https://theologychina.weebly.com/fouad-tawfike-260323200422522305633554223601261592361235199201262252230563355426530619968204912749132113303403526440670.html
NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY IS NICENE CHRISTOLOGY: AN ORTHODOX PERSPECTIVE
新约基督论就是尼西亚基督论：一个正统的观点
BY MINA FOUAD TAWFIKE
[email protected]
St Francis Magazine Vol 8, No 4 | August 2012
St Francis Magazine is a publication of Interserve and Arab Vision
Abstract/摘录:
In his book The Jesus Papers: Exposing the Greatest Cover-Up in History,
Michael Baigent states that the aim of the Council of Nicaea‘was to get
support for the idea that Jesus Christ was “of one being” with God the
Father, a claim that Arius and others disputed; for them, Jesus was not divine
’ (p. 83). Princeton’s Elaine Pagels dryly observes: “Those who opposed
this phrase pointed out that it occurs neither in the Scriptures nor in
Christian tradition” (Beyond Belief, p.173). In this paper I will argue
that such ideas, which argue that Christ was deified in the Council of
Nicaea, are incoherent and indefensible. They completely ignore three
centuries of written tradition (writings of the Fathers, the New Testament,
tombstones and songs of praise) and oral tradition (which is shown in the
liturgical practices), of both which completely support Nicaea.
Michael Baigent在他的书，耶稣报告：探索历史中最大的骗局中宣称尼西亚大会的目的
就是‘要支持耶稣基督与父神是‘同一个存有（of one being）’，这是亚流并其他人士
所否定的；对于他们，耶稣不是神’（P.83）。普林斯顿的Elaine Pagel干巴巴的观察到
：‘那些反对这个句子的人支持，这个关键既没有出现在经文，也没有出现在基督教传统
中’（Beyond Belief, p.173）。我将在本文中争辩基督在尼西亚大会中被神化的观念，
是语无伦次并站不住脚的。他们完全无视于三个世纪的书写传统（教父、新约、墓碑并赞
美诗的文字）并口述传统（表明在礼拜仪式中），两者都完全支持尼西亚。
1 Jesus Christ: A Deified Man, or an Incarnate God?
耶稣基督：一个被神化的人，抑或是道成肉身的神？
Baigent, Pagels and others suggest that Christ's so-called Nicene deification
was due to the direct effect of the Greco-Roman civilization, especially on
the Jewish culture in Palestine. The evidences provided for this idea are
the characteristics or properties given to the Roman emperors, like “the god
”, “the lord”, and “the giver”. For instance, in an inscription dating
back to the third century BC we read, “Ptolemy the savior and god: （希腊文
）.” We may see various inscriptions and texts that give the same meaning
and the first question we pose is, could these ideas about divinity be
related to the godhead of Christ? Or, more specifically, was it this sort of
concept that led to the Nicene doctrine of the Word being “of one substance
” with the Father, as authors like Pagels and Baignet have suggested?
Beigent，Pagels和其他认为基督所谓的尼西亚定义乃是希腊—罗马文化影响的直接结果
，特别是对于在巴勒斯坦的犹太文化。支持这个观点的证据乃是罗马皇帝所提供的特征和
属性，就像‘神（the god）’、‘主（the lord）’，‘赐予者（the giver）’。例如
，在一份三世纪的碑文上，我们读到，‘托勒密是救主与神（Ptolemy the savior and
god）：（希腊文）’我们或许看见许多碑文和文字对于我们的第一个题目提出相同的意
义，那些关于基督神性的观念是否与基督的神格有关呢？或，更为特别的是，这种观念是
否导致尼西亚关于道与父‘同质（of one substance）’的教义，就像Pagels和Baignet
那些作者所认为的吗？
2 The Theology of Christ’s Incarnation
基督道成肉身的神学
Against Pagels and other like-minded thinkers, I argue that the theology of
God Incarnate goes far beyond the idea of an “incarnated god”. In biblical
thought, the key concept is related to salvation and redemption, i.e. its
main purpose is redeeming and saving humanity. This theological theme is
seen in the Old Testament and the Jewish rabbinic writings. It completely
and fundamentally differs from the idea of gods’ incarnations in mystery
cults and the Greco-Roman thought. This Biblical presentation, which implies
a soteriological dimension, contrasts with the idea of Christ being deified
in the sense that Greek and Roman humans could be deified; indeed a doctrine
of the “deification of Christ” could not serve the Christian doctrine of
salvation presented by the New Testament and as understood in the Orthodox
Tradition.
