推 artlee:謝謝..英文10分鐘，中文3分鐘...感謝老大的解說，使英文不 09/16 07:01
推 artlee:好的小兔，可以稍微看得懂....^^" 09/16 07:02
推 onmyway:也許 可以去跟元曜他爸討論一下 09/16 10:01
敦民居然用英文寫，酷。
不過，我沒太多時間，就用中文回了。
不好意思啊。
※ 引述《MathTurtle (恩典)》之銘言：
: I would like to interrupt here to provide certain technical background
: information and also some analysis of the whole controversy, in order
: to clean away several disputes which, as I see them, are mere misunder-
: standings. Please forgive me for my rash reading of the articles, and
: also my possible errors due to my own misunderstandings and my poor
: knowledge.
這是前言，容我不回啦。
: First of all, we may look at certain key words here. "Deny himself
: (Matt 16:24)" indeed differs from "give himself for me"; this is a good
: observation poijkl has provided for us. The meaning of "aparneomai
: (deny)" is, according to Middle Liddell, "to deny utterly, deny, refuse,
: reject." But this does not suggest any further conclusion.
喂喂，敦民你也看太快了吧.....
我直接說好了，
"deny himself"是指「耶穌的跟隨者」要作的「捨己」，
"give himself for me"是指耶穌本身，所做的「捨己」。
這兩者根本就不同。
我們現在討論的，是"deny himself"吧？
"give himself for me"根本不是討論的主題，當然更沒有拿出來的必要。
: Interesting enough, the parallel text at Luke 9:23 uses another verbs
: which has exactly the same meaning--but is a little bit weaker than this,
: since it lacks the preposition "apo," which can certainly strengthen it--
: that is, "arneomai (deny)." So it seems to me that, what Luke differs from
: Matt is only verbally, not substantially at all. And the phrase "kath'
: hereme (daily)," which is absent at Matt 16, by the same reason cannot mean
: too much as to change the meaning of the whole verse.
: Actually, there is one more difference between the two parallel texts,
: namely, "come after me (KJV, ASV: follow)." The main verbs differ only
: verbally and even are interchangeable (erchomai v.s. elthon). All these
: strongly suggest me that it may be no use at all to conclude anything
: from the "daily" in Luke to gain new meaning.
這段敦民說，馬太和路加的用字和語氣，有多處不同，
所以我們不能從路加福音中的「天天」，得到什麼新意義。
ㄟ....基本上，我不太清楚敦民要表達什麼耶。
首先澄清一點，我們看平行經文，
可不是為了找「新意義」（new meaning），才去看的。
正好相反，我們是要去找「含在當中的真正意義」，才去對照平行經文。
一句話，用不同的方式來說，本來就可以讓人更加瞭解說話者要表達的意思。
今天路加有把「天天」寫上去，除非我們認為他作假，
不然就得承認，耶穌說這話的時候，確實有「天天」的含意。
這可不是什麼「新意義」，而是路加的記載，會讓我們更懂耶穌要說什麼。
: Now, back to the semantic of "deny." Perhaps it is helpful to look up
: a dictionary, and as I found it in Merriam-Webster, deny can mean "to
: restrain (oneself) from gratification of wishes or desires : restrain
: (oneself) from self-indulgence," which seems to fit the meaning here.
: Second, "take up" here is much weaker in meaning than what its Chinese
: translation suggests. Recognition of this may hopefully reduce certain
: misreading due to the Chinese translation and also due to the symbolic
: meaning of the controversal "cross," which is now much richer than the
: first century. What I intended to point out is that, it is often suggested
: that the cross here is symbolic for suffer, for sin, for glory, or for
: anything like that, but we must note that what Bible says is not to bear
: the cross, to overcome the cross, or to uphold the cross; it is quite
: simply--take up.
