, the Father is never called "life eternal" by John; whereas the term is often given by him to the Son (John 11:25; 14:6: 1 John 1:2; 5:11-12).此外,父親是從來沒有所謂的"永恆的生命" ,由約翰,而這一術語經常給予他的兒子(約翰福音11:25 ; 14時06分: 1約翰1:2 ; 5:11-12 ) 。 These citations prove beyond a doubt that the Evangelists bear witness to the real and natural Divine Sonship of Jesus Christ.這些引文證明,毫無疑問,福音見證真實和自然神sonship的耶穌基督。

Outside the Catholic Church, it is today the mode to try to explain away all these uses of the phrase Son of God, as if, forsooth, they meant not the Divine Sonship of Jesus, but presumably His sonship by adoption--a sonship due either to His belonging to the Jewish race or derived from His Messiahship.境外天主教教堂,它是今天的模式,試圖解釋所有這些用途的一句上帝的兒子,因為如果forsooth ,他們的意思並非神聖sonship耶穌的,但據推測,他sonship收養-s onship因無論他屬於猶太人的種族或來自他的messiahship 。 Against both explanations stand our arguments; against the latter explanation stands the fact that nowhere in the Old Testament is the term Son of God given as a name peculiar to the Messias.針對雙方的解釋立場,我們的論點;反對,後者主張解釋這一事實無處在舊約是任期上帝的兒子給的一個名字奇特向messias 。 The advanced Protestants of this twentieth century are not satisfied with this latter and wornout attempt to explain away the assumed title Son of God.先進新教徒的這二十世紀並不滿足於這後者而磨損嘗試去解釋這個遠離假設標題上帝的兒子。 To them it means only that Jesus was a Jew (a fact that is now denied by Paul Haupt).對於他們來說,這意味著只有耶穌是猶太人(一個事實是,現在也否認保羅豪普特) 。 We now have to face the strange anomaly of ministers of Christianity who deny that Jesus was Christ.我們現在所要面對的一個奇怪異常部長基督教的人否認耶穌是基督。 Formerly it was considered bold in the Unitarian to call himself a Christian and to deny the Divinity of Jesus; now "ministers of the Gospel" are found to deny that Jesus is the Christ, the Messias (see articles in the Hibbert Journal for 1909, by Reverend Mr. Roberts, also the articles collected under the title "Jesus or Christ?" Boston, 19m).以前,它被認為是大膽的,在統一,以自己是基督徒,並否認神的耶穌,現在"部長們的福音"發現否認耶穌是基督, messias (見文章,在hibbert期刊為1909年,由牧師羅伯特先生,還蒐集文章的標題下, "耶穌或基督" ?波士頓, 19米) 。 Within the pale of the Church, too, there were not wanting some who followed the trend of Modernism to such an extent as to admit that in certain passages, the term "Son of God" in its application to Jesus, presumably meant only adopted sonship of God.內部蒼白的教會,也有不希望有些人跟隨潮流的現代主義到這樣的程度,以承認,在某些段落中, "上帝的兒子" ,在適用於耶穌,大概意思是只有通過sonship上帝的。 Against these writers was issued the condemnation of the proposition: "In all the texts of the Gospels, the name Son of God is merely the equivalent of the name Messias, and does not in any wise mean that Christ is the true and natural Son of God" (see decree "Lamentabili", S. Off., 3-4 July, 1907, proposition xxxii).針對這些作家發出譴責的命題: "在所有的文本福音,其名稱上帝的兒子,只是相當於名稱messias ,不以任何明智指基督是真實和自然之子以神之名" (見法令" lamentabili " ,第起飛, 7月3日至4日, 1907年,命題三十二) 。 This decree does not affirm even implicitly that every use of the name "Son of God" in the Gospels means true and natural Sonship of God.這項法令並沒有申明甚至含蓄地表示,每使用名稱"上帝的兒子" ,在福音手段真實而自然sonship的上帝。 Catholic theologians generally defend the proposition whenever, in the Gospels, the name "Son of God" is used in the singular number, absolutely and without any additional explanation, as a proper name of Jesus, it invariably means true and natural Divine Sonship of Jesus Christ (see Billot, "De Verbo Incarnato," 1904, p. 529).天主教神學家普遍保衛命題的時候,在福音中,將名稱改為"上帝的兒子" ,是用在單數號碼,絕對沒有任何進一步的說明,作為一個適當的耶穌的名字,它必然意味著真實和自然神sonship耶穌基督(見billot , "德動詞因卡爾納托" , 1904年,頁529 ) 。 Corluy, a very careful student of the original texts and of the versions of the Bible, declared that, whenever the title Son of God is given to Jesus in the New Testament, this title has the inspired meaning of natural Divine Sonship; Jesus is by this title said to have the same nature and substance as the Heavenly Father (see "Spicilegium", II, p. 42). corluy ,這是一個很認真的學生,原文和各版本的聖經宣稱,每當標題上帝的兒子,是給耶穌在新約聖經,這個稱號是有啟發意義的自然神sonship ;耶穌是由這個稱號表示,有同樣的性質和內容,作為天父(見" spicilegium " ,第二章,第42頁) 。

Jesus is God耶穌是上帝

St. John affirms in plain words that Jesus is God.聖約翰申明在平原換句話說,耶穌是上帝。 The set purpose of the aged disciple was to teach the Divinity of Jesus in the Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse that he has left us; he was aroused to action against the first heretics that bruised the Church.設置的目的,老年弟子被教導神耶穌在福音,書信,與啟示說,他已經離開了我們,他是喚起民眾對行動第一異端說,青腫了教堂。 "They went out from us, but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us" (1 John 2:19). "他們出去,從我們,但他們不是我們的,因為如果他們一直對我們,但他們毫無疑問仍然是與我們" ( 1約翰19:2 ) 。 They did not confess Jesus Christ with that confession which they had obligation to make (1 John 4:3).他們不招供耶穌基督與供認,他們有義務使( 1約翰4:3 ) 。 John's Gospel gives us the clearest confession of the Divinity of Jesus.約翰的福音給了我們最清晰的自白的神性的耶穌。 We may translate from the original text: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was in relation to God and the Word was God" (John i, 1).我們可以從翻譯的原文是: "在開始時是言行一致,這個詞是天主間的關係等字是上帝" (約翰一,一) 。 The words ho theos (with the article) mean, in Johannine Greek, the Father.字何theos (文章)的意思是,在johannine希臘語,是父親。 The expression pros ton theon reminds one forcibly of Aristotle's to pros ti einai.表達正反噸theon提醒強行亞里士多德的利弊,以鈦einai 。 This Aristotelian way of expressing relation found its like in the Platonic, Neo-Platonic, and Alexandrian philosophy; and it was the influence of this Alexandrian philosophy in Ephesus and elsewhere that John set himself to combat.這亞里士多德的方式來表達的關係,發現它像在柏拉圖,新柏拉圖,亞歷山大哲學和它的影響,這亞歷山大哲學在以弗所及其他地方的約翰把自己作鬥爭。 It was, then, quite natural that John adopted some of the phraseology of his enemies, and by the expression ho logos en pros ton theon gave forth the mystery of the relation of Father with Son: "the Word stood in relation to the Father", ie, even in the beginning.無論過去,然後,很自然的約翰採取了一些新的用語,他的敵人,並表達何標識恩利弊噸theon作了提出了神秘的關係,父親與兒子說: "這個詞,站在關係到父親" ,也就是說,即使是在最初階段。 At any rate the clause theos en ho logos means "the Word was God".在任何利率該條theos恩何標識,意味著"字是上帝的旨意" 。 This meaning is driven home, in the irresistible logic of St. John, by the following verse: "All things were made by him."這意思是驅動家裡,在不可抗拒的邏輯,聖約翰,由下列詩句: "所有的事情都是由他" 。 The Word, then, is the Creator of all things and is true God.這個詞,那麼,是造物主的一切事物,是真正上帝。 Who is the Word!誰是兩個字! It was made flesh and dwelt with us in the flesh (verse 14); and of this Word John the Baptist bore witness (verse 15).它是血肉白景富與美,在肉體(新詩14 ) ;和這兩個字施洗約翰見證(新詩15 ) 。 But certainly it was Jesus, according to John the Evangelist, Who dwelt with us in the flesh and to Whom the Baptist bore witness.但肯定是耶穌,根據約翰福音,他們白景富與美,在肉體和向誰浸會見證。 Of Jesus the Baptist says: "This is he, of whom I said: After me there cometh a man, who is preferred before me: because he was before me" (verse 30).耶穌浸會說: "這是他的人,其中我說:在我之後還有人來了一名男子,他是推薦前對我說:因為他是我面前的" (新詩30 ) 。 This testimony and other passages of St. John's Gospel are so clear that the modern rationalist takes refuge from their forcefulness in the assertion that the entire Gospel is a mystic contemplation and no fact-narrative at all (see JOHN, GOSPEL OF SAINT).這一證詞和其他段落的聖約翰的福音是如此明確表示,現代理性主義以躲避自己的力量在斷言整個福音的是一個神秘的沉思,並沒有事實的敘述,在所有(見約翰福音聖) 。 Catholics may not hold this opinion denying the historicity of John.天主教徒不得擔任這項民意否定歷史性的約翰。 The Holy Office, in the Decree "Lamentabili", condemned the following proposition: "The narrations of John are not properly speaking history but a mystic contemplation of the Gospel: the discourses contained in his Gospel are theological meditations on the mystery of salvation and are destitute of historical truth."聖辦事處,在該法令" lamentabili " ,譴責以下命題: "解說的約翰沒有得到妥善講歷史,而是一個神秘的沉思的福音:話語包含在他的福音是神學沉思對神秘的救贖,並一貧如洗的歷史真相" 。 (See prop. xvi.) (見版權十六)

(b) WITNESS OF ST. (二)證人聖。 PAUL保羅

It is not the set purpose of St. Paul, outside of the Epistle to the Hebrews, to prove the Divinity of Jesus Christ.它是不是設置的目的,聖保祿,外面的希伯來人書中說,要證明神的耶穌基督。 The great Apostle takes this fundamental principle of Christianity for granted.偉大的使徒這個根本原則,基督教是理所當然的事。 Yet so clear is the witness of Paul to this fact of Christ's Divinity, that the Rationalists and rationalistic Lutherans of Germany have strived to get away from the forcefulness of the witness of the Apostle by rejecting his form of Christianity as not conformable to the Christianity of Jesus.然而,如此明確的是證人的保羅這個事實基督的神性,說理性和理性lutherans的德國爭取擺脫強有力的見證,使徒保羅所拒絕其形式的基督教,不符合基督教的耶穌。 Hence they cry: "Los von Paulus, zurück zu Christus"; that is, "Away from Paul, back to Christ" (see J¨licher, Paulus und Christus", ed. Mohr, 1909). We assume the historicity of the Epistles of Paul; to a Catholic, the Christianity of St. Paul is one and the same with the Christianity of Christ. (See SAINT PAUL). To the Romans, Paul writes: "God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh and of sin" (viii, 3). His Own Son (ton heautou) the Father sends, not a Son by adoption. The angels are by adoption the children of God; they participate in the Father's nature by the free gifts He has bestowed upon them. Not so the Own Son of the Father. As we have seen, He is more the offspring of the Father than are the angels. How more? In this that He is adored as the Father is adored; the angels are not adored. Such is Paul's argument in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Therefore, in St. Paul's theology, the Father's Own Son, Whom the angels adore, Who was begotten in the today of eternity, Who was sent by the Father, clearly existed before His appearance in the Flesh, and is, in point of fact, the great "I am who am",--the Jahweh Who spoke to Moses on Horeb. This identification of the Christ with Jahweh would seem to be indicated, when St. Paul speaks of Christ as ho on epi panton theos, "who is over all things, God blessed for ever" (Romans 9:5). This interpretation and punctuation are sanctioned by all the Fathers that have used the text; all refer to Christ the words "He who is God over all". Petavius (De Trin., 11, 9, n. 2) cites fifteen, among whom are Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Augustine, and Hilary. The Peshitta has the same translation as we have given. Alford, Trench, Westcott and Hort, and most Protestants are at one with us in this interpretation.因此,他們大聲疾呼: "洛杉磯馮鮑魯斯, zurück祖基督" ,即是"遠離保羅,回到基督" (見j ¨ licher ,鮑魯斯und基督" ,教育署。莫爾, 1909 ) ,我們假設歷史性的書信的保羅;天主教,基督教的聖保羅是一個整體,同時與基督教的基督(見聖保羅)要入鄉隨俗,保羅寫道: "上帝差遣自己的兒子,在相似的罪孽深重肉體和罪惡的" (第八條) 。自己的兒子(噸heautou )父差遣,而不是一個兒子所收養。天使收養子女的上帝,他們參加父親的性質所免費贈品,他已上天賦予他們沒有,所以自己的兒子的父親,正如我們所看到的,他更是後代的父親比是天使,又如何呢?在此說,他是喜歡,因為父親是崇拜;天使,是不是喜歡這樣的是保羅的論點,在第一章的希伯來人書中說,因此,在聖保羅的神學,父親的自己的兒子,其中天使之崇拜,他們是造物主在今天的永恆,被送往由父親,明顯地存在之前他的外貌,在肉體和的是,在點,事實上,偉大的"我是誰時" , -j ahweh發言摩西對何烈這鑑定基督與j ahweh似乎將顯示當聖保羅談到基督為議員對計劃免疫panton theos , "誰是超過一切的事情,上帝祝福永遠" (羅馬書9時05分) ,這樣的解釋和標點,處以所有的父親已經使用了文本;都指基督的話, "誰是上帝超過一切" 。 petavius (德trin 。 , 11 , 9 , 12月31日2 )瀕危物種貿易公約15個,其中有愛任紐,戴爾都良,塞浦路斯, athanasius ,格雷戈里的nyssa ,劉漢銓,奧古斯丁和希拉里。培熹托都擁有同樣的翻譯,因為我們已發出。奧爾福德,壕溝, westcott和hort ,大多數新教徒正處於一個與我們在這方面的解釋。

