[討論] 再請教鐵三角[神化]的問題

[outra (奧特羅)]

再請教鐵三角[神化]的問題

有鑑於,鐵三角從未認真研究過愛任紐的著作,就引用一些[二手資料]來佐證他的觀點,從
學術的角度而言.這種做法叫做[不學無述]!然而,鐵三角的鐵嘴還在吵什麼:

所以你認為無關囉？
那wiki為什麼說：

用[二手資料]壓過[一手資料]的做法,可謂之為[奇觀]!

既然鐵三角認為自己對,不怕繼續被打臉,很好,那麼我們繼續!

以下是愛任紐的另一段論到[和好]的話:


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)

還是三個問題:

1-      上面這段的內容是什麼？
2-      上面這對於【和好（reconciliation）】的定義是什麼？
3-      上面這段有沒有說【和好=神化】？

--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 180.217.128.120
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Christianity/M.1465541211.A.572.html
※ 編輯: outra (180.217.128.120), 06/10/2016 14:47:18
→ theologe: 二手資料也是專家寫的，請你先去反駁那些專家理解的比你
→ theologe: 差，好嗎？
→ jacklin2002: 我在樓上又看到了武當派的蹤影，太極拳的極致
→ jacklin2002: 一個人說話，要為自己引用的資料負責
→ jacklin2002: 這麼簡單的道理都不懂
→ jacklin2002: 講一堆五四三，然後說：「其實那都是wiki喔～」
→ outra: 神學家的邏輯難道是[二手煙有益健康]?這肯定不是用頭腦思
→ outra: 考的邏輯.
→ jacklin2002: 到底是誰不愛負言責啊？
→ jacklin2002: 要不然「救恩是不是永遠」#1NLbiETk那篇，我全部推給
→ jacklin2002: 查經網站就好啦！反正也不是我寫的？
→ theologe: 二手資料明明就寫神化觀出於同歸於一論了，是怎樣？
→ outra: 真面目出來了!...[我就是螃蟹!你們敢怎麼樣!]
→ theologe: 我講的話這麼簡單就扭曲？
→ jacklin2002: 那你要不要承認你引用的二手資料是錯的？
→ jacklin2002: 反正你的回答就是：「那是wiki寫錯，關我屁事。」
→ theologe: wiki這邊哪裡有錯？
→ jacklin2002: 會想要問你這個問題，我真是傻了。
→ theologe: 你最愛看懂才批評，習慣了。
推 unix2007: 你就承認你引述資料是錯的
推 unix2007: jacklin 大都給你台階下了
→ unix2007: 你幹嘛還硬要堅持你是對的呢
→ sCHb68: 反正這位後現代、多元基督教傳統神學家總能自圓其說。
推 unix2007: 而且都要強辯到底
→ unix2007: 昨天明明我們就贏了
→ unix2007: 他就硬要說無條件也是一種條件
→ unix2007: 真可悲
→ theologe: 我引用的wiki哪裡錯？
→ theologe: 我有說無條件也是一種條件嗎？
→ theologe: 大家都很愛看懂後才批評，真好。
→ sCHb68: 侷限神是否考量人的行為，這是給神設定條件，
→ sCHb68: 這就不是「無條件」了。
推 theologe: 對壓 我講的是考量或不考量行為也是一種條件
→ sCHb68: 不知道《羅11:6》中的「不在乎行為」你又有什麼高見？
→ theologe: 不是說無條件也是一種條件。
→ theologe: 就是不考量行為。
→ theologe: 好行為或壞行為都有可能。
→ theologe: 考量或不考量行為都隨神的意。
→ theologe: 我引用的wiki哪裡錯？   沒人要回答我嗎？
→ theologe: This Eastern Orthodox theological development out of
→ sCHb68: 不在乎行為＝不考量行為＝考量或不考量行為都隨神的意(？)
→ theologe: the recapitulation view of the atonement is called
→ theologe: theosis.  哪裡錯？
→ theologe: 「不考量行為」那句我打錯了。反正你一直問，我總是會說
→ theologe: 錯的。你高興就好。
推 unix2007: 不在乎 就是不考量
→ unix2007: 你就認錯吧
→ unix2007: 不要硬拗
→ unix2007: 別人覺得這樣很可悲
→ sCHb68: 神學家你可以修訂修正，沒關係的。
→ theologe: 我只是更精確表達而已，我說好行為或壞行為都可能，跟你
→ theologe: 們講的有衝突？
→ theologe: 我引用的wiki哪裡錯？   沒人要回答我嗎？
→ sCHb68: 所以「不在乎行為」有四種選項？：
→ sCHb68: (1)考量好行為 (2)考量壞行為 (3)不考量好行為
→ sCHb68:  (4)不考量壞行為。     是這樣嗎？？
→ theologe: 我引用的wiki哪裡錯？   沒人要回答我嗎？
→ sCHb68: 這四種上帝都是隨己意做出決定的？
→ sCHb68: 舉個例子：
→ sCHb68: 可能上帝是考量神學家的好行為才給他種種子的；
→ sCHb68: 也可能是上帝不考量我的壞行為直接給我種種子的。
→ jacklin2002: 你推的那句話只是在說東正教有發展神化，根本跟老魚
→ jacklin2002: 問你的問題無關。
推 theologe: 麻煩看仔細一點。
推 unix2007: 我們看很仔細了
→ unix2007: 是要比全民英檢閱讀測驗ㄇ
→ theologe: wiki寫「神化觀出於同歸於一論」，哪裡錯？
→ sCHb68: 神學家沒看懂老魚的題目嗎...？
→ sCHb68: 太陽的光中有熱、熱中有光，
→ sCHb68: 假如，太陽＝同歸於一；光＝和好；熱＝神化，
→ sCHb68: 那麼，光(和好)=熱(神化)嗎？
推 theologe: 你有瞭解神化、同歸於一、復和之間的關係嗎？df講的是對
→ theologe: 的比喻嗎？
→ sCHb68: 反正就是你的理論跟我的理論不同，結束。
→ theologe: 你的理論是什麼？不知道你在講什麼...
→ sCHb68: 老魚的比喻在你眼中是錯的，表示兩者理論不同，不是嗎？
推 theologe: wiki其實都有引愛任紐的原文，我以下打一篇。
→ sCHb68: 一愛任紐各自表述..
→ theologe: 老魚根本沒表述，他只有問問題跟羞辱人而已。
→ theologe: 你們看不懂誰在認真表述，誰在亂搞，我也不怪你們。
→ sCHb68: 人家會做出比喻，就是有一定程度的理解與表述了，
→ theologe: 請他提出他的論述來，不然這樣講我也可以用一些空洞的比
→ theologe: 喻來說明我很厲害？
→ sCHb68: 好吧，神學家巧妙地用各自表述不同閃避問題了..
→ sCHb68: 說錯了，應該是老魚比喻不對所以我不答。    T_T
推 theologe: 你以為你在扭曲我的話別人都看不懂嗎？
→ sCHb68: 給你釐清，哪裡扭曲？
推 theologe: 我不需要空洞的比喻，我文章寫好了。