|
作者
|
內容
|
|
志道
|
Posted -
2001/7/13 下午 09:10:48
|
|
|
有位新教的弟兄提醒我們關於第二誡的意義，例如耶穌的英文正名應為Iesu而非Jesus，另有關於"耶和華"的翻譯問題，因未得允許，不便轉貼，詳情請參閱本人網頁之留言板﹙傳達室﹚：
http://communities.msn.com.hk/tp9sqh5sojgpcglf8ha008n0r0/_whatsnew.msnw
|
|
志道
|
Posted -
2001/7/14 下午 09:53:23
|
|
|
已獲本題原著作者之准許，該文網址如下：
http://www.oamweb.com/religious/iclg/LORDIESU/id21.html
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2001/7/19 上午 10:36:58
|
|
|
耶穌的廣州話發音和國語發音已有明顯不同,那怎麼辦?莫非要每個方言一個譯名?還是應像古時的希伯來人所用的四字詞有字無聲的來替代?
|
|
iclg712
|
Posted -
2001/8/21 上午 08:29:23
|
|
|
這事說來其實非常簡單, 歷代以來學者對舊約時代神的名 YHWH 到底怎麼唸, 的確是眾說紛紜, 問題就在於, 神有意隱藏他自己至聖的名. YHWH 意思為 I AM WHO I AM, "我是自有永有的", 嚴格說, 神並沒有顯明他的名. 因為第三條誡命: 不可妄稱主你神的名, 所以主後第九世紀, 當猶太人學者開始在希伯來文舊約聖經的希伯來子音字母點上母音時, 他們在 YHWH 上點的是 ADONAI (主) 的子音, 用意是提醒猶太人在讀聖經時, 看到神的聖名 YHWH, 要唸出 ADONAI. 主前兩百年的希臘文舊約聖經七十士譯本就是使用"主"來取代 YHWH. 主耶穌在引用舊約經文時, 也是用"主", "神"來稱呼天父, 從來沒有唸過 YHWH 這個名, 因為"耶穌"這個至聖的名就是神自己的聖名, 他藉人子耶穌基督的肉身來, 為要拯救自己的百姓, 並且把自己的聖名顯明給世人知道. 主耶穌降生前, 天使啟示的聖名是 "Iesou" (唸為 "耶穌", 主格才加字尾 -s), 這個名字在拉丁文是 IESU (唸 "耶穌"), 傳到世界各國, 開始時一定也是保留原始的"耶穌"的唸法, 用不同的語言發出"耶穌"的音, 中文就是如此, 並未翻譯為"基瑟士", 誰膽敢更改神的聖名? 英文一直到十六世紀, 還是 IESU (唸"耶穌"), 到 1628年用 IESUS, 1629年字母 I 被改為 J, 用 JESUS. 發音還是如"耶穌"再加字尾的 [-s], 現代的德文還是保留這發音. 字母 I 與 J 共用 200 年後, 1829 年以後到現代之間不知何時, 發音才被改成如今的樣子. 舊約時代神的名 YHWH 到底怎麼唸, 的確是眾說紛紜, 新約時代, 神已經指示他的聖名是 希臘文的 Iesou, 拉丁文的 IESU, 中文的"耶穌", 各地的方言, 大體上保留了原始"耶穌"的發音, 例如上海話的發音"爺叔", 台灣話的發音"亞朔". 主的聖名就是中文"耶穌", 英文 IESU, 這麼清楚, 難道還要眾說紛紜麼? (番3:9) 那時、我必使萬民改變(或:恢復) 為一個清楚(或:純淨) 的語言、使他們能求告主的名、同心合意的事奉他。
(註: 希伯來原文逐字對譯英文為: For then I will change to the peoples a lip clear, to call all of them by the name of the LORD, to serve Him (with) one shoulder. NRSV 聖經為: At that time I will change (另有譯本用 restore) the speech of the peoples to a pure speech, that all of them may call on the name of the LORD and serve him with one accord. 