This identification of the Christ with Jahweh is clearer in the First Epistle to the Corinthians.這個鑑定基督與jahweh明朗後,在第一書信向科林蒂安。 Christ is said to have been Jahweh of the Exodus.基督是說已經jahweh的外流。 "And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ)" (x, 4). "和所有喝同樣的精神飲料; (和他們喝的精神岩石隨後他們和岩石是基督) " (第十4 ) 。 It was Christ Whom some of the Israelites "tempted, and (they) perished by the serpents" (x, 10); it was Christ against Whom "some of them murmured, and were destroyed by the destroyer" (x, 11).這是基督的,其中的一些以色列人"的誘惑, (他們)滅亡了由serpents " (十, 10 ) ,這是基督的人" ,他們中的一些人murmured ,以及被摧毀,由導彈驅逐艦" (十,十一) 。 St. Paul takes over the Septuagint translation of Jahweh ho kyrios, and makes this title distinctive of Jesus.聖保祿接管septuagint翻譯jahweh何kyrios ,使得這個稱號鮮明的耶穌。 The Colossians are threatened with the deception of philosophy (ii, 8).該歌羅西書受到威脅與該宗詐騙案的哲學(二, 8 ) 。 St. Paul reminds them that they should think according to Christ; "for in him dwelleth the fulness of the Godhead (pleroma tes theotetos) corporeally" (ii, 9); nor should they go so low as give to angels, that they see not, the adoration that is due only to Christ (ii, 18, 19).聖保祿提醒各方,他們認為應根據基督" ,在他永遠的fulness的神的源頭( pleroma附加費theotetos ) corporeally " (二, 9 ) ;也不應該這麼低,因為給天使,他們見沒有,朝拜這是因為,只有以基督(二, 18 , 19 ) 。 "For in Him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominations or principalities or powers; all things were created by Him and for Him" (eis auton). "在他所有的東西,創造了在天上和地上,有形及無形的,無論是王位或統治或principalities或權力;萬物創造的,他和他" ( EIS的自主) 。 He is the cause and the end of all things, even of the angels whom the Colossians are so misguided as to prefer to Him (i, 16).他的事業,並結束所有的事情,甚至是天使誰歌羅西書是如此誤導,因為喜歡他(我16 ) 。 The cultured Macedonians of Philippi are taught that in "the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father" (ii, 10, 11).培養馬其頓人的Philippi撰寫教授說,在"以耶穌的名義每膝應鞠躬,那些都是在天堂,在地球上,並根據地球,並認為每一個舌頭應該坦白地說,主耶穌基督是在榮耀上帝之父" (二, 10 , 11 ) 。 This is the very same genuflexion and confession that the Romans are bidden to make to the Lord and the Jews to Jahweh (see Romans 14:6; Isaiah 14:24).這是很相同genuflexion和懺悔說,入鄉隨俗是bidden作出向耶和華和猶太人jahweh (見羅馬書14時06分;以賽亞書14時24分) 。 The testimony of St. Paul could be given at much greater length.證詞聖保祿可考慮在更大的長度。 These texts are only the chief among many others that bear Paul's witness to the Divinity of Jesus Christ.這些文本只有行政之間的許多其他國家都肩負著保羅的見證神的耶穌基督。

C. Witness of Tradition三證人的傳統

The two main sources wherefrom we draw our information as to tradition, or the unwritten Word of God, are the Fathers of the Church and the general councils.兩個主要來源wherefrom我們借鑒我們的資料,以傳統的,還是不成文的上帝的話,是教會的神父和一般議會。


The Fathers are practically unanimous in explicitly teaching the Divinity of Jesus Christ.父親是幾乎一致明確地教導神的耶穌基督。 The testimony of many has been given in our exegesis of the dogmatic texts that prove the Christ to be God.見證著許多已在我國訓詁學的教條式的文本證明,基督被上帝。 It would take over-much space to cite the Fathers adequately.它將接管-很多空間舉出充分的父親。 We shall confine ourselves to those of the Apostolic and apologetic ages.我們應局限於那些使徒和抱歉的千古罪人。 By joining these testimonies to those of the Evangelists and St. Paul, we can see clearly that the Holy Office was right in condemning these propositions of Modernism: "The Divinity of Christ is not proven by the Gospels but is a dogma that the Christian conscience has evolved from the notion of a Messiah. It may be taken for granted that the Christ Whom history shows us is much inferior to the Christ Who is the object of Faith" (see prop. xxvii and xxix of Decree "Lamentabili").通過加入這些證詞對於那些福音和聖保羅,我們可以清楚地看到,羅馬教廷辦公室有權在譴責這些主張的現代主義: "基督的神,是不是證明了福音,而是一個教條認為基督徒良心已經從概念的一個救世主,它可以看作是理所當然的說,基督的人,歷史告訴我們,遠不如基督的人是反對的信念" (見道具。二十七及二十九的法令" lamentabili " ) 。

The Fathers Themselves父親自己

St. Clement of Rome (AD 93-95, according to Harnack), in his first epistle to the Corinthians, xvi, 2, speaks of "The Lord Jesus Christ, the Sceptre of the Might of God" (Funk, "Patres Apostolici", T¨bingen ed., 1901, p. 118), and describes, by quoting Is., iii, 1-12, the humiliation that was foretold and came to pass in the self-immolation of Jesus.聖克萊門特的羅馬(公元93-95據的Harnack ) ,在他的第一書信向科林蒂安,十六,二,說的是"主耶穌基督,權杖的威力,以神之名" (畏縮, " patres apostolici " ,噸¨ bingen版, 1901年,第118頁) ,並敘述中,引用的是,三, 1-12 ,羞辱,這是預言,並通過在這次自焚的耶穌。 As the writings of the Apostolic Fathers are very scant, and not at all apologetic but rather devotional and exhortive, we should not look in them for that clear and plain defence of the Divinity of Christ which is evidenced in the writings of the apologists and later Fathers.至於著作的使徒父親是很微弱,而不是在所有表歉意,而是靈修和exhortive ,我們不應該期待在他們的明確和平原捍衛基督的神,這就是明證,在著作的辯護士,後來父親。

The witness of St. Ignatius of Antioch (AD 110-117, according to Harnack) is almost that of the apologetic age, in whose spirit he seems to have written to the Ephesians.證人的聖伊格安提(公元110-117 ,根據的Harnack ) ,是幾乎同樣的歉意,年齡,在他們的精神,他似乎已寫信給以弗所。 It may well be that at Ephesus the very same heresies were now doing havoc which about ten years before or, according to Harnack's chronology, at the very same time, St. John had written his Gospel to undo.或許有人會說,在以弗所非常相同異端邪說的人,現在做的肆虐,其中約十年前,或者根據的Harnack的年表,在同一時間,聖約翰寫了他的福音,以挽回。 If this be so, we understand the bold confession of the Divinity of Jesus Christ which this grand confessor of the Faith brings into his greetings, at the beginning of his letter to the Ephesians.如果這是這樣,我們明白了大膽的自白神耶穌基督而這一宏偉懺悔的信仰帶到他的問候,一開始他的信,以以弗所。 "Ignatius . . . . to the Church . . . which is at Ephesus . . . . in the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ Our God (tou theou hemon)." "伊格… … 。送到教堂… … 。這是在伸出手… … 。在該會的父親和耶穌基督我們的上帝(鈄theou hemon ) " 。 He says: "The Physician in One, of the Flesh and of the Spirit, begotten and not begotten, who was God in Flesh (en sarki genomenos theos) . . . Jesus Christ Our Lord" (c. vii; Funk, I, 218).他說: "醫師在一,屬肉體和精神,造物主並沒有造物主,人是上帝在果肉(中文sarki genomenos theos ) … … 。耶穌基督我們的主" (丙七;畏縮,我, 218 ) 。 "For Our God Jesus Christ was borne in the womb by Mary" (c. xviii, 2; Funk, I, 226). "我們的上帝耶穌基督被傳染在子宮瑪麗" (長十八, 2 ;畏縮,我, 226 ) 。 To the Romans he writes: "For Our God Jesus Christ, abiding in the Father, is manifest even the more" (c. iii, 3; Funk, 1, 256).為了入鄉隨俗,他寫道: "我們的上帝,耶穌基督,守法,在父親,是顯而易見的,甚至更" (丙三, 3 ;畏縮, 1 , 256 ) 。

The witness of the Letter of Barnabas: "Lo, again, Jesus is not the Son of man but the Son of God, made manifest in form in the Flesh. And since men were going to say that the Christ was the Son of David, David himself, fearing and understanding the malice of the wicked, made prophecy: The Lord said to my Lord . . . . . Lo, how David calls Him the Lord and not son" (c. xiii; Funk, I, 77).證人的信中的摩西說: "羅,讓我們再耶穌是不是兒子的男子,但上帝的兒子,體現在形式,在肉體,而且由於男人去說,基督是大衛之子,大衛自己,怕和了解,惡有惡報的惡人,作出預言:主說,以我的主… … 。 。廬,如何大衛稱他為上帝而不是兒子" (丙十三;畏縮,我, 77歲) 。 In the apologetic age, Saint Justin Martyr (Harnack. AD 150) wrote: "Since the Word is the first-born of God, He is also God" (Apol. I, n. 63; PG, VI, 423).在致歉的年齡,聖賈斯汀烈士( harnack.公元150 )中寫道: "自從這個詞是第一個出生的上帝,他也是以神之名" ( apol.我, 12月31日63 ;編號,六, 423頁) 。 It is evident from the context that Justin means Jesus Christ by the Word; he had just said that Jesus was the Word before He became Man, and used to appear in the form of fire or of some other incorporeal image.很顯然,從背景的Justin ,就是耶穌基督的字,他剛說,耶穌被字之前,他成為人,並用來在表單中出現火災或其他一些無形的形象。 St. Irenæus proves that Jesus Christ is rightly called the one and only God and Lord, in that all things are said to have been made by Him (see "Adv. Haer.", III, viii, n. 3; PG, VII, 868; bk. IV, 10, 14, 36).聖irenæus證明耶穌基督是正確地稱之為一個只有上帝和主,在這一切的東西,據說都已經由他(見"副haer " ,三,八, 12月31日3 ;編號,第七章, 868 ;交通銀行第四節, 10 , 14 , 36 ) 。 Deutero-Clement (Harnack, AD 166; Sanday, AD 150) insists: "Brethren, we should think of Jesus Christ as of God Himself, as of the Judge of the living and the dead" (see Funk, I, 184). deutero -克萊門特(的Harnack ,專案166個; sanday ,公元150 )堅稱: "弟兄們,我們應該相信耶穌基督的上帝,作為對法官的活人與死人" (見畏縮,我, 184 ) 。 St. Clement of Alexandria (Sanday, AD 190) speaks of Christ as "true God without any controversy, the equal of the Lord of the whole universe, since He is the Son and the Word is in God" (Cohortatio ad Gentes, c. x; PG, VIII, 227).聖克萊門特亞歷山大( sanday ,公元190 )說基督為"真正的上帝,沒有任何爭議,平等的上帝的整個宇宙,因為他的兒子和字是上帝" ( cohortatio專案gentes , c第十節;編號,第八條, 227 ) 。

