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 相信 Religious 宗教 Information 資訊 Source 源 web-site 網址： |
| Our List of 1,000 Religious Subjects 我們所列出的1000名宗教科目 |
| E-mail 電子郵箱 |
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） 。
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）
(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） 。
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" 。
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。
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。
I. THE FACT OF THE INCARNATION一，事實的化身
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。
(1) THE DIVINE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST （ 1 ）神人耶穌基督
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。
(a) TESTIMONY OF THE PSALMS （一）作證的詩篇
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 。
(b) TESTIMONY OF THE SAPIENTIAL BOOKS （二）作證的sapiential書籍
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。
(c) TESTIMONY OF THE PROPHETIC BOOKS （三）證言的預言書
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。
WITNESS OF THE EVANGELISTS證人的福音
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 rati