十架要怎麼拿(take up)？
在當時，大概也只能用「背」吧。何況，耶穌自己也是用背的。
所以，中文翻得很好啊。
敦民啊，你為何要講這個呢？
: That is to say, when we want to interpret (note the difference between
: the interpretation of a sentence and the semantic meaning of it) these
: phrases, we should carefully distinguish, as maysue suggests, the two
: levels of interpretation. What Jesus said literally is just to "take
: up his cross"; but what does it mean for us today? Actually I agree
: with chaoyu that cross cannot be a symbol for sin. But personally I
: would hesitate to take it as a symbol for glory here, for then it would
: mean too much to those disciples.
如果說，「榮耀」這個十架含意，對當時聽到的門徒負荷太重，
我完全同意。畢竟，當時耶穌還沒上十架。
現在要討論當時門徒接收到的「第一層含意」嗎？
那我用美書建議的歸納法，來試試看好了。
先看上下文：
16:21 從此，耶穌才指示門徒，他必須上耶路撒冷去，受長老、祭司長、文士許多的苦，
並且被殺，第三日復活。
16:22 彼得就拉著他，勸他說：主啊，萬不可如此！這事必不臨到你身上。
16:23 耶穌轉過來，對彼得說：撒但，退我後邊去吧！你是絆我腳的；因為你不體貼神的
意思，只體貼人的意思。
16:24 於是耶穌對門徒說：若有人要跟從我，就當捨己，背起他的十字架來跟從我。
16:25 因為，凡要救自己生命的，必喪掉生命；凡為我喪掉生命的，必得著生命。
16:26 人若賺得全世界，賠上自己的生命，有甚麼益處呢？人還能拿甚麼換生命呢？
我們來觀察一下，討論幾個問題。
彼得為什麼要勸耶穌別去？因為耶穌說，他要去受苦。
耶穌為何怒罵彼得？因為他明知很痛，他還是要去受苦，這是他的使命。
耶穌所要受的苦是什麼？十字架。
耶穌不想死，但他deny himself，還是決定完成上帝的託付----這是「捨己」。
上帝給他的託付是什麼？-----「背十架」。
再重新看耶穌的話：
「若有人要跟從我，就當捨己，背起他的十字架來跟從我」。
耶穌自己做到了。
那他在此所說的「十架」，究竟是啥意思？
答案應該很清楚了，就是「痛苦」、或是「神所託付的工作」。
若是說這裡的「十架」是象徵著「罪」，我不知道故事怎麼說下去。
: correctly, poijkl and maysue do not take it as a symbol for sin. What they
: suggest and emphasize, as it seems to me, is rather that "deny oneself" has
: the meaning of "to overcome one's own sins," or "to put off one's old
: man." Perhaps the article of poijkl is a little bit vague, and may
: lead us to think that she has been suggesting cross as the symbol for sin;
: but I do not believe she means this, not to say that "take up one's own
: cross" as a doctrine to carry his own sins.
ㄟ，敦民，你沒有好好讀小牧的文章喔！
我引一段他的文章，你自己說vague不vague：
---
: : 背起自己的十字架，不是榮耀的十架，而是罪的十架。己身的
: : 罪性和罪行是宛若十字架的重負，是不按照主意行的自己。
: 美書認為十字架是"罪"的象徵,蠻符合十字架的象徵意義
: 只是唯恐偏離"因信稱義"而落入"因行為稱義"的陷阱裡
: 所以這裡暫時換個名詞為"舊人"
: (引自歌羅西書3:9~10的脫去舊人穿上新人)
: 這麼說來"捨己"就是那個棄絕舊自己,十字架就是自己舊的東西
---
應該還蠻清楚的吧。
: The controversy is only a certain misunderstanding, as is often seen on
: every sort of discussion. But certainly it would not diminish the good
: insight in such a series of articles at all. As to the interpretation
: and the spiritual application, I could not find any better point than
: what chaoyu, poijkl, and maysue. So I stop here only with certain
: technical information.
謝謝了。不過我想，還是用中文吧.....
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 140.112.5.43
※ 編輯: chaoyu 來自: 140.112.5.43 (09/16 03:07)