Pagan Writers異教作家

To the witness of these Fathers of the Apostolic and apologetic age, we add a few witnesses from the contemporary pagan writers.該證人說,這些父親的使徒和抱歉的時代,我們補充一些證人從當代異教作家。 Pliny (AD 107) wrote to Trajan that the Christians were wont before the light of day to meet and to sing praises "to Christ as to God" (Epist., x, 97).普林尼(公元107 )寫信給圖拉真表示,基督信徒被won't的前陽光燦爛的天空,以滿足和唱好" ,以基督為中心,以神之名" ( epist. , X ,黑97 ) 。 The Emperor Hadrian (AD 117) wrote to Servianus that many Egyptians had become Christians, and that converts to Christianity were "forced to adore Christ", since He was their God (see Saturninus, c. vii).皇帝哈德良(公元117 )致函servianus許多埃及人已成為基督徒,並皈依了基督教"被迫以崇拜基督" ,因為他是他們的神(見saturninus ,長七) 。 Lucian scoffs at the Christians because they had been persuaded by Christ "to throw over the gods of the Greeks and to adore Him fastened to a cross" (De Morte Peregrini, 13).喬治scoffs在基督教徒,因為他們已被說服基督" ,以扔在神的希臘人,並崇拜他系上了一個十字架" (德死peregrini , 13 ) 。 Here also may be mentioned the well-known graffito that caricatures the worship of the Crucified as God.這裡也有可能被提到了著名的graffito認為漫畫崇拜被釘十字架的上帝。 This important contribution to archaeology was found, in 1857, on a wall of the Paedagogium, an inner part of the Domus Gelotiana of the Palatine, and is now in the Kircher Museum, Rome.這一重要貢獻的考古發現,在1857年,在牆上的paedagogium ,黨內部分的莫斯gelotiana的腭部,並正繼續在kircher博物館,羅馬。 After the murder of Caligula (AD 41) this inner part of the Domus Gelotiana became a training-school for court pages, called the Paedagogium (see Lanciani, "Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome", ed. Boston, 1897, p. 186).被殺後卡里古拉(公元41 ) ,這個心靈的一部分,該莫斯gelotiana成為培訓學校,為法院的頁面,被稱為paedagogium (見蘭恰尼, "遺址及發掘的古羅馬" ,教育署。波士頓, 1897年,第186頁) 。 This fact and the language of the graffito lead one to surmise that the page who mocked at the religion of one of his fellows has so become an important witness to the Christian adoration of Jesus as God in the first or, at the very latest, the second century.這個事實與語言的graffito帶領一至推測該網頁的人嘲笑,在宗教的他的一名研究員卻成為一個重要的見證,基督教朝拜耶穌是上帝在第一或者,在這最新的,第二個世紀。 The graffito represents the Christ on a cross and mockingly gives Him an ass's head; a page is rudely scratched kneeling and with hands outstretched in the attitude of prayer; the inscription is "Alexamenos worships his God" (Alexamenos sebetai ton theon).該graffito代表基督就兩岸及諷刺給他一個驢頭;一頁,是粗暴抓傷一跪與雙手outstretched在態度祈禱;題詞是: " alexamenos崇拜他的神" ( alexamenos sebetai噸theon ) 。 In the second century, too, Celsus arraigns the Christians precisely on this account that they think God was made man (see Origen, "Contra Celsum", IV, 14; PG, XI, 1043).在公元二世紀,也celsus arraigns基督徒,正因為有此賬戶,他們認為上帝是男子(見淵源,成了" Contra celsum " ,第四章, 14條;編號,喜, 1043 ) 。 Aristides wrote to the Emperor Antonius Pius (AD 138-161) what seems to have been an apology for the Faith of Christ: "He Himself is called the Son of God; and they teach of Him that He as God came down from heaven and took and put on Flesh of a Hebrew virgin" (see "Theol. Quartalschrift", Tübingen, 1892, p. 535).阿里斯蒂德寫信給皇帝安東尼比約(公元138-161 )有什麼似乎已道歉,為信仰基督說: "他自己是所謂上帝的兒子,以及他們任教的他,讓他作為神來從天堂上台,並接受肉體的希伯來處女" (見" theol 。 quartalschrift " ,蒂賓根, 1892年,頁535 ) 。


The first general council of the Church was called to define the Divinity of Jesus Christ and to condemn Arius and his error (see ARIUS).第一次總理事會的教會被稱為界定神耶穌基督,並譴責arius和他的錯誤(見arius ) 。 Previous to this time, heretics had denied this great and fundamental dogma of the Faith; but the Fathers had been equal to the task of refuting the error and of stemming the tide of heresy.以往這個時候,異端已否認這一偉大和基本教義的信仰,但父親已等於任務批駁錯誤,並阻止潮水的異端。 Now the tide of heresy was so strong as to have need of the authority of the universal Church to withstand it.現在的潮流異端是如此強大,因為有需要的權威,普世教會要經受住它。 In his "Thalia", Arius taught that the Word was not eternal (en pote ote ouk en) nor generated of the Father, but made out of nothing (ex ouk onton hehonen ho logos); and though it was before the world was, yet it was a thing made, a created thing (poiema or ktisis).在他的" thalia " , arius告訴我們,這個詞是不是永恆的(英文pote手ouk中文) ,也產生了對父親的,但出於什麼(當然ouk onton hehonen何標識) ,以及雖然是在世界面前是,但它是一個東西發了言,創造了東西( poiema或ktisis ) 。 Against this bold heresy, the Council of Nicaea (325) defined the dogma of the Divinity: of Christ in the clearest terms: "We believe . . . in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, generated of the Father (hennethenta ek tou patros monogene), that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, True God of True God, begotten not made, the same in nature with the Father (homoousion to patri) by Whom all things were made" (see Denzinger, 54).針對這一大膽異端,理事會的尼西亞( 325 ) ,確定了教條的神:基督教最明確的表述: "我們相信… … 。在一主耶穌基督,上帝的兒子,獨一,產生的父親( hennethenta 18.3.2000鈄patros monogene ) ,即是該物質的父親,上帝的上帝,輕的輕,真實的上帝的真神,造物主沒有作出,同時在性質上與父親( homoousion以帕特里)由何人所有的東西發了言" (見登青格, 54 ) 。


The Gnostics taught that matter was of its very nature evil, somewhat as the present-day Christian Scientists teach that it is an "error of mortal mind"; hence Christ as God could not have had a material body, and His body was only apparent.該gnostics告訴我們,無論是就其本質邪惡,有點作為當代基督教科學家任教,這是一個"錯誤的凡人心" ,因此,基督為上帝不會有物質身體,他的身體才明顯。 These heretics, called doketae included Basilides, Marcion, the Manichæans, and others.這些異端,所謂doketae包括basilides , marcion , manichæans和等。 Valentinus and others admitted that Jesus had a body, but a something heavenly and ethereal; hence Jesus was not born of Mary, but His airy body passed through her virgin body. valentinus和其他人承認耶穌有一個機構,而是一個有天堂和無形,因此,耶穌出生的瑪麗,但他的Airy機構通過她的處女身體。 The Apollinarists admitted that Jesus had an ordinary body, but denied Him a human soul; the Divine nature took the place of the rational mind.該apollinarists承認耶穌是一個普通的身體,但否認他一個人的靈魂;神性所取代的理性思維。 Against all these various forms of the heresy that denies Christ is true Man stand countless and clearest testimonies of the written and unwritten Word of God.對所有這些不同形式的邪教,即否認基督是真正的男人站在無數和最明確的證詞筆試和不成文的上帝的話。 The title that is characteristic of Jesus in the New Testament is Son of Man; it occurs some eighty times in the Gospels; it was His Own accustomed title for Himself.標題是特徵耶穌在新約聖經是人子;出現一些80倍,在四福音;這是他在自己習慣的名稱為自己。 The phrase is Aramaic, and would seem to be an idiomatic way of saying "man".這句話是阿拉姆語,似乎將是一個地道的方式說: "好男人" 。 The life and death and resurrection of Christ would all be a lie were He not a man, and our Faith would be vain.生命與死亡和復活的基督都將是一個謊言被他不是一個人,我們的信心會白費。 (1 Corinthians 15:14). (哥林多前書15,14 ) 。 "For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5). "有一個上帝,和一個調停者的上帝和男子時,該名男子基督耶穌" ( 1蒂莫西2時05分) 。 Why, Christ even enumerates the parts of His Body.因此,基督甚至列舉了他身體的一部分。 "See my hands and feet, that it is I myself; handle and see: for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me to have" (Luke 24:39). "看到我的手和腳,這是我自己;處理和有目共睹的:精神祂所沒有肉和骨頭,因為你看我有" (路加福音24:39 ) 。 St. Augustine says, in this matter: "If the Body of Christ was a fancy, then Christ erred; and if Christ erred, then He is not the Truth. But Christ is the Truth; hence His Body was not a fancy' (QQ. lxxxiii, q. 14; PL, XL, 14). In regard to the human soul of Christ, the Scripture is equally clear. Only a human soul could have been sad and troubled. Christ says: "My soul is sorrowful even unto death" (Matthew 26:38). "Now is my soul troubled" (John 12:27). His obedience to the heavenly Father and to Mary and Joseph supposes a human soul (John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38; Luke 22:42). Finally Jesus was really born of Mary (Matthew 1:16), made of a woman (Galatians 4:4), after the angel had promised that He should be conceived of Mary (Luke 1:31); this woman is called the mother of Jesus (Matthew 1:18; 2:11; Luke 1:43; John 2:3); Christ is said to be really the seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:16), the son of David (Matthew 1:1), made of the seed of David according to the flesh (Romans 1:3), and the fruit of the loins of David (Acts 2:30). So clear is the testimony of Scripture to the perfect human nature of Jesus Christ, that the Fathers held it as a general principle that whatsoever the Word had not assumed was not healed, ie, did not receive the effects of the Incarnation.聖奧古斯丁說,在這件事: "如果基督的身體是一個花式,然後基督的偏差;如果基督犯錯,那他是不是真理,但基督是真理,因此,他的身體是不是看上' ( QQ的。 lxxxiii ,問: 14個;特等, xL的14 ) 。對於人類靈魂的基督,是聖經同樣清楚的,只有一個人的靈魂可以被悲痛和不安。耶穌說: "我的靈魂,是傷感,甚至以至於死" (馬太26:38 ) " ,現在是我的靈魂不安" (約翰福音12時27分) ,他以服從天父,並瑪利亞和約瑟夫是支撐人的靈魂(約翰4時34分; 5:30 ; : 38 ;盧克22時42分) ,最後是耶穌真的出生的瑪麗(馬太1:16 ) ,取得了一名女子(加拉太4時04分) ,後天使曾承諾說,他構想應馬利亞(路加福音1 : 31條) ;這名婦女是所謂的母親耶穌(馬太1:18 ; 2時11分;路加1時43分;約翰2:3 ) ;基督據說是真的種子的亞伯拉罕(加拉太3:16 ) ,兒子大衛(馬太1:1 ) ,製成的種子朱據,肉中刺(羅1:3 ) ,以及水果的loins大衛(使徒2:30 ) ,所以很清楚,就是證詞經文,以完美人性的耶穌基督,即父親舉行,它作為一般原則,即不管這個詞已經不是假設是沒有癒合,即沒有收到效果的化身。


