[讨论] 代贴 再请教铁三角[神化]的问题

楼主: outra (奥特罗)   2016-06-10 14:46:48
再请教铁三角[神化]的问题
有鉴于,铁三角从未认真研究过爱任纽的著作,就引用一些[二手资料]来佐证他的观点,从
学术的角度而言.这种做法叫做[不学无述]!然而,铁三角的铁嘴还在吵什么:
所以你认为无关囉?
那wiki为什么说:
用[二手资料]压过[一手资料]的做法,可谓之为[奇观]!
既然铁三角认为自己对,不怕继续被打脸,很好,那么我们继续!
以下是爱任纽的另一段论到[和好]的话:
1.
Concurring with these statements, Paul, speaking to the Romans, declares: “Mu
ch more they who receive abundance of grace and righteousness for [eternal] li
fe, shall reign by one, Christ Jesus.”3607 It follows from this, that he knew
nothing of that Christ who flew away from Jesus; nor did he of the Saviour ab
ove, whom they hold to be impassible. For if, in truth, the one suffered, and
the other remained incapable of suffering, and the one was born, but the other
descended upon him who was born, and left him again, it is not one, but two,
that are shown forth. But that the apostle did know Him as one, both who was b
orn and who suffered, namely Christ Jesus, he again says in the same Epistle:
“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized in Christ Jesus were baptiz
ed in His death? that like as Christ rose from the dead, so should we also wal
k in newness of life.”3608 But again, showing that Christ did suffer, and was
Himself the Son of God, who died for us, and redeemed us with His blood at th
e time appointed beforehand, he says: “For how is it, that Christ, when we we
re yet without strength, in due time died for the ungodly? But God commendeth
His love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. M
uch more, then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath
through Him. For if, when we were enemies, we were 【reconciled】 to God by t
he death of His Son; much more, being 【reconciled】, we shall be saved by His
life.”3609 He declares in the plainest manner, that the same Being who was l
aid hold of, and underwent suffering, and shed His blood for us, was both Chri
st and the Son of God, who did also rise again, and was taken up into heaven,
as he himself [Paul] says: “But at the same time, [it, is] Christ [that] died
, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God.”3610
And again, “Knowing that Christ, rising from the dead, dieth no more:”3611
for, as himself foreseeing, through the Spirit, the subdivisions of evil teach
ers [with regard to the Lord’s person], and being desirous of cutting away fr
om them all occasion of cavil, he says what has been already stated, [and also
declares:] “But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwel
l in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your morta
l bodies.”3612 This he does not utter to those alone who wish to hear: Do not
err, [he says to all:] Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is one and the same, who
did by suffering reconcile us to God, and rose from the dead; who is at the r
ight hand of the Father, and perfect in all things; “who, when He was buffete
d, struck not in return; who, when He suffered, threatened not;”3613 and when
He underwent tyranny, He prayed His Father that He would forgive those who ha
d crucified Him. For He did Himself truly bring in salvation: since He is Hims
elf the Word of God, Himself the Only-begotten of the Father, Christ Jesus our
Lord. (PG 639-640)
还是三个问题:
1- 上面这段的内容是什么?
2- 上面这对于【和好(reconciliation)】的定义是什么?
3- 上面这段有没有说【和好=神化】?
作者: theologe (表达你我的信仰~)   2016-06-10 14:49:00
