NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY IS NICENE CHRISTOLOGY: AN ORTHODOX PERSPECTIVE
新約基督論就是尼西亞基督論：一個正統的觀點
By Mina Fouad Tawfike
freeorthodoxmind@gmail.com
St Francis Magazine Vol 8, No 4 | August 2012
St Francis Magazine is a publication of Interserve and Arab Vision
Abstract/摘錄:
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在他的書，耶穌報告：探索歷史中最大的騙局中宣稱尼西亞大會的目的就是『要支持耶穌基督與父神是‘同一個存有（of one being）’，這是亞流並其他人士所否定的；對於他們，耶穌不是神』（P.83）。普林斯頓的Elaine Pagel乾巴巴的觀察到：『那些反對這個句子的人支持，這個關鍵既沒有出現在經文，也沒有出現在基督教傳統中』（Beyond Belief, p.173）。我將在本文中爭辯基督在尼西亞大會中被神化的觀念，是語無倫次並站不住腳的。他們完全無視於三個世紀的書寫傳統（教父、新約、墓碑並讚美詩的文字）並口述傳統（表明在禮拜儀式中），兩者都完全支持尼西亞。
1 Jesus Christ: A Deified Man, or an Incarnate God?
耶穌基督：一個被神化的人，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: （希臘文）.” 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和其他認為基督所謂的尼西亞定義乃是希臘—羅馬文化影響的直接結果，特別是對於在巴勒斯坦的猶太文化。支持這個觀點的證據乃是羅馬皇帝所提供的特徵和屬性，就像『神（the god）』、『主（the lord）』，『賜予者（the giver）』。例如，在一份三世紀的碑文上，我們讀到，『托勒密是救主與神（Ptolemy the savior and god）：（希臘文）』我們或許看見許多碑文和文字對於我們的第一個題目提出相同的意義，那些關於基督神性的觀念是否與基督的神格有關呢？或，更為特別的是，這種觀念是否導致尼西亞關於道與父『同質（of one substance）』的教義，就像Pagels和Baignet那些作者所認為的嗎？
2 The Theology of Christ’s Incarnation
基督道成肉身的神學
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.
為了駁斥Pagels和其他觀點一致的思想家，我爭辯神成為肉身的神學遠遠超過一位『成為肉身的神（an incarnated god）』的觀念。在聖經的思想中，關鍵的觀念乃是與救恩和救贖有關的，例如：它的主要目的是救贖並拯救人類。我們能夠在舊約和猶大拉比作品中看見這個神學的主題。它完全並從根本上與神（god）在神秘邪教和系列—羅馬思想中成為肉身的觀念不同。這個聖經的說法，暗示一個救贖論的向度，與基督在希臘和羅馬人被神化的意義上被神化的觀點是完全向悖逆的；的確，『基督被神化』的教育不能符合新約展現的基督教救贖教義並正統傳統的認知。
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).
基督教被認為是一個根據聖經的記載，將哲學與教義系統和禮儀儀式結合以在十字架上交通神的道和祂的死亡的複合物。意識不過就是根據那些教義。相反地，希臘—羅馬的異教的基礎乃是完全與其向悖逆的。它們的意識並沒有表達某種的書寫文字或口述傳統，或教義，或任何哲學的佐證。事實上，希臘—羅馬的宗教更聯繫於儀式，而不是信仰。這與基督教完全不同，基督教講交通中並教會中的關係聯繫於在基督裡的神，在這個信息中使用神的恩典並信仰讓人們認識並熟知。教義透過教會在儀式中的經驗被活化，在正統中被稱作奧秘。（阿拉伯語，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.
道成肉身並不是自身的目標，而是達成目標的手段。這個手段就是人性。它表明道成肉身如何展示神與人見最深邃的關係。因為，是靈的神為我們成為肉身，好叫祂的救恩不再僅僅是理論的——只能在心裡被相信，並在心思中被肯定——而是實實在在的，能被人有份。因為這個原因，正統派，像耶穌和保羅，並不認為強烈的人都一種真實並物質的聖禮禮儀作為有份與三一的交通產生的救恩會有任何的張力，在同時也肯定救贖純粹是一種恩典和恩賜。希臘—羅馬的異教則完全無法融合這些方面的人類經驗—儀式與信仰—因為它們沒有辦法把神與人帶入一個人之中。正統基督教卻又辦法。
3 Patristic Testimony and Ante-Nicene Christology
教父的見證和尼西亞前的基督論
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.
尼西亞前的基督論與尼西亞的基督論並沒有任何的不同，這是Pagels的看法。兩者完全相同，也都根據與聖經基督論（Biblical Christology）。我們可以從聖經中找到這個基督論的兩個重要觀念：道的觀念（道成肉身）並神的兒子的觀念。
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.
神的兒子：這是污靈並那些被邪靈附身之人的呼喊，『你是神的兒子，』（Mr 3:11, 5:7, Lk4:41）不能被認為是一種異教的影響，這乃是昆蘭文獻所留給我們的稱為。例如，4Q246抄本被視為亞蘭文的啟示錄（日期可以追溯到25BC）是源自於雅威的傳統，也遠比新約古老。本文論點一個人被稱作『神的兒子（son of God）』或『至高者的兒子（son of the High）』，並『他的政權是永恆的國度（his rule will be an eternal kingdom）』。本文看見一個人是宇宙的救助，所以這個啟示錄肯定了新約中『神的兒子』並不具有某種異教的起源。
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.
聖經神學版本則緊密的把神等同於祂的基督，成為肉身的道。這是我們在使徒教父並尼西亞前時期發現的信仰。
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:
巴拿巴書（可能寫於聖殿被毀的70AD之後，並在Hadrian重建耶路撒冷之前--132-135AD），視基督為神的兒子，並將會執行審判：『祂將會執行審判。。。祂其實他自己是神的兒子/』（5：7-9）。巴拿巴在好幾處重複了這種觀點：在7：2中他說：
If, therefore, the Son of God, who is Lord and is destined to judge the living and the dead, suffered in order that his wounds might give us life, let us believe that the Son of God could not suffer except for our sake.
故此，如果神的兒子，就是主並被設立審判火熱死人的那位，為了賜我們生命的緣故受苦，讓我們相信神的兒子若不是為了我們的緣故，就不能受苦。
The Didache is a catechism written in Greek and is dated around 60-80 AD. This manual quotes from Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, Thessalonians, and 1 Peter. It quotes more than 22 times from the book of Matthew. Concerning baptism, the Didache says:
十二使徒遺訓是由希臘文所撰寫的教義手冊，日期可追溯子60-80AD.這個手冊音樂了馬太、路加、約翰，使徒行傳、羅馬書、帖撒羅尼迦書和彼得前書。它超過20次引用了馬太福音。遺訓論到浸禮說：
As regards baptism, baptize in this manner, having first given all the preceding instruction baptize in the name of the father, and of the son and of the Holy Spirit and immerse 3 times in running water.
關於浸禮，要用這種方式施浸，先要在父、子和聖靈的名裡教導先有的程序，然後在活水中浸三次。
The second epistle of Clement is the oldest complete Greek homily still existent outside the New Testament; it is likely that the epistle was written between 100 and 120 AD: “Brothers and sisters, we ought