Here we consider this union as a fact; the nature of the union will be later taken up.在這裡,我們認為這是聯盟作為一個事實,性質,工會稍後會採取行動。 Now it is our purpose to prove that the Divine nature was really and truly united with the human nature of Jesus, ie, that one and the same Person, Jesus Christ, was God and man.現在,我們的研究目的是要證明神的本質是真真正美與人性的耶穌,即認為是同一個人,耶穌基督,是上帝和人。 We speak here of no moral union, no union in a figurative sense of the word; but a union that is physical, a union of two substances or natures so as to make One Person, a union which means that God is Man and Man is God in the Person of Jesus Christ.我們在這裡發言的,沒有道德的聯盟,聯盟並沒有在一個比喻意義上的字,但工會認為是體能,一個聯盟的兩種物質或性質,從而使一個人,一個聯盟,即上帝是男子和男子上帝在人的耶穌基督。

A. The Witness of Holy Writ答:證人的神聖令狀

St. John says: "The Word was made flesh" (i, 14), that is, He Who was God in the Beginning (i, 2), and by Whom all things were created (i. 3), became Man.聖約翰說: "這個詞是肉" (一, 14 ) ,那就是他的人是上帝在開始時(一,二) ,以及由誰來萬物創造(一3 ) ,成為男子。 According to the testimony of St. Paul, the very same Person, Jesus Christ, "being in the form of God [en morphe Theou hyparxon] . . . emptied himself, taking the form of a servant [morphen doulou labon]" (Phil., ii, 6, 7).根據證詞,聖保祿,很是同一人,耶穌基督, "在形式上的上帝[英文morphe theou hyparxon ] … … 。放空自己,採取的形式是一名僕人[ morphen杜盧labon ] " (菲爾。第一,二,六,七) 。 It is always one and the same Person, Jesus Christ, Who is said to be God and Man, or is given predicates that denote Divine and human nature.它始終是同一個人,耶穌基督,他是說是人與上帝,或者是由於謂詞表示,是指神和人類的天性。 The author of life (God) is said to have been killed by the Jews (Acts 3:15); but He could not have been killed were He not Man.作者的生活(上帝) ,據說已被殺害的猶太人(使徒3:15 ) ,但他卻無法被打死人,他不是人為的。

B. Witness of Tradition乙證人的傳統

The early forms of the creed all make profession of faith, not in one Jesus Who is the Son of God and in another Jesus Who is Man and was crucified, but "in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, Who became Man for us and was crucified".早期形式的信條都作出專業的信仰,而不是在一個耶穌,他是上帝的兒子,並在另一個耶穌的人,是人與被釘在十字架上,但"一主耶穌基督,獨一上帝的兒子,誰成為人,為我們被釘在十字架上" 。 The forms vary, but the substance of each creed invariably attributes to one and the same Jesus Christ the predicates of the Godhead and of man (see Denzinger, "Enchiridion").形式各異,但實質內容,每個信條總是歸因於同一個耶穌基督的謂詞的神的源頭和人類(見登青格" , enchiridion " ) 。 Franzelin (thesis xvii) calls special attention to the fact that, long before the heresy of Nestorius, according to Epiphanius (Ancorat., II, 123, in PG, XLII, 234), it was the custom of the Oriental Church to propose to catechumens a creed that was very much more detailed than that proposed to the faithful; and in this creed the catechumens said: "We believe . . . in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of God the Father . . . that is, of the substance of the Father . . . in Him Who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made Flesh, that is, was perfectly begotten of Mary ever Virgin by the Holy Spirit; Who became Man, that is, took perfect human nature, soul and body and mind and all whatsoever is human save only sin, without the seed of man; not in another man, but unto himself did He form Flesh into one holy unity [eis mian hagian henoteta]; not as He breathed and spoke and wrought in the prophets, but He became Man perfectly; for the Word was made Flesh, not in that It underwent a change nor in that It exchanged Its Divinity for humanity, but in that It united Its Flesh unto Its one holy totality and Divinity [eis mian . . . heautou hagian teleioteta te kai theoteta].' franzelin (論文十七)特別提醒用戶注意的事實是,早在異端的nestorius ,根據epiphanius ( ancorat. ,二, 123 ,在編號,四十二, 234 ) ,這是傳統風俗,東方教會的建議慕道一信條,這是非常詳盡得多,比建議信徒,而且在這一信條的慕道者說: "我們相信… … 。在一主耶穌基督,上帝的兒子,造物主上帝的父親… … 。表示是,該物質的父親… … 。在他的人,為我們人類和我們的救贖下來,並取得了肉體,那就是完全是造物主的瑪利亞處女有史以來由聖靈;誰成為人,那就是完善了人性,靈魂和肉體和精神都不管,是拯救人類的唯一單,但無種子的人,不會在另一名男子,但祂自己沒有形成血肉成一個神聖的團結[ EIS的眠hagian henoteta ] ;不作為他吹了,並作了發言,並緊張得要命,在先知,但他成為一名完美的,因為這個詞是血肉,而不是因為它經歷了一個轉變,也在於它交換其神,為人類,但在這美的母親,祂一聖整體與神[ EIS的眠… … 。 heautou hagian teleioteta德啟theoteta ] 。 "The one holy totality", Franzelin considers, means personality, a person being an individual and complete subject of rational acts. This creed of the catechumens gives even the Divinity of the totality, ie the fact that the individual Person of Jesus is a Divine and not a human Person. Of this intricate question we shall speak later on. "一個神聖的總體性" , franzelin認為,人格是指一個人作為一個個體和完成課題的理性行為。信條的慕道者,讓即使是神的全部,即事實,那就是個人的耶穌是一個神不是一個人。這個錯綜複雜的問題,我們將在稍後發言。

The witness of tradition to the fact of the union of the two natures in the one Person of Jesus is clear not only from the symbols or creeds in use before the condemnation of Nestorius, but also from the words of the ante-Nicaean Fathers.證人的傳統,以事實聯盟的兩個性質,在一個人的耶穌顯然並非只從符號或信條,在使用之前,譴責nestorius ,而且從字的前廳nicaean父親。 We have already given the classic quotations from St. Ignatius the Martyr, St. Clement of Rome, St. Justin the Martyr, in all of which are attributed to the one Person, Jesus Christ, the actions or attributes of God and of Man.我們已賦予經典引文聖伊格烈士,聖克萊門特的羅馬,聖賈斯汀烈士,在所有這些都歸功於一個人,耶穌基督,其行動或屬性的神和人的。 Melito, Bishop of Sardis (about 176), says: "Since the same (Christ) was at the same time God and perfect Man, He made His two natures evident to us; His Divine nature by the miracles which He wrought during the three years after His baptism; His human nature by those thirtv years that He first lived, during which the lowliness of the Flesh covered over and hid away all signs of the Divinity, though He was at one and the same time true and everlasting God" (Frag. vii in PG, V, 1221). melito ,主教sardis (約176 ) ,內容為: "自同(基督) ,是在同一時間,神和一個完美的男人,他作出了他的兩個性質明顯,我們接觸;他的神性,由奇蹟,他緊張得要命,在三場多年以後,他的洗禮,他的人性,這些thirtv年,他第一次住了,在這期間lowliness屬肉體的保險涵蓋,並匿藏遠離所有的跡象神,但他在同一個時間,真正的,永恆的上帝" ( frag 。七,在編號,第五, 1221年) 。 St. Irenæus, toward the close of the second century, argues: "If one person suffered and another Person remained incapable of suffering; if one person was born and another Person came down upon him that was born and thereafter left him, not one person but two are proven . . . whereas the Apostle knew one only Who was born and Who suffered" ("Adv. Haer.", III, xvi, n, 9, in PG, VII, 928).聖irenæus ,朝著結束在公元二世紀,辯稱: "如果一個人遭受痛苦和另一人仍無力痛苦,如果一個人出生,另一人下來後,他生於斯,其後離開他,而不是一個人但兩者的證明… … 。而傳道者知道,只有一人是出生,誰也吃" ( "副haer " ,三,十六,氮, 9 ,在編號,第七章, 928 ) 。 Tertullian bears firm witness: "Was not God really crucified? Did He not realiy die as He really was crucified?"戴爾都良熊堅定證人說: "是不是上帝真的被釘十字架嗎?他不realiy死,因為他真的被釘在十字架上" ? ("De Carne Christi", c. v, in PL, II, 760). (下稱"德肉基督" ,長五,在特等,二, 760 ) 。


We have treated the fact of the Incarnation, that is, the fact of the Divine nature of Jesus, the fact of the human nature of Jesus, the fact of the union of these two natures in Jesus.我們對待事實的化身,即是一個事實的神性的耶穌,事實上,人的本質的耶穌,事實上,歐盟的這兩項性質的耶穌。 We now take up the crucial question of the nature of this fact, the manner of this tremendous miracle, the way of uniting the Divine with the human nature in one and the same Person.現在,我們採取了關鍵的性質問題這個事實,方式,這一巨大的奇蹟之路,團結神與人的本性之一,並為同一人。 Arius had denied the fact of this union. arius已否認一個事實,這個聯盟。 No other heresy rent and tore the body of the Church to any very great extent in the matter of this fact after the condemnation of Arius in the Council of Nicaea (325).沒有其他異端租金,撕毀身體的教會有任何很大程度在這件事的這一事實後,譴責arius在理事會的尼西亞( 325 ) 。 Soon a new heresy arose in the explanation of the fact of the union of the two natures in Christ.很快一個新的異端重新屹立於世界的解釋,事實上,歐盟的兩個性質,在基督裡。 Nicaea had, indeed, defined the fact of the union; it had not explicitly defined the nature of that fact; it had not said whether that union was moral or physical.的尼西亞了,而事實上,界定事實的聯盟,它沒有明確界定的性質這一事實,它並沒有說是否認為聯盟是在道德或身體。 The council had implicitly defined the union of the two natures in one hypostasis, a union called physical in opposition to the mere juxtaposition or joining of the two natures called a moral union.安理會曾含蓄地確定了聯盟的兩個性質的一個本質,一個聯盟呼籲物理反對僅僅並列或者參加的兩個性質的所謂道德聯盟。 Nicaea had professed a belief in "One Lord Jesus Christ . . . true God of true God . . . Who took Flesh, became Man and suffered".的尼西亞曾自稱一種理念,在"一主耶穌基督… … 。真實的上帝的真上帝… … 。了肉身,成為人,並遭受了" 。 This belief was in one Person Who was at the same time God and Man, that is, had at the same time Divine and human nature.這個信念是一個人,是在同一時間,人與上帝,那就是曾在同一時間,神和人類的天性。 Such teaching was an implicit definition of all that was later on denied by Nestorius.這樣的教學,是一個隱含定義的一切,後來就否認nestorius 。 We shall find the great Athanasius, for fifty years the determined foe of the heresiarch, interpreting Nicaea's decree in just this sense; and Athanasius must have known the sense meant by Nicaea, in which he was the antagonist of the heretic Arius.我們會發現偉大athanasius ,在長達50年下定決心的敵人的heresiarch ,詮釋了尼西亞的法令,在短短這個意義; athanasius必須有已知的責任感意思了尼西亞,他在其中是拮抗劑的邪教arius 。