二手资料也是专家写的,请你先去反驳那些专家理解的比你差,好吗?
作者: jacklin2002   2016-06-10 14:51:00
我在楼上又看到了武当派的踪影,太极拳的极致一个人说话,要为自己引用的资料负责这么简单的道理都不懂讲一堆五四三,然后说:“其实那都是wiki喔~”
楼主: outra (奥特罗)   2016-06-10 14:53:00
神学家的逻辑难道是[二手烟有益健康]?这肯定不是用头脑思考的逻辑.
作者: jacklin2002   2016-06-10 14:54:00
到底是谁不爱负言责啊?要不然“救恩是不是永远”#1NLbiETk那篇,我全部推给查经网站就好啦!反正也不是我写的?
作者: theologe (表达你我的信仰~)   2016-06-10 15:00:00
二手资料明明就写神化观出于同归于一论了,是怎样?
楼主: outra (奥特罗)   2016-06-10 15:03:00
真面目出来了!...[我就是螃蟹!你们敢怎么样!]
作者: theologe (表达你我的信仰~)   2016-06-10 15:04:00
我讲的话这么简单就扭曲?
作者: jacklin2002   2016-06-10 15:15:00
那你要不要承认你引用的二手资料是错的?反正你的回答就是:“那是wiki写错,关我屁事。”
作者: theologe (表达你我的信仰~)   2016-06-10 15:17:00
wiki这边哪里有错?
作者: jacklin2002   2016-06-10 15:18:00
会想要问你这个问题,我真是傻了。
作者: theologe (表达你我的信仰~)   2016-06-10 15:18:00
你最爱看懂才批评,习惯了。
作者: unix2007 (Unix)   2016-06-10 16:09:00
你就承认你引述资料是错的jacklin 大都给你台阶下了你干嘛还硬要坚持你是对的呢
作者: sCHb68 (sCHb68)   2016-06-10 16:18:00
反正这位后现代、多元基督教传统神学家总能自圆其说。
作者: unix2007 (Unix)   2016-06-10 16:20:00
而且都要强辩到底昨天明明我们就赢了他就硬要说无条件也是一种条件真可悲
作者: theologe (表达你我的信仰~)   2016-06-10 16:28:00
我引用的wiki哪里错?我有说无条件也是一种条件吗?大家都很爱看懂后才批评,真好。
作者: sCHb68 (sCHb68)   2016-06-10 16:31:00
侷限神是否考量人的行为,这是给神设定条件,这就不是“无条件”了。
作者: theologe (表达你我的信仰~)   2016-06-10 16:32:00
对压 我讲的是考量或不考量行为也是一种条件
作者: sCHb68 (sCHb68)   2016-06-10 16:32:00
不知道《罗11:6》中的“不在乎行为”你又有什么高见?
作者: sCHb68 (sCHb68)   2016-06-10 16:38:00
不在乎行为=不考量行为=考量或不考量行为都随神的意(?)
作者: theologe (表达你我的信仰~)   2016-06-10 16:38:00
the recapitulation view of the atonement is calledtheosis. 哪里错?“不考量行为”那句我打错了。反正你一直问,我总是会说错的。你高兴就好。
作者: unix2007 (Unix)   2016-06-10 16:41:00
不在乎 就是不考量你就认错吧不要硬拗别人觉得这样很可悲
作者: sCHb68 (sCHb68)   2016-06-10 16:41:00
神学家你可以修订修正,没关系的。
作者: theologe (表达你我的信仰~)   2016-06-10 16:41:00
我只是更精确表达而已,我说好行为或坏行为都可能,跟你们讲的有冲突?我引用的wiki哪里错? 没人要回答我吗?
作者: sCHb68 (sCHb68)   2016-06-10 16:45:00
所以“不在乎行为”有四种选项?:(1)考量好行为 (2)考量坏行为 (3)不考量好行为(4)不考量坏行为。 是这样吗??
作者: theologe (表达你我的信仰~)   2016-06-10 16:45:00
我引用的wiki哪里错? 没人要回答我吗?
作者: sCHb68 (sCHb68)   2016-06-10 16:46:00
这四种上帝都是随己意做出决定的?举个例子:可能上帝是考量神学家的好行为才给他种种子的;也可能是上帝不考量我的坏行为直接给我种种子的。
作者: jacklin2002   2016-06-10 16:49:00
你推的那句话只是在说东正教有发展神化,根本跟老鱼问你的问题无关。
作者: theologe (表达你我的信仰~)   2016-06-10 16:49:00
麻烦看仔细一点。
作者: unix2007 (Unix)   2016-06-10 16:50:00
我们看很仔细了是要比全民英检阅读测验ㄇ
作者: theologe (表达你我的信仰~)   2016-06-10 16:51:00
wiki写“神化观出于同归于一论”,哪里错?
作者: sCHb68 (sCHb68)   2016-06-10 17:07:00
神学家没看懂老鱼的题目吗...?太阳的光中有热、热中有光,假如,太阳=同归于一;光=和好;热=神化,那么,光(和好)=热(神化)吗?
作者: theologe (表达你我的信仰~)   2016-06-10 17:40:00
你有了解神化、同归于一、复和之间的关系吗?df讲的是对的比喻吗?
作者: sCHb68 (sCHb68)   2016-06-10 17:41:00
反正就是你的理论跟我的理论不同,结束。
作者: theologe (表达你我的信仰~)   2016-06-10 17:41:00
你的理论是什么?不知道你在讲什么...
作者: sCHb68 (sCHb68)   2016-06-10 17:42:00
老鱼的比喻在你眼中是错的,表示两者理论不同,不是吗?
作者: theologe (表达你我的信仰~)   2016-06-10 17:44:00
wiki其实都有引爱任纽的原文,我以下打一篇。
作者: sCHb68 (sCHb68)   2016-06-10 17:44:00
一爱任纽各自表述..
作者: theologe (表达你我的信仰~)   2016-06-10 17:46:00
老鱼根本没表述,他只有问问题跟羞辱人而已。你们看不懂谁在认真表述,谁在乱搞,我也不怪你们。
作者: sCHb68 (sCHb68)   2016-06-10 17:46:00
人家会做出比喻,就是有一定程度的理解与表述了,
作者: theologe (表达你我的信仰~)   2016-06-10 17:47:00
请他提出他的论述来,不然这样讲我也可以用一些空洞的比喻来说明我很厉害?
作者: sCHb68 (sCHb68)   2016-06-10 17:47:00
好吧,神学家巧妙地用各自表述不同闪避问题了..说错了,应该是老鱼比喻不对所以我不答。 T_T
作者: theologe (表达你我的信仰~)   2016-06-10 17:53:00
你以为你在扭曲我的话别人都看不懂吗?
作者: sCHb68 (sCHb68)   2016-06-10 17:55:00
给你厘清,哪里扭曲?
作者: theologe (表达你我的信仰~)   2016-06-10 18:00:00
我不需要空洞的比喻,我文章写好了。

Links booklink

Contact Us: admin [ a t ] ucptt.com