在巴別塔之前, 人們使用一種相同的語言求告主的名; 末日, 主再來之前, 會再恢復為一種清楚的語言, 使萬民一同求告主的名.參閱其它譯本). (亞14:9) 主神必作全地的王、那日主神必為獨一無二的．他的名也是獨一無二的。"And the LORD will become king over all the earth; on that day the LORD will be one and his name one." 神有許多偉大的稱謂頭銜, 但是他的聖名只有一個! 有不少相信耶穌的猶太人, 主張應該用 Yeshua (約書亞), 亞蘭文新約用 Eashoa, 其實猶太人中也是眾說紛紜, 因為沒有人知道主後第九世紀前的正確發音, 而且武加大拉丁文聖經用 IESU (耶穌)區別 IOSUE (約書亞). IESU (耶穌)這名是超乎萬名之上的聖名 (超乎 IOSUE, Yeshua, Eashoa, Jesus, Jehovah,Joshua...等名字)
如果我們承認"耶穌"是真神賜下唯一的聖名, 而這聖名是至聖無比的, 第三條誡命同樣適用在這個神的聖名上, 廣意來說, 使用錯誤的翻譯 "耶和華", 或使用"被更改過"的 "Jesus" 來稱呼天上的真神, 因為這已經不是真神原本賜下的聖名, 有誰敢說, 這不算是 "妄稱神的名"? 請特別注意, 我們應該使用高標準, 就好像主耶穌在新約時代把十誡的後六條的道德標準提高一樣. 更何況我們應盡心盡性盡意盡力愛主我們的神, 並愛人如己. 如果 天主教承認他們 1600 年前更改了安息日, 從星期六改為星期天. 我們應該改回去, 那麼, 同樣的, 約 400 年前主的英文聖名 IESU 被改為 Jesus, 我們如果不改回去, 就是雙重標準, 這是神所不喜悅的事. 不要說眾人是軟弱的弟兄, 他們應該還算外邦人. 我們不可傷了軟弱的弟兄姊妹的良心, 叫他們因無知受你的影嚮, 而違犯神的誡命. 如果一個人真的重視真神的誡命, 他不會因為 IESU 這個聖名跌倒, 因為聖名被更改是歷史的事實, IESU CHRIST 是 16 世紀以前使用在英文聖經的聖名. 反而我們可以辨別, 誰是真的事奉神. (太7:21) 凡稱呼我主阿、主阿的人、不能都進天國．惟獨遵行我天父旨意的人、才能進去。
"遵行天父旨意"就是(啟14:12) 聖徒的忍耐就在此．他們是守神誡命、和耶穌真道的。
"耶穌真道"就是主耶穌所有的教訓, 及靠主聖名耶穌基督得重生, (約3:5) 耶穌說、我實實在在的告訴你、人若不是從水和聖靈生的、就不能進神的國。
"『一洗』的意思，是『一樣的洗禮』，並非指一次的。當然，合乎聖經的真洗禮，一生只可領受一次。
因為基督受死、埋葬、復活，只有一次就成全救恩直到永遠；我們受洗是與基督同死、同埋葬、同復活，
當然也只有一次就夠。"
"一樣的洗禮"是指保羅談到真正的洗禮是只有一種方式, 嚴格說來, 應說是"浸禮", 因為原文"洗禮"有英文"Immersion"(浸入水中)
之意. 主耶穌, 埃提阿伯的太監,...都是下到水裡, 從水裡上來.(太3:16) 耶穌受了洗、隨即從水裡上來．天忽然為他開了、他就看見神的靈、彷彿鴿子降下、落在他身上。
(徒8:38) 於是吩咐車站住、腓利和太監二人同下水裡去、腓利就給他施洗。
(徒8:39) 從水裡上來、主的靈把腓利提了去、太監也不再見他了、就歡歡喜喜的走路。
(約3:23) 約翰在靠近撒冷的哀嫩也施洗、因為那裡水多．眾人都去受洗。
如果幾滴水滴到頭上就是洗禮, 埃提阿伯的太監車上就有飲用的水, 何必要到有水的地方?(徒8:36) 二人正往前走、到了有水的地方．太監說、看哪、這裡有水、我受洗有甚麼妨礙呢。〔有古卷在此有若是一心相信〕
雖然主耶穌吩咐(太28:19) 所以你們要去、使萬民作我的門徒、奉父子聖靈的名、給他們施洗．〔或作給他們施洗歸於父子聖靈的名〕
但是使徒行傳中記載的洗禮都是奉主耶穌, 或主耶穌基督的名, 難道使徒不聽從主的吩咐? 不是的, 他們知道, 父子聖靈的名是單數的名, 天下人間只有一個真神的聖名我們可靠著得救, 就是"耶穌", "耶穌"就是父子聖靈的名, 神是靈, 就是聖靈, 父子為一, 就是至聖的神的靈. 受浸時頭要低下, 因要與主死的形狀聯合.