(1) NESTORIANISM ( 1 )景教

In spite of the efforts of Athanasius, Nestorius, who had been elected Patriarch of Constantinople (428), found a loophole to avoid the definition of Nicaea.儘管努力athanasius , nestorius ,已當選元老的君士坦丁堡( 428 ) ,發現了一個漏洞,以避免定義的尼西亞。 Nestorius called the union of the two natures a mysterious and an inseparable joining (symapheian), but would admit no unity (enosin) in the strict sense of the word to be the result of this joining (see "Serm.", ii, n. 4; xii, n. 2, in PL, XLVIII). nestorius稱為聯盟的兩個性質的神秘和不可分割的加入( symapheian ) ,但都承認,沒有統一組織( enosin ) ,在嚴格意義上的字,將因這次加入(見"血清" ,二, n 4段;十二, 12月31日2 ,在公共圖書館, 48 ) 。 The union of the two natures is not physical (physike) but moral, a mere juxtaposition in state of being (schetike); the Word indwells in Jesus like as God indwells in the just (loc. cit.); the indwelling of the Word in Jesus is, however, more excellent than the indwelling of God in the just man by grace, for that the indwelling of the Word purposes the Redemption of all mankind and the most perfect manifestation of the Divine activity (Serm. vii, n. 24); as a consequence, Mary is the Mother of Christ (Christotokos), not the Mother of God (Theotokos).該聯盟的兩個性質,是不是身體( physike ) ,但道義上,僅僅並列在國家的福利( schetike ) ;一詞indwells在耶穌像,因為神indwells在剛( loc.引文) ;留置的字在耶穌的,但更多的優秀比留置上帝在剛剛過去的男子,由恩典,因為這本留置的字宗旨贖回所有人類和最完美的體現神聖的活動( serm.七, 12月24日) ,因此,瑪麗是母的基督( christotokos ) ,而不是天主之母( theotokos ) 。 As is usual in these Oriental heresies, the metaphysical refinement of Nestorius was faulty, and led him into a practical denial of the mystery that he had set himself to explain.因為通常在這些東方邪說,形而上細化nestorius是錯誤的,並導致他成為一個實際否定的奧秘,他自己來解釋。 During the discussion that Nestorius aroused, he strove to explain that his indwelling (enoikesis) theory was quite enough to keep him within the demands of Nicaea; he insisted that "the Man Jesus should be co-adored with the Divine union and almighty God [ton te theia symapheia to pantokratori theo symproskynoumenon anthropon] "(Serm., vii, n. 35); he forcibly denied that Christ was two persons, but proclaimed Him as one person (prosopon) made up of two substances.在隨後進行的討論nestorius引起了,他竭力解釋說,他留置( enoikesis )理論是很夠了,以保持他的要求的尼西亞,他堅持認為: "該名男子耶穌應共同崇拜與神聖聯盟和全能的上帝[每噸特忒伊亞symapheia以pantokratori西奧symproskynoumenon anthropon ] " ( serm. ,七, 12月31日35 ) ;他強行剝奪相信祂是兩個人,但宣布了他作為一個人( prosopon )成立的這兩種物質。 The oneness of the Person was however only moral, and not at all physical.唯有此人,但只有道義上,而不是在所有的身體。 Despite whatsoever Nestorius said as a pretext to save himself from the brand of heresy, he continually and explicitly denied the hypostatic union (enosin kath hypostasin, kata physin, kat ousian), that union of physical entities and of substances which the Church defends in Jesus; he affirmed a juxtaposition in authority, dignity, energy, relation, and state of being (synapheia kat authentian, axian, energeian, anaphoran, schesin); and he maintained that the Fathers of Nicaea had nowhere said that God was born of the Virgin Mary (Sermo, v, nn. 5 and 6).儘管什麼nestorius說,就以此為藉口,以拯救自己,從品牌的異端,還不斷地,並明確否認了本質聯盟( enosin kath hypostasin ,字physin ,吉ousian ) ,即聯盟的物理實體和物質教會辯護,在耶穌他肯定並置在權威和尊嚴,能源,關係,和國家的福祉( synapheia吉authentian , axian , energeian , anaphoran , schesin ) ;和他堅持認為,父親的尼西亞已無處說,這就是神所生的維爾京瑪麗( sermo ,五,神經網絡的第5和第6條) 。

Nestorius in this distortion of the sense of Nicaea clearly went against the tradition of the Church. nestorius在這個扭曲了的感覺了尼西亞明顯違反了傳統的教會。 Before he had denied the hypostatic union of the two natures in Jesus, that union had been taught by the greatest Fathers of their time.之前,他曾否認本質聯盟的兩個性質的耶穌,這聯盟一直在教導所的最大父親自己的時間。 St. Hippolytus (about 230) taught: "the Flesh [sarx] apart from the Logos had no hypostasis [oude . . . hypostanai edynato, was unable to act as principle of rational activity], for that its hypostasis was in the Word" ("Contra Noet.", n. 15, in PG, X, 823).聖hippolytus (約230 )教授說: "肉[扎爾克斯]除了標識沒有本質[ oude … … 。 hypostanai edynato ,是無法起到的原則,理性的活動] ,其本質是在用" ( "矛盾NOET的" , 12月15日,在編號, X ,黑823 ) 。 St. Epiphanius (about 365): "The Logos united body, mind, and soul into one totality and spiritual hypostasis" ("Haer.", xx, n. 4, in PG, XLI, 277).聖epiphanius (約365 )說: "該徽標美身,心和靈魂成一個整體和精神本質" (下稱" haer " ,某, 12月31日4 ,在編號,四十一, 277 ) 。 "The Logos made the Flesh to subsist in the hypostasis of the Logos [eis heauton hypostesanta ten sarka]" ("Haer.", cxxvii, n. 29, in PG, XLII, 684). "標識了肉體生存,在本質的標識[ EIS的heauton hypostesanta 10 sarka ] " (下稱" haer " , cxxvii , 12月29日,在編號,四十二, 684 ) 。 St. Athanasius (about 350): "They err who say that it is one person who is the Son that suffered, and another person who did not suffer ... ; the Flesh became God's own by nature [kata physin], not that it became consubstantial with the Divinity of the Logos as if coeternal therewith, but that it became God's own Flesh by its very nature [kata physin]."聖athanasius (約350 )說: "他們也會犯錯的人說,這是一個人的兒子,因為遭受了,而另外的人,並沒有遭受... ;肉中刺成了上帝自己的本質[字physin ] ,而不是它成了consubstantial與神性的標識,如果coeternal條文,但它成了上帝的割肉就其性質而言[字physin ] " 。 In this entire discourse ("Contra Apollinarium", I, 12, in PG, XXVI, 1113), St. Athanasius directly attacks the specious pretexts of the Arians and the arguments that Nestorius later took up, and defends the union of two physical natures in Christ [kata physin], as apposed to the mere juxtaposition or joining of the same natures [kata physin].在這整個話語( "矛盾apollinarium " ,我想, 12 ,在編號, 26 , 1113 ) ,聖athanasius直接攻擊似是而非的藉口的arians和論據nestorius後來接手,並維護聯盟的兩個物理性質在基督[字physin ] ,因為apposed至只是並列或者參加的同一性質的[字physin ] 。 St. Cyril of Alexandria (about 415) makes use of this formula oftener even than the other Fathers; he calls Christ "the Word of the Father united in nature with the Flesh [ton ek theou Patros Logon kata physin henothenta sarki] ("De Recta Fide", n. 8, in PG, LXXVI, 1210). For other and very numerous citations, see Petavius (111, 4). The Fathers always explain that this physical union of the two natures does not mean the intermingling of the natures, nor any such union as would imply a change in God, but only such union as was necessary to explain the fact that one Divine Person had human nature as His own true nature together with His Divine nature.聖西里爾亞歷山大(約415 )利用這一公式oftener ,甚至比其他的父親,他呼籲基督"這個詞的父親,美國在性質上與肉體[噸18.3.2000 theou patros登入字physin henothenta sarki ] ( "時點直腸有誠意" , 12月8日,在編號, lxxvi , 1210 ) ,而其他和非常無數嘉獎,見petavius ( 111 , 4 ) 。爸爸總是解釋說,這身體聯盟的兩個性質,不等於交織在一起的性質,也沒有任何這樣的聯盟,將意味著改變上帝,但只有這樣的聯盟是必要的,解釋了一個事實,就是神的人,人性,因為他自己的真實性質,連同他的神性。

The Council of Ephesus (431) condemned the heresy of Nestorius, and defined that Mary was mother in the flesh of God's Word made Flesh (can. i).安理會的以弗所( 431 )譴責異端的nestorius ,明確表示,瑪麗的母親在肉體中的上帝的話語肉身( can.一) 。 It anathematized all who deny that the Word of God the Father was united with the Flesh in one hypostasis (kath hypostasin); all who deny that there is only one Christ with Flesh that is His own; all who deny that the same Christ is God at the same time and man (can. ii).它anathematized所有的人否認上帝的話,父親是美國與肉一合( kath hypostasin ) ;所有的人否認是不是只有一個基督與肉體那是他自己,所有的人否認,同時基督是上帝在同一時間內與人( can.二) 。 In the remaining ten canons drawn up by St. Cyril of Alexandria, the anathema is aimed directly at Nestorius.在餘下的10門炮,制定了由聖西里爾的亞歷山德里亞,詛咒,是直接針對nestorius 。 "If in the one Christ anyone divides the substances, after they have been once united, and joins them together merely by a juxtaposition [mone symapton autas synapheia] of honour or of authority or of power and not rather by a union into a physical unity [synode te kath henosin physiken], let him be accursed" (can. iii). "如果在一個基督的人劃分為物質後,他們已再次團結起來,並同他們一起僅僅以並列[ mone symapton autas synapheia ]的榮譽或權力或權力,而不是由一個聯盟成為一個身心統一[ synode特kath henosin physiken ] ,讓他受到譴責的" ( can.三) 。 These twelve canons condemn plecemeal the various subterfuges of Nestorius.這12門炮,譴責plecemeal各項勝負nestorius 。 St. Cyril saw heresy lurking in phrases that seemed innocent enough to the unsuspecting.聖西里爾看到異端潛伏在短語似乎無辜的,足以毫無戒心的。 Even the co-adoration theory is condemned as an attempt to separate the Divine from the human nature in Jesus by giving to each a separate hypostasis (see Denzinger, "Enchiridion", ed. 1908, nn. 113-26).甚至共同崇拜理論,就是指責為企圖獨立的神聖,從人性的耶穌,讓每一個單獨的本質(見登青格" , enchiridion "外,教育署。 1908年,神經網絡。 113-26 ) 。

(2) MONOPHYSITISM ( 2 ) monophysitism

The condemnation of the heresy of Nestorius saved for the Church the dogma of the Incarnation, "the great mystery of godliness" (1 Timothy 3:16), but lost to her a portion of her children, who, though dwindled down to insignificant numbers, still remain apart from her care.譴責邪教的nestorius節省教會教條的化身, "偉大的奧秘,虔誠的信徒" ( 1提摩太後3:16 ) ,但輸掉了她的一部份,她的孩子,雖然少了下來,以微不足道的數目,仍然是除了她的照顧。 The union of the two natures in one Person was saved.該聯盟的兩個性質的一人獲救。 The battle for the dogma was not yet won.戰鬥中,為教條尚未韓元。 Nestorius had postulated two persons in Jesus Christ. nestorius曾假設兩個人在耶穌基督。 A new heresy soon began.一個新的異端即將開始的。 It postulated only one Person in Jesus, and that the Divine Person.它假設只有一個人在耶穌,並認為神的人。 It went farther.到更遠的地方。 It went too far.它走得太遠。 The new heresy defended only one nature, as well as one Person in Jesus.新的異端辯護,只有一個本質,以及一個人在耶穌。 The leader of this heresy was Eutyches.領導這個邪,是歐迪奇。 His followers were called Monophysites.他的追隨者被稱為monophysites 。 They varied in their ways of explanation.他們都各有不同,他們的方法解釋。 Some thought the two natures were intermingled into one.一些耐人尋味的兩個性質分別交織成一個。 Others are said to have worked out some sort of a conversion of the human into the Divine.另據說有出某種形式的轉換的人進入神聖的。 All were condemned by the Council of Chalcedon (451).所有被譴責安理會的chalcedon ( 451 ) 。 This Fourth General Council of the Church defined that Jesus Christ remained, after the Incarnation, "perfect in Divinity and perfect in humanity . . . consubstantial with the Father according to His Divinity, consubstantial with us according to His humanity . . . one and the same Christ, the Son, the Lord, the Only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures not intermingled, not changed, not divisible, not separable" (see Denzinger, n. 148).這第四次總理事會的教會確定,耶穌基督仍然存在,後化身" ,在完美的神性和完美的人性… … 。 consubstantial與父親根據他的神性, consubstantial與我們根據他的人性… … 。是一個與同時基督,是兒子時,主,唯一的造物主,我們必須承認,在兩個性質不相互交織,並沒有改變,而不是分割的,而不是分離" (見登青格, 12月31日148 ) 。 By this condemnation of error and definition of truth, the dogma of the Incarnation was once again saved to the Church.由這種譴責的錯誤和定義真理,教條的化身,再度被保存到了教堂。 Once again a large portion of the faithful of the Oriental Church were lost to their mother.再次,很大一部分忠實的東方教會的人失去了他們的母親。 Monophysitism resulted in the national Churches of Syria, Egypt, and Armenia. monophysitism導致在國家教會的敘利亞,埃及和亞美尼亞。 These national Churches are still heretic, although there have in later times been formed Catholic rites called the Catholic Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian rites.這些國家的教會仍然是異教徒,雖然有後來的一個時期以來,形成了天主教的儀式稱為天主教敘利亞文,科普特人,亞美尼亞儀式。 The Catholic rites, as the Catholic Chaldaic rite, are less numerous than the heretic rites.天主教儀式,作為天主教chaldaic成年禮,是數量更少,比邪教儀式。