为了驳斥Pagels和其他观点一致的思想家，我争辩神成为肉身的神学远远超过一位‘成为
肉身的神（an incarnated god）’的观念。在圣经的思想中，关键的观念乃是与救恩和
救赎有关的，例如：它的主要目的是救赎并拯救人类。我们能够在旧约和犹大拉比作品中
看见这个神学的主题。它完全并从根本上与神（god）在神秘邪教和系列—罗马思想中成
为肉身的观念不同。这个圣经的说法，暗示一个救赎论的向度，与基督在希腊和罗马人被
神化的意义上被神化的观点是完全向悖逆的；的确，‘基督被神化’的教育不能符合新约
展现的基督教救赎教义并正统传统的认知。
Christianity is considered a compound philosophy in the shape of coordinated
systems of dogma and liturgical rituals that communicate the Word of God and
his death on the cross as recorded in the Holy Bible. The rituals are nothing
without these dogmatic bases. On the contrary, the bases of the Greco-roman
cults are totally the opposite. Their rituals do not express written texts
or even oral ones, or dogmas or any philosophical justifications. In fact
the Greco-Roman religions are related to rites more than faith. This is
totally different from Christianity, which identifies a communal,
ecclesiastical relationship with God in Christ, made known graciously by God
and appropriated by faith in this message. The dogmas are lived out and
experienced in the rituals of the Church, which in Orthodoxy are called
mysteries (Arabic,
asraar).
基督教被认为是一个根据圣经的记载，将哲学与教义系统和礼仪仪式结合以在十字架上交
通神的道和祂的死亡的复合物。意识不过就是根据那些教义。相反地，希腊—罗马的异教
的基础乃是完全与其向悖逆的。它们的意识并没有表达某种的书写文字或口述传统，或教
义，或任何哲学的佐证。事实上，希腊—罗马的宗教更联系于仪式，而不是信仰。这与基
督教完全不同，基督教讲交通中并教会中的关系联系于在基督里的神，在这个信息中使用
神的恩典并信仰让人们认识并熟知。教义透过教会在仪式中的经验被活化，在正统中被称
作奥秘。（阿拉伯语，asraar）。
Incarnation was not an aim itself, but it was a means of fulfilling an aim.
This aim was humanity. It shows how incarnation expresses the deepest
relationship between God and man. Because God, who is Spirit, became flesh
for us, so his salvation did not remain purely theoretical—only to be
believed in the heart and assented to in the mind—but physical, to be
participated in. Because of this, Orthodoxy, like Jesus and St Paul, sees no
tension between a strong affirmation of the real, physical rituals of the
sacraments as salvific participations in the Trinitarian fellowship, while
also affirming that salvation is purely gift and grace. Greco-Roman cults
had no way of bringing together these aspects of the human experience—ritual
and faith—because they did not have a way of bringing together the human and
the divine in a man. Orthodox Christianity does.
道成肉身并不是自身的目标，而是达成目标的手段。这个手段就是人性。它表明道成肉身
如何展示神与人见最深邃的关系。因为，是灵的神为我们成为肉身，好叫祂的救恩不再仅
仅是理论的——只能在心里被相信，并在心思中被肯定——而是实实在在的，能被人有份
。因为这个原因，正统派，像耶稣和保罗，并不认为强烈的人都一种真实并物质的圣礼礼
仪作为有份与三一的交通产生的救恩会有任何的张力，在同时也肯定救赎纯粹是一种恩典
和恩赐。希腊—罗马的异教则完全无法融合这些方面的人类经验—仪式与信仰—因为它们
没有办法把神与人带入一个人之中。正统基督教却又办法。
3 Patristic Testimony and Ante-Nicene Christology
教父的见证和尼西亚前的基督论
Ante-Nicene Christology was not any different from that of Nicaea, which is
what Pagels suggests. Both are the same and are based on the Biblical
Christology. Two important concepts of this Christology can be found in the
Bible: the concept of Logos (the Word Incarnate) and the concept of the Son
of God.