(羅6:4) 所以我們藉著洗禮歸入死、和他一同埋葬．原是叫我們一舉一動有新生的樣式、像基督藉著父的榮耀、從死裡復活一樣。
(羅6:5) 我們若在他死的形狀上與他聯合、也要在他復活的形狀上與他聯合．
"For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection"
主死的形狀: (約19:30) 耶穌嘗〔原文作受〕了那醋、就說、成了．便低下頭、將靈魂交付神了。
還要從聖靈重生, 得到聖靈的憑據是能用靈言禱告, 不是信主或受洗後就自動得到聖靈. (徒19:2) 問他們說、你們信的時候、受了聖靈沒有．他們回答說、沒有、也未曾聽見有聖靈賜下來。
(徒19:3) 保羅說、這樣、你們受的是甚麼洗呢。他們說、是約翰的洗。
(徒19:4) 保羅說、約翰所行的是悔改的洗、告訴百姓、當信那在他以後要來的、就是那穌。
(徒19:5) 他們聽見這話、就奉主耶穌的名受洗。
(徒19:6) 保羅按手在他們頭上、聖靈便降在他們身上．他們就說方言、又說豫言。〔或作又講道〕
(徒19:7) 一共約有十二個人。
"說方言"不是恩賜之一的"說靈言", 那是一定要"翻譯出來"的, 如果是聖靈感動所說的靈言, 神一定會使這靈言被翻譯出來造就教會全體信徒. 但是靈言的禱告是對神說, 沒有人明白, 也不需要翻譯, 因是聖靈親自用說不出的嘆息, 為我們禱告, 心靈裡講說各樣的奧祕, 是造就自己的, 所以保羅說, 他說方言(靈言禱告)比眾人還多, 但是在眾人聚會要聽神的道理時, (林前14:19) 但在教會中、寧可用悟性說五句教導人的話、強如說萬句方言。(林前14:39) 所以弟兄們、你們要切慕作先知講道、也不要禁止說方言。
教會全體在聽講道前後, 全體跪在神面前, 個人向主傾心吐意, 讚美頌揚, 感謝祈求, 或聖靈親自為我們禱告, 述說奧祕, 當許多弟兄姊妹已得到聖靈, 可以用靈言禱告時, 就好像大水的聲音, 打雷的聲音. 這時不可說, 這些人是顛狂了, 是喝醉酒了, (徒2:15) 你們想這些人是醉了、其實不是醉了、因為時候剛到巳初．
(徒2:16) 這正是先知約珥所說的．
(徒2:17) 『神說、在末後的日子、我要將我的靈澆灌凡有血氣的．你們的兒女要說豫言．你們的少年人要見異象．老年人要作異夢．
(徒2:18) 在那些日子、我要將我的靈澆灌我的僕人和使女、他們就要說豫言。
(徒2:33) 他既被神的右手高舉、〔或作他既高舉在神的右邊〕又從父受了所應許的聖靈、就把你們所看見所聽見的、澆灌下來。
聖靈降在人身上是可以看得到聽得見的. 就是用靈言禱告, 舌頭跳動, 常常伴隨因聖靈感應而引起身體的振動, 但是意識非常清楚, 滿心喜樂, 感謝神的大愛, 或有欣喜而泣, 或悔改痛哭, 或如電流, 全身通暢, 或如烈火, 滿腔熱血, 或如活水泉源, 一直湧出, 或有見異像, 跳靈舞, 身體被聖靈提起. 但知所節制, 大家一停止禱告, 會知道需要停止. 並不像有些得到邪靈, 神智不清, 滿地打滾, 身體僵硬, 或口吐白沫, 咬牙切齒, 昏迷不醒, 或疼痛虛弱, 恐懼, 兇暴, 失態...等等. 不需要因害怕邪靈侵入而不求聖靈, 當然如果所傳道理不合乎聖經, 就比較容易被撒但迷惑利用. 我們應祈求主神降下聖靈, 而且要情詞迫切的祈求. (路11:13) 你們雖然不好、尚且知道拿好東西給兒女。何況天父、豈不更將聖靈給求他的人麼。
得到聖靈作我們的保惠師, 時時的使我們靈性更新. (多3:5) 他便救了我們、並不是因我們自己所行的義、乃是照他的憐憫、藉著重生的洗、和聖靈的更新。
(多3:6) 聖靈就是神藉著耶穌基督我們救主、厚厚澆灌在我們身上的．
重生的水洗(浸禮)、和聖靈的更新(從靈重生). 遵守誡命. 為何去掉第四誡的安息日? 為何不注重第三誡的神的聖名? 請謹慎深思!