(3) MONOTHELITISM ( 3 ) monothelitism

One would suppose that there was no more room for heresy in the explanation of the mystery of the nature of the Incarnation.有人會認為不存在較大的空間異端,在解釋之謎性質的化身。 There is always room for heresy in the matter of explanation of a mystery, if one does not hear the infallible teaching body to whom and to whom alone Christ entrusted His mysteries to have and to keep and to teach them till ihe end of time.總是存在的餘地異端在這件事的解釋是一個謎,如果沒有聽到犯錯的教學機構,向誰和誰單獨基督托他的奧秘,有效率及迎合,並教導他們到IHE的結束時間。 Three patriarchs of the Oriental Church gave rise, so far as we know, to the new heresy.三patriarchs的東方教會產生了,所以,據我們所知,到新的異端。 These three heresiarchs were Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyrus, the Patriarch of Alexandria, and Athanasius, the Patriarch of Antioch.這三個heresiarchs人謝爾蓋,牧首的君士坦丁堡,居魯士,牧首亞歷山大與athanasius ,牧安提。 St. Sophronius, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, remained true and delated his fellow patriarchs to Pope Honorius.聖sophronius ,牧首的耶路撒冷,仍是真實而delated他的同胞patriarchs向教宗honorius 。 His successor in the see of Peter, St. Martin, bravely condemned the error of the three Oriental patriarchs, who admitted the decrees of Nicaea, Ephesus, and Chalcedon; defended the union of two natures in one Divine Person; but denied that this Divine Person had two wills.他的繼任者,在看到彼得,聖馬丁,勇敢地譴責誤差三個東方長者,誰承認了這一法令的尼西亞,伸出手,並chalcedon ;辯護聯盟的兩個性質,在同一個神人,但否認此舉神人有兩個遺囑。 Their principle was expressed by the words, en thelema kai mia energeia, by which they would seem to have meant one will and one activity, ie only one principle of action and of suffering in Jesus Christ and that one principle Divine.他們的原則是,所表達的話,恩thelema啟米亞energeia中,他們似乎都意味著一會一活動,即只有一個原則的行動和苦難在耶穌基督的一個原則,神聖。 These heretics were called Monothelites.這些異端,被稱為monothelites 。 Their error was condemned by the Sixth General Council (the Third Council of Constantinople, 680).其誤差在譴責第六次總理事會(第三屆理事會君士坦丁堡, 680頁) 。 It defined that in Christ there were two natural wills and two natural activities, the Divine and the human, and that the human will was not at all contrary to the Divine, but rather perfectly subject thereto (Denzinger, n. 291).它確定,在基督裡有兩個天然遺囑和兩個自然活動中,神與人的,並認為人類將沒有任何相反的,以神聖的,而是絕對的主題報告(登青格, 12月31日291 ) 。 The Emperor Constans sent St. Martin into exile in Chersonesus.皇帝CONSTANS的派出聖馬丁流亡刻松。 We have trace of only one body of Monothelites.我們有微量的只有一個機構的monothelites 。 The Maronites, about the monastery of John Maron, were converted from Monothelism in the time of the Crusades and have been true to the faith ever since.馬龍派教徒,對寺院的約翰maron ,轉為從monothelism在的時候,十字軍東征,並已真正到了信仰至今。 The other Monothelites seem to have been absorbed in Monophysitism, or in the schism of the Byzantine Church later one其他monothelites似乎已被吸收在monophysitism ,還是在分裂的拜占庭式教堂後,一

The error of Monothelism is clear from the Scripture as well as from tradition.誤差monothelism是明確的,從經文中,以及從傳統。 Christ did acts of adoration (John 4:22), humility (Matthew 11:29), reverence (Hebrews 5:7).基督做的行為,朝拜(約翰4時22分) ,謙卑(馬太11時29分) ,虔敬(希伯來書5:7 ) 。 These acts are those of a human will.這些行為是一個人的意志。 The Monothelites denied that there was a human will in Christ.該monothelites否認有一個人會在基督裡。 Jesus prayed: "Father, if Thou wilt, remove this chalice from me: but yet not my will, but thine be done," (Luke 22:42).耶穌祈禱說: "爸爸,如果祢,消除這個chalice從我說:但卻不是我的意願,而是你的工作要做, " (路加福音22時42分) 。 Here there is question of two wills, the Father's and Christ's.這裡有問題,兩個遺囑中,父親的和基督的。 The will of Christ was subject to the will of the Father.該會的基督時,所受到的意志,是父親。 "As the Father hath given me commandment, so do I" (John 14:31). "作為父給了我誡命,使我" (約翰福音14時31分) 。 He became obedient even unto death (Phil., ii, 8).他成為聽話的,甚至以至於死( phil. ,二,八) 。 The Divine will in Jesus could not have been subject to the will of the Father, with which will it was really identified.神聖的,將在耶穌已經不能受意志的父親,這將是真正確定。

(4) THE CATHOLIC FAITH ( 4 )天主教信仰

Thus far we have that which is of Faith in this matter of the nature of the Incarnation.迄今為止,我們認為這是信心的,在這件事的性質的化身。 The human and Divine natures are united in one Divine Person so as to remain that exactly which they are, namely, Divine and human natures with distinct and perfect activities of their own.人類與神的本質是美國在同一個神人等,以保持這正是它們,即神和人的本質具有鮮明和完善活動,他們自己的。 Theologians go farther in their attempts to give some account of the mystery of the Incarnation, so as, at least, to show that there is therein no contradiction, nothing that right reason may not safely adhere to.神學家走得更遠,在他們試圖讓一些帳戶的謎的化身,所以作為,至少,以示有,所以不存在矛盾,沒有什麼權利,因此可能不會平安堅持的。 This union of the two natures in one Person has been for centuries called a hypostatic union, that is, a union in the Divine Hypostasis.這個聯盟的兩個性質的一人已被數百年的所謂本質的聯盟,也就是工會在神聖的本質。 What is an hypostasis?什麼是本質? The definition of Boethius is classic: rationalis naturae individua substantia (PL, LXIV, 1343), a complete whole whose nature is rational.定義論波愛修斯是經典: rationalis個性naturae substantia (特等, lxiv , 1343 ) ,一個完整的整體,其本質是理性的。 This book is a complete whole; its nature is not rational; it is not an hypostasis.這本書是一個完整的整體,其性質是不理性的,這是不是一種本質。 An hypostasis is a complete rational individual.一個本質,是一個完整的理性的個人。 St. Thomas defines hypostasis as substantia cum ultimo complemento (III:2:3, ad 2um), a substance in its entirety.聖托馬斯的本質界定為substantia暨ultimo complemento (三: 2:3 ,專案2um ) ,一種物質中的全部內容。 Hypostasis superadds to the notion of rational substance this idea of entirety; nor does the idea of rational nature include this notion of entirety.合superadds以概念理性物質這個概念的全部內容,也沒有想法的合理性,包括這一概念的全部內容。 Human nature is the principle of human activities; but only an hypostasis, a person, can exercise these activities.人性的原則,是人類活動,但只有一個本質,一個人,可以行使這些活動。 The Schoolmen discuss the question whether the hypostasis has anything more of reality than human nature.該schoolmen討論的問題是能否本質有什麼更現實的,比人類的天性。 To understand the discussion, one must needs be versed in scholastic Philosophy.要了解討論,但必須需要精通士林哲學。 Be the case as it may in the matter of human nature that is not united with the Divine, the human nature that is hypostatically united with the Divine, that is, the human nature that the Divine Hypostasis or Person assumes to Itself, has certainly more of reality united to it than the human nature of Christ would have were it not hypostatically united in the Word.如果情況屬實,因為它可能在這件事的人的本性是不團結,與神,人的本質就是hypostatically美與神,即是人的性質,即神的本質或什麼人上台,以自己的,當然更從實際出發,以美國的,這比人的本質的基督會,如果不是hypostatically美國在這個詞。 The Divine Logos identified with Divine nature (Hypostatic Union) means then that the Divine Hypostasis (or Person, or Word, or Logos) appropriates to Itself human nature, and takes in every respect the place of the human person.神聖的標識識別與神性(本質聯盟) ,就是那神聖的本質(或人,或一句話,或徽標)合適自己的人性,並在各方面都在發生的人。 In this way, the human nature of Christ, though not a human person, loses nothing of the perfection of the perfect man; for the Divine Person supplies the place of the human.這樣一來,人性的基督,雖然不是一個人,失去了什麼的完善了一個完美的男人,為神人用品取代人類。

It is to be remembered that, when the Word took Flesh, there was no change in the Word; all the change was in the Flesh.這是必須記住,當這個詞了肉體,並沒有改變這個詞,所有的變化是在肉體上。 At the moment of conception, in the womb of the Blessed Mother, through the forcefulness of God's activity, not only was the human soul of Christ created but the Word assumed the man that was conceived.目前的構想中,在子宮裡的祝福母親,透過有力的神的活動,不僅是人類靈魂的基督開設,而且字假設該名男子表示,在構思。 When God created the world, the world was changed, that is.當上帝創造了世界,世界改變了,這就是。 it passed from the state of nonentity to the state of existence; and there was no change in the Logos or Creative Word of God the Father.它通過從國家的架空,以國家的生存,並沒有變化,在標識或創造性上帝的話是父親。 Nor was there change in that Logos when it began to terminate the human nature.也沒有改變在這一標識時,它開始以終止人類的天性。 A new relation ensued, to be sure; but this new relation implied in the Logos no new reality, no real change; all new reality, all real change, was in the human nature.一種新的關係裡,可以肯定的,但這種新的關係,隱含在標識,沒有新的實際出發,並沒有真正改變,一切從新的實際出發,一切真正的變化,是在人類的天性。 Anyone who wishes to go into this very intricate question of the manner of the Hypostatic Union of the two natures in the one Divine Personality, may with great profit read St. Thomas (III:4:2); Scotus (in III, Dist. i); (De Incarnatione, Disp. II, sec. 3); Gregory, of Valentia (in III, D. i, q. 4).任何人士如有意進入這一非常複雜的問題,方式的本質聯盟的兩個性質,是在一個神聖的個性,可能與大利潤讀聖托馬斯(三: 4點02分) ; scotus (三區。一) ; (德incarnatione ,分散,第二秒3 ) ;格雷戈里, valentia (三,四,我問: 4 ) 。 Any modern text book on theology will give various opinions in regard to the way of the union of the Person assuming with the nature assumed任何現代文圖書神學會各界意見方面的發展路向的該聯盟的人,假設與自然假定