尼西亚前的基督论与尼西亚的基督论并没有任何的不同，这是Pagels的看法。两者完全相
同，也都根据与圣经基督论（Biblical Christology）。我们可以从圣经中找到这个基督
论的两个重要观念：道的观念（道成肉身）并神的儿子的观念。
Here are some relevant verses on the Logos, the Word Incarnate: Mt 5:37,
28:15, Mk 4:15, Lk4:32, 4:36, 5:15, Jn.1:1, 4:37, Ac 6:5, 11:22, Rom 6:6,
9:9, 1Cor1:18, 2:4, 2Cor 1:18, 10:10, Eph 4:29, 6:19, Co. 3:16, 4:6,
1Thes1:8, 2Thes 1:8, 3:1, 1Tim 1:15, 2Tim 2:9, Ti 2:5, Heb 2:2, 4:2, 1Jn
1:10, 2:7, and Rev 19:13.
此处是一些与道并道成为肉身相关的经文： Mt 5:37, 28:15, Mk 4:15, Lk4:32, 4:36,
5:15, Jn.1:1, 4:37, Ac 6:5, 11:22, Rom 6:6, 9:9, 1Cor1:18, 2:4, 2Cor 1:18,
10:10, Eph 4:29, 6:19, Co. 3:16, 4:6, 1Thes1:8, 2Thes 1:8, 3:1, 1Tim 1:15,
2Tim 2:9, Ti 2:5, Heb 2:2, 4:2, 1Jn 1:10, 2:7, and Rev 19:13。
Son of God: the cries of the unclean spirits, and those with evil spirits, “
You are the son of God,” (Mr 3:11, 5:7, Lk4:41) cannot be considered a pagan
influence, but this title reminds us of the texts of Qumran. For example,
codec 4Q246 which is known as Aramaic Apocalypse (dating back to 25 BC) is of
a Jewish origin, and much older than the NT. The text speaks about a man
entitled “son of God” or “son of the High” and “his rule will be an
eternal kingdom.” The text sees that person as a universal savior, so this
apocalypse affirms that the concept of “son of god” in the New Testament is
not derived from some pagan origins.
神的儿子：这是污灵并那些被邪灵附身之人的呼喊，‘你是神的儿子，’（Mr 3:11,
5:7, Lk4:41）不能被认为是一种异教的影响，这乃是昆兰文献所留给我们的称为。例如
，4Q246抄本被视为亚兰文的启示录（日期可以追溯到25BC）是源自于雅威的传统，也远
比新约古老。本文论点一个人被称作‘神的儿子（son of God）’或‘至高者的儿子（
son of the High）’，并‘他的政权是永恒的国度（his rule will be an eternal
kingdom）’。本文看见一个人是宇宙的救助，所以这个启示录肯定了新约中‘神的儿子
’并不具有某种异教的起源。
The Biblical theological vision closely identifies God and his Christ, the
Word Incarnate. This is the faith we find among the Apostolic Fathers and
the Ante-Nicene era.
圣经神学版本则紧密的把神等同于祂的基督，成为肉身的道。这是我们在使徒教父并尼西
亚前时期发现的信仰。
The Epistle of Barnabas (likely written after the destruction of the Temple
in 70 AD and before rebuilding the city by Hadrian – 132- 135 AD) refers to
Christ as the Son of God who will execute the final judgment: “he will
execute judgment…he revealed himself to be God’s Son.” (5.7-9) Barnabas
repeats this idea in several places: in 7.2 he says:
巴拿巴书（可能写于圣殿被毁的70AD之后，并在Hadrian重建耶路撒冷之前