http://www.LORD-IESU.org 願主耶穌祝福帶領!
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2001/8/21 上午 09:45:23
|
|
|
很詳盡的解說,但有些我想是無心之失. 瑪索辣經師點上的是adonai的母音而非子音.
另外,邏輯上也有問題,為何因為拉丁通行本分別了若蘇厄和耶穌兩名(兩名在希伯來文/阿辣美文中相同), 之後便要跟隨?
如他們堅持用耶穌的原名,是否應該提倡叫耶穌為若蘇厄?
其他的論題好像和題目無甚關係.
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2001/11/22 上午 01:15:05
|
|
|
Beware the abmoninable heresies of Ana-baptists
and those Seventh-Day Adventists!
May Christ rebuke them as he rebuked the hypocritic Pharisees and legalistic Jews.
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2001/11/22 下午 04:23:03
|
|
|
喂?喂?奧斯定兄,你在說甚麼?是甚麼牛的頭?還是甚麼馬的嘴?
你有否讀過"合一"法令?不要一開始就異端前,異端後嘛,不然怎可能有建設性的交談呢?
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2001/11/22 下午 09:35:35
|
|
|
I apologize:
since recently I have been bothered by quite a
number of Fundamentalists at the campus and I really
feel mad about them, maybe they are not of the same sort!
About 合一"法令, 煩請賜教!
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2001/11/22 下午 09:42:27
|
|
|
The Seven-Day Adventists really reminds me of those silly Jewish Rituals: Why they insist on the Sabboath matter? Isn't that for the Jews alone? Do they just sit there and do nothing
on a Saturday?
My friend once told me that "Giordano"'s former boss was a 7dayAdventist, and he mandated that his staff be off on Sabbaoth, the shops will be closed on Friday evening about 5pm. But what is the meaning of all these?
|
|
Steve
管理人員
|
Posted -
2001/11/23 上午 12:10:08
|
|
|
Goodness me. Who is the fundamentalist?
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2001/11/23 上午 10:02:18
|
|
|
I don't think they are silly at all, although their interpretation of Sabbath is different from us, I respect their theology and practices.
As Pope John Paul II said in Dies Domini CHAPTER IV, DIES HOMINIS, 62. It is the duty of Christians therefore to remember that,although the practices of the Jewish Sabbath are gone, surpassed asthey are by the "fulfilment" which Sunday brings, the underlying reasons for keeping "the Lord's Day" holy — inscribed solemnly in the Ten Commandments — remain valid, though they need to be reinterpreted in the light of the theology and spirituality of Sunday...
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2001/11/23 上午 10:05:22
|
|
|
"But what is the meaning of all these?"
The meaning of all this is make the day holy! and keep the Lord Commandment! Is that simple!
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2001/11/23 上午 10:17:07
|
|
|
oops,一時記錯 "Unitatis Redintegratio" 的中文應是大公主義法令, unitatis 解合一, 所以記錯, sorry.