(1) ON CHRIST HIMSELF ( 1 )對基督本人

A. On the Body of Christ答:對基督的身體

Did union with the Divine nature do away, with all bodily inperfections?當時聯盟與神性的取消,所有身體疵病? The Monophysites were split up into two parties by this question.該monophysites被分成兩個當事方,由這個問題。 Catholics hold that, before the Resurrection, the Body of Christ was subject to all the bodily weaknesses to which human nature unassumed is universally subject; such are hunger, thirst, pain, death.天主教徒認為,從以前的復活,基督的身體時,所受到的所有身體的弱點,即人性unassumed是普遍受到這樣的是飢餓,乾渴,痛苦,死亡。 Christ hungered (Matthew 4:2), thirsted (John 19:28), was fatigued (John 4:6), suffered pain and death.基督hungered (馬太4時02分) ,若渴(約翰19時28分) ,疲倦(約翰4:6 ) ,蒙受痛苦和死亡。 "We have not a high priest, who cannot have compassion on our infirmities: but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin" (Hebrews 4:15). "我們還沒有一個高神父,誰又能沒有同情心,對我們的毛病:但一個誘惑,在一切事物一樣,因為我們是沒有罪的" (希伯來書4:15 ) 。 "For in that, wherein he himself hath suffered and been tempted, he is able to succour them also that are tempted" (Hebrews 2:18). "因為在這樣的,在那裡他自己祂所遭受痛苦和被誘惑,他是能夠救助他們,也屬於誘惑" (希伯來書2時18分) 。 All these bodily weaknesses were not miraculously brought about by Jesus; they were the natural results of the human nature He assumed.所有這些身體上的弱點,並沒有奇蹟般地所帶來的耶穌;它們分別是自然的結果,人的本質是他就任。 To be sure, they might have been impeded and were freely willed by Christ.可以肯定的是,他們有可能受到阻礙,並自由意志所基督。 They were part of the free oblation that began with the moment of the Incarnation.他們的一部分自由oblation始於受孕的化身。 "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith: Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldest not; but a body thou hast fitted to me" (Hebrews 10:5). "人哪,當他時勢地融入世界,他仰:犧牲和oblationあwouldest沒有,但一個機構祢安裝到我的" (希伯來書10時05分) 。 The Fathers deny that Christ assumed sickness.父親否認基督假定疾病。 There is no mention in Scripture of any sickness of Jesus.但沒有提到在經文中的任何疾病的耶穌。 Sickness is not a weakness that is a necessary belonging of human nature.生病不是一個弱點,這是一個必要的,屬於人性的。 It is true that pretty much all mankind suffers sickness.這是事實幾乎所有人類患有疾病。 It is not true that any specific sickness is suffered by all mankind.這是完全不正確的任何特定的疾病,是遭受全人類。 Not all men must needs have measles.不是所有的男人必須需要有麻疹。 No one definite sickness universally belongs to human nature; hence no one definite sickness was assumed by Christ.沒有一個明確的疾病普遍屬於人性的,因此沒有一個明確的疾病,是假設由基督。 St. Athanasius gives the reason that it were unbecoming that He should heal others who was Himself not healed (PG, XX, 133).聖athanasius給人的,這正是因為它被不適當的,他應該為醫治別人的人是自己沒有癒合公司( PG , XX條, 133條) 。 Weaknesses due to old age are common to mankind.缺點是由於老年常見的人類。 Had Christ lived to an old age, He would have suffered such weaknesses just as He suffered the weaknesses that are common to infancy.有基督活到老年,他會遭受這樣的弱點,正如他遭受的弱點是共同的萌芽狀態。 Death from old age would have come to Jesus, had He not been violently put to death (see St. Augustine, "De Peccat.", II, 29; PL, XLIV, 180).死亡年老將來到耶穌,如果他沒有被粗暴地把死刑(見聖奧古斯丁, "德peccat 。 " ,第二章, 29條;特等,四十四, 180 ) 。 The reasonableness of these bodily imperfections in Christ is clear from the fact that He assumed human nature so as to satisfy for that nature's sin.是否合理,這些身體缺陷,在基督裡是清楚的事實,他就任後的人性等,以滿足這一性質的罪過。 Now,to satisfy forthe sin of another is to accept the penalty of that sin.現在,為了滿足forthe單的另一個原因是,接受刑罰,罪。 Hence it was fitting that Christ should take upon himself all those penalties of the sin of Adam that are common to man and becoming.因此這是非常恰當的基督應以自己所有這些刑罰的罪,亞當表示,是共同的男子,並成為。 or at least not unbecoming to the Hypostatic Union.或至少不適合向本質的聯盟。 (See Summa Theologica III:14 for other reasons.) As Christ did not take sickness upon Himself, so other imperfections, such as deformities, which are not common to mankind, were not His. (見總結theologica三: 14其他原因) ,因為基督沒有考慮生病後,自己,所以其他不完善之處,諸如畸形的,又不是常見的人類,並不是他的。 St. Clement of Alexandria (III Paedagogus, c. 1), Tertullian (De Carne Christi, c. ix), and a few others taught that Christ was deformed.聖克萊門特的亞歷山德里亞(三paedagogus ,長1 ) ,戴爾都良(德肉基督教,長九) ,以及其他幾個教導說基督被變形。 They misinterpreted the words of Isaias: "There is no beauty in him, nor comeliness; and we have seen him, and there was no sightliness" etc. (liii, 2).他們曲解了的話伊薩亞斯羅: "沒有美人,他也不comeliness ;我們曾經見過他,並沒有sightliness "等( liii , 2 ) 。 The words refer only to the suffering Christ.一語僅指痛苦基督。 Theologians now are unanimous in the view that Christ was noble in bearing and beautiful in form, such as a perfect man should be; for Christ was, by virtue of His incarnation, a perfect man (see Stentrup, "Christologia", theses lx, lxi).神學家,現在都一致認為基督是高尚的軸承和美麗的形式,如一個完美的男人應該;基督是,憑藉他的化身,是一個完美的男子(見stentrup , " christologia " ,論文中心LX , LXI的) 。

B. On the Human Soul of Christ乙對人的靈魂的基督

(a) IN THE WILL (一)在會


The effect of the Incarnation on the human will of Christ was to leave it free in all things save only sin.效果化身,對人的意志的基督是留給免費在一切事上僅保存單。 It was absolutely impossible that any stain of sin should soil the soul of Christ.這是絕對不可能的,任何污點的單應土壤的靈魂基督。 Neither sinful act of the will nor sinful habit of the soul were in keeping with the Hypostatic Union.既不是罪孽深重的行為意志,也不是罪孽深重的習慣,靈魂被符合本質的聯盟。 The fact that Christ never sinned is an article of faith (see Council, Ephes., can. x, in Denzinger, 122, wherein the sinlessness of Christ is implicit in the definition that he did not offer Himself for Himself, but for us).事實上,基督從來沒有罪,是一篇文章的信仰(見理事會, ephes ,可以通過X ,在登青格號, 122號,其中,清白的,是基督所隱含的定義是,他並沒有提供自己,為自己,但對我們來說) 。 This fact of Christ's sinlessness is evident from the Scripture.這一事實基督的清白,可見從聖經。 "There is no sin in Him" (1 John 3:5). "絕對不存在罪過,在他的" ( 1約翰3點05分) 。 Him, who knew no sin, he hath made sin for us" ie a victim for sin (2 Corinthians 5:21). The impossibility of a sinful act by Christ is taught by all theologians, but variously explained. G¨nther defended an impossibility consequent solely upon the Divine provision that He would not sin (Vorschule, II, 441). This is no impossibility at all. Christ is God. It is absolutely impossible, antecedent to the Divine prevision, that God should allow His flesh to sin. If God allowed His flesh to sin, He might sin, that is, He might turn away from Himself; and it is absolutely impossible that God should turn from Himself, be untrue to His Divine attributes. The Scotists teach that this impossibility to sin, antecedent to God's revision, is not due to the Hypostatic Union, but is like to the impossibility of the beatified to sin, and is due to a special Divine Providence (see Scotus, in III, d. xiii, Q. i). St. Thomas (III:15:1) and all Thomists, Francisco Suárez (d. xxxiii, 2), Vasquez (d. xi, c. iii), de Lugo (d. xxvi, 1, n. 4), and all theologians of the Society of Jesus teach the now almost universally admitted explanation that the absolute impossibility of a sinful act on the part of Christ was due to the hypostatic union of His human nature with the Divine.他的,誰知道沒有罪過,祂所取得了單,我們" ,即受害者為單仲偕(哥林多5時21分) 。不可能是一個有罪的行為,基督是教導所有的神學家,但以各種解釋, G節¨ nther辯護不可能的相應單後,神條文表示,他不會單( vorschule ,二, 441 ) ,這是不可能的,沒有這回事。耶穌是上帝,這是絕對不可能的,先行向神預知,即上帝應該讓他的肉體,以單如果上帝允許他的肉體,以單仲偕,他可能單,那就是他有可能使遠離自己,這是絕對不可能的,神是應該反過來從自己的,不真實的,以他的神的屬性。 scotists教授說,這是不可能的,以單,前身為上帝的修訂,不僅是因為該本質的一份子,而且是想不可能的宣福以罪,是因為一個特別神聖的普羅維登斯(見scotus ,在三,四十三,問:我) 。聖托馬斯(三: 15:1 )以及所有thomists ,弗朗西斯科蘇亞雷斯(四三十三, 2 ) ,巴斯克斯(四席,丙三) ,德盧戈(四26 , 1 , 12月31日4 ) ,並所有神學家的社會耶穌的教導,現在幾乎普遍承認解釋說,絕對不可能是一個有罪的行為,對部分基督,是因為該聯盟的本質,他的人性與神。


The will of Christ remained free after the Incarnation.該會的基督仍然免費後的化身。 This is an article of faith.這是一篇文章的信仰。 The Scripture is most clear on this point.聖經是最清楚這一點。 "When he had tasted, he would not drink" (Matthew 27:34). "當他已嚐到了,他也不會喝" (馬太27:34 ) 。 "I will; be thou made clean" (Matthew 8:3). "我會;予以あ取得乾淨" (馬太8時03分) 。 The liberty of Christ was such that He merited.冒昧的基督就是如此,他值得。 "He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. For which cause God also hath exalted him" (Phil., ii, 8). "他謙卑自己,變得聽話,以至於死,甚至到了死亡的十字架。造成神,也歸服開天闢地他" ( phil. ,二,八) 。 "Who having joy set before him, endured the cross" (Hebrews 12:2). "誰擁有的喜悅,定在他之前,也經歷過" (希伯來書12:2 ) 。 That Christ was free in the matter of death, is the teaching of all Catholics; else He did not merit nor satisfy for us by His death.相信祂是免費在這件事的死因,是教學的所有天主教徒;否則,他不值得也不滿足,我們對他的逝世。 Just how to reconcile this liberty of Christ with the impossibility of His committing sin has ever been a crux for theologians.只是如何調和這人身自由基督不可能的,他犯下罪惡歷來的一個焦點,為神學家。 Some seventeen explanations are given (see Summa Theologica III:47:3, ad 3; Molina, "Concordia", d. liii, membr. 4).一些十七年的解釋是由於(見總結theologica三: 47:3 ,專案3個;莫利納, "協和" ,四liii ,膜4款) 。

(b) IN THE INTELLECT ( b )在智力

The effects of the Hypostatic Union upon the knowledge of Christ will be treated in a SPECIAL ARTICLE.影響的本質聯盟後,知識的耶穌會處理處於一個特殊的文章。

(c) SANCTITY OF CHRIST (三)神聖不可侵犯的基督

The Humanity of Christ was holy by a twofold sanctity: the grace of union and sanctifying grace.人性的基督是神聖的,由兩方面的神聖性:恩典聯盟和sanctifying恩典。 The grace of union, ie the Substantial and Hypostatic Union of the two natures in the Divine Word, is called the substantial sanctity of Christ.恩典聯盟,即實質和本質聯盟的兩個性質,在神聖的字眼,是所謂大幅神聖不可侵犯的基督。 St. Augustine says: "Tunc ergo sanctificavit se in se, hoc est hominem se in Verbo se, quia unus est Christus, Verbum et homo, sanctificans hominem in Verbo" (When the Word was made Flesh then, indeed, He sanctified Himself in Himself, that is, Himself as Man in Himself as Word; for that Christ is One Person, both Word and Man, and renders His human nature holy in the holiness of the Divine nature) (In Johan. tract. 108, n. 5, in PL, XXXV, 1916).聖奧古斯丁說: "下次我們號ETM sanctificavit硒硒,專案預計參加hominem硒動詞本身, quia unus預計參加基督,拉丁文字語言等骨頭, sanctificans hominem在動詞" (當字,是肉,然後,事實上,他聖潔自己自己,那就是自己的男子自稱為詞;基督是一個人,無論是Word和管人,使他的人性聖地,在聖潔的神性) (約翰。道108 ,注5 。在特等,第三十五卷, 1916年) 。 Besides this substantial sanctity of the grace of Hypostatic Union, there was in the soul of Christ, the accidental sanctity called sanctifying grace.除了上述龐大的神聖恩典本質的聯盟,因此在靈魂的基督,是偶然的神聖,所謂sanctifying恩典。 This is the teaching of St. Augustine, St. Athanasius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and of the Fathers generally.這是教學中的聖奧古斯丁,聖athanasius ,聖約翰金口,聖西里爾的亞歷山德里亞,和父親一般。 The Word was "full of grace" (John 1:14), and "of his fullness we all have received, and grace for grace" (John 1:16).這個詞是"充滿恩典" (約翰福音1:14 ) ,和"他的豐滿,我們都歡迎,寬限期為寬限期" (約翰福音1:16 ) 。 The Word were not full of grace, if any grace were wanting in Him which would be a perfection fitting to His human nature.這個詞並非全職的恩典,如果任何人的恩典要在他身上,這將是一個完美的裝修,以他的人性。 All theologians teach that sanctifying grace is a perfection fitting the humanity of Christ.所有神學家教導sanctifying Grace是完善裝修人性的基督。 The mystical body of Christ is the Church, whereof Christ is the Head (Romans 12:4; 1 Corinthians 12:11; Ephesians 1:20; 4:4; Colossians 1:18, 2:10).神秘的基督的身體是教會, whereof基督是一家之主(羅馬書12時04分;哥林多前書12時11分;以弗所書1:20 ; 4時04分;歌羅西書1:18 , 2時10分) 。 It is especially in this sense that we say the grace of the Head flows through the channels of the sacraments of the Church--through the veins of the body of Christ.它是特別從這個意義上說,我們說的恩典頭流經的渠道聖禮的教會-通過靜脈基督的身體。 Theologians commonly teach that from the very beginning of His existence, He received the fullness of sanctifying grace and other supernatural gifts (except faith, hope, and the moral virtue of penance); nor did He ever increase in these gifts or this sanctifying grace.神學家普遍教導說,從一開始他的存在,他獲得了豐滿的sanctifying恩典和其他超自然的禮物(除信仰,希望,和道德的懺悔) ;他也沒有以往增加,這些禮物或本sanctifying恩典。 For so to increase would be to become more pleasing to the Divine Majesty; and this were impossible in Christ.那麼,以增加都將變得更加令人高興的神聖陛下;這是不可能的,在基督。 Hence St. Luke meant (ii, 52) that Christ showed more and more day after day the effects of grace in His outward bearing.因此聖盧克意思( 2章52節) ,基督表明,越來越多的日復一日的影響,寬限期,在他離港軸承。

(d) LIKES AND DISLIKES (四)喜歡和不喜歡

The Hypostatic Union did not deprive the Human Soul of Christ of its human likes and dislikes.這個本質的聯盟並沒有剝奪人的心靈基督其人的喜惡。 The affections of a man, the emotions of a man were His in so far as they were becoming to the grace of union, in so far as they were not out of order.該情意的男人,感情的一名男子,他在那麼遠,因為他們正在成為以恩典聯盟,在目前為止,因為他們並不過分的。 St. Augustine well argues: "Human affections were not out of place in Him in Whom there was really and truly a human body and a human soul" (De Civ. Dei, XIV, ix, 3).聖奧古斯丁以及辯稱: "人類感情不出來的地方,他在其中有真的,並確實是一個人的身體和一個人的靈魂" (德civ 。 dei ,第十四條,第九條, 3 ) 。 We find that he was subject to anger against the blindness of heart of sinners (Mark 3:5); to fear (Mark 14:33); to sadness (Matthew 26:37): to the sensible affections of hope, of desire, and of joy.我們發現他時,所受到的憤怒針對的盲目性心髒病的罪人(馬克3點05分) ;懼(標記14:33 ) ;悲傷(馬太26:37 ) :理智的感情的希望,慾望,和喜悅。 These likes and dislikes were under the complete will-control of Christ.這些喜歡和不喜歡被下完成,將控制的喊聲。 The fomes peccati, the kindling-wood of sin--that is, those likes and dislikes that are not under full and absolute control of right reason and strong will-power--could not, as a matter of course, have been in Christ.該木蹄peccati ,點燃木材的罪過,那就是-那些喜歡和不喜歡那些不完全和絕對的控制權的理由和堅強的意志-權力-不能作為一種理所當然的事,一直在基督裡。 He could not have been tempted by such likes and dislikes to sin.他已經不能為誘惑,如喜歡和不喜歡的罪。 To have taken upon Himself this penalty of sin would not have been in keeping with the absolute and substantial holiness which is implied by the grace of union in the Logos.以都身兼自己這個罰款單,也不會被符合絕對的和實質性的聖潔,其中所隱含的恩典聯盟在標識。

C. On the God-Man (Deus-Homo, theanthropos丙對神人( deus -同源, theanthropos

One of the most important effects of the union of the Divine nature and human nature in One Person is a mutual interchange of attributes, Divine and human, between God and man, the Communicatio Idiomatum.其中一個最重要的影響,該聯盟的神性與人性的一個人,是相互交流的屬性,神和人之間,人與上帝,通信idiomatum 。 The God-Man is one Person, and to Him in the concrete may be applied the predicates that refer to the Divinity as well as those that refer to the Humanity of Christ.神人,是一個人,並給他在具體的,可應用於謂詞表示,是指以神以及那些是指以人類的基督。 We may say God is man, was born, died, was buried.我們可以說,上帝是人,出生,死亡,被安葬。 These predicates refer to the Person Whose nature is human, as well as Divine; to the Person Who is man, as well as God.這些謂詞是指以人的本質是人的,以及具有神聖的,以人的男子,以及上帝。 We do not mean to say that God, as God, was born; but God, Who is man, was born.我們的意思並不是說,神的存在,因為上帝,出生,但上帝,是人,是誕生了。 We may not predicate the abstract Divinity of the abstract humanity, nor the abstract Divinity of the concrete man, nor vice versa; nor the concrete God of the abstract humanity, nor vice versa.我們可能沒有始發抽象的神性的抽象人性,也沒有抽象的神的具體男子,也沒有反之亦然,也沒有具體的神抽象的人性,也沒有反之亦然。 We predicate the concrete of the concrete: Jesus is God; Jesus is man; the God-Man was sad; the Man-God was killed.我們上游混凝土的混凝土:耶穌是上帝;耶穌是人類;神人,是可悲的;人為上帝死亡。 Some ways of speaking should not be used, not that they may not be rightly explained, but that they may easily be misunderstood in an heretical sense.某些方面的發言,不應當被用來,而不是他們未必是正確的解釋,但他們可以很容易被人誤會,在一個邪教常識。


The human nature of Christ, united hypostatically with the Divine nature, is adored with the same worship as the Divine nature (see ADORATION).人性的基督,美國hypostatically與神性的,是崇拜與上年崇拜為神性(見朝拜) 。 We adore the Word when we adore Christ the Man; but the Word is God.我們崇拜這個詞的時候,我們崇拜基督的人,不過,這個字是神。 The human nature of Christ is not at all the reason of our adoration of Him; that reason is only the Divine nature.人的本質的基督是不是所有的原因,我們崇拜他,那理由是,只有神性。 The entire term of our adoration is the Incarnate Word; the motive of the adoration is the Divinity of the Incarnate Word.整個來說,我們的崇拜,是肉身字;動機的崇拜是神的化身字。 The partial term of our adoration may be the human nature of Christ: the motive of the adoration is the same as the motive of the adoration that reaches the entire term.部分來說,我們崇拜,可能是人性的基督:動機的崇拜是一樣的動機崇拜,達整個任期。 Hence, the act of adoration of the Word Incarnate is the same absolute act of adoration that reaches the human nature.因此,該法的朝拜的肉身是相同的絕對法默達到人類的天性。 The Person of Christ is Iadored with the cult called latria.人的基督是iadored與邪教所謂latria 。 But the cult that is due to a person is due in like manner to the whole nature of that Person and to all its parts.但邪教,是因為一個人,是因為想地傳輸到整個大自然的那個人及其所有部件。 Hence, since the human nature is the real and true nature of Christ, that human nature and all its parts are the object of the cult called latria, ie, adoration.因此,既然人的本質是真正的和真實性質的基督,人的本性和其所有部件都是對象邪教所謂latria ,即朝拜。 We shall not here enter into the question of the adoration of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.我們將不在這裡進入問題的朝拜聖心的耶穌。 (For the Adoration of the Cross, CROSS AND CRUCIFIX, THE, subtitle II.) (供朝拜的十字架,十字架,十字架, ,副標題二) 。


The effects of the incarnation on the Blessed Mother and us, will be found treated under the respective special subjects.影響的化身,就祝福母親和我們,會被發現治療,根據各自的特殊科目。 (See GRACE; JUSTIFICATION; IMMACULATE CONCEPTION; THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY.) (見寬限期;理由;聖母無染原罪;有福了聖母瑪利亞)

Publication information Written by Walter Drum.出版信息寫沃爾特鼓。 Transcribed by Mary Ann Grelinger.轉錄由瑪麗安格雷林格。 The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII.天主教百科全書,體積七。 Published 1910. 1910年出版。 New York: Robert Appleton Company.紐約:羅伯特Appleton還公司。 Nihil Obstat, June 1, 1910. nihil obstat , 1910年6月1日。 Remy Lafort, STD, Censor.人頭馬lafort ,性病,檢查員。 Imprimatur. imprimatur 。 +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York +約翰farley樞機主教,大主教紐約


Fathers of the Church: ST.教會的神父:聖。 IRENAEUS, Adversus Haer.; ST.愛任紐,相反haer ;聖。 ATHANASIUS, De Incarnatione Verbi; IDEM, Contra Arianos; ST. athanasius ,德incarnatione verbi ;同上,矛盾arianos ;聖。 AMBROSE, De Incarnatione; ST.劉漢銓,德incarnatione ;聖。 GREGORY OF NYSSA, Antirrheticus adversus Apollinarium; IDEM, Tractatus ad Theophilum contra Apollinarium; the writings of ST.格雷戈里的nyssa , antirrheticus相反方向apollinarium ;同上, tractatus專案theophilum矛盾apollinarium ;著述聖。 GREGORY NAZIANZEN, ST.格雷戈里nazianzen ,聖。 CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, and others who attacked the Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, and Monothelites.西里爾亞歷山大與其他人攻擊arians , nestorians , monophysites , monothelites 。 Scholastics: ST. scholastics :聖。 THOMAS, Summa Theologica, III, QQ.托馬斯,總結theologica ,三, QQ的。 1-59; ST. 1-59 ;聖。 BONAVENTURE, Brevil., IV; IDEM, in III Sent.; BELLARMINE, De Christo Capite Tolius Ecclesia, Controversiae., 1619; SUAREZ, De Incarnatione, DE LUGO, De Incarnatione, III; PETAVIUS, De incarn.文德, brevil 。靜注;同上,在三派; bellarmine ,德christo capite tolius Ecclesia的, controversiae , 1619年;蘇亞雷斯,德incarnatione ,德盧戈,德incarnatione ,三; petavius ,德incarn 。 Verbi: Theologia Dogmatica, IV. verbi : theologia dogmatica ,四。

This subject presentation in the original English language本主題介紹在原來的英文

Send an e-mail question or comment to us: E-mail發送電子郵件的問題或意見給我們:電子郵箱

The main BELIEVE web-page (and the index to subjects) is at主要相信網頁(和索引科目),是在