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2001/11/23 下午 08:54:44
|
|
|
I refer the "silly Rituals" to the washing rubrics, food prohibitions, etc...and of course not to the Ten Commandment which we must keep. Who can say "Thou Shalt not kill" is silly?
In what way do we distinguish those Word Of the Lord
in the OT addressed to the Jews that Christians must keep and those which they don't need to keep? ie Which are the "important" Jewish laws? I thought it's that summary decreed by Christ:"love God and then your neighbour"?
Will keeping the holy day on Saturday or Sunday have a
clash with the above mandatum?
OK it is just a difference in interpretation of
the same commandment, ie, on which day of the week should we be keeping holy.
But why do they accuse us of changing the holy day from Saturday to Sunday(though we are keeping the day holy by the same commandment and, presumably ,spirit)?
Are both understandings "in essence" the same?
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2001/11/24 上午 09:28:25
|
|
|
why do they accuse us of changing the holy day from Saturday to Sunday?
Because we did changed it! althought we gave many theological reason to it, but the fact is we did changed it.
Just like when we talk about "filioque," the Eastern churches accuse us adding it in to the Credo, althought we say the meaning of it is already there, but the historical fact is , we did it, we did add it into the credo, whatever you like it or not.
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2001/11/24 上午 09:36:09
|
|
|
By the same token, many protestant will say our liturgy is "silly ritual", is that Jesus said "and those who worship must worship in spirit and truth"
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2001/11/24 上午 09:42:55
|
|
|
事實上新教一般而言在承傳上跟天主教已不同,這很難避免；即使是真福八端這樣基本的信仰核心,也有不同的演繹,要說對錯,可以開比世界宗教無遮大會還要長的辯論也說不完；省得了。
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2001/11/24 上午 09:43:21
|
|
|
Augustine, if you are a theological student, I hope you could be more critical, theological investigation is more like a critique of our faith, we are seeking understanding in many different angles, it is the fun of "doing theology", otherwise we are just like a "peking duck" and feeded with the catechism and DS.
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2001/11/25 上午 12:14:06
|
|
|
I am not asking whether we did changed it or not.
(that's the fact)
I just be very much eager to know:
Did keeping the holy day on the different date cause an effective betrayal of God's commandment
of keeping the Sabboath Holy, whichever day of the week it is?
ie, do keeping Sunday instead of Saturday holy
violates the Gospel's teaching:"Love God above all and then your neighbours"?
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2001/11/26 下午 03:54:30
|
|
|
Let me put it in this way, how do we define "to Love God", traditionally, one of the way to show our love to God is to obey His commandent, right?
then the rationale of this is how do we justify to change the Commandment of God? rather than just obey it?
In our Tradition, we said we have good reason to do so, but others may not think so.
That is just like in Mt. Athos, their calendnar is getting behind us 13days, do they have a reason, sure they do, are we right (meaning that today is 26 Nov,2001), I think so. So who is wrong?
Did it against the "Love God, love Man" standard? depend on how you interpet it, I will say.
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2001/11/26 下午 04:03:56
|
|
|
Actually in our tradition, we hold a similiar view, traditionally, we say if we miss a Sunday Mass, it is a sin, could we replace it to a weekday mass, noops, it is not equal. "Do keeping weekday instead of Sunday holy violates the Gospel's teaching:"Love God above all and then your neighbours?" Some traditional theologian may say yes.
Why we have this logic, because we think the Lord's day is different, it should keep holy by resting and attending Mass.
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2001/11/26 下午 05:52:34
|
|
|
I think the comparison between keeping the Lord's Day holly and "love your neighbour' is not a valid one - it is difficult to say that it is important to love your neighbour only and need not keep the Lord's day holy, or vice versa, either.
Why do we love our neighbour? Because we love God - men are made in God's image, and God has specifically commanded us to love our neighbour AS IF they are the Lord Himself (according to the Gospel). So keeping the Lord's Day is a manifestation of how much we revere God; by the same token, we will love our neighbour if this manifestation is genuine and not just for show.
No comparison between the two commandments is necessary at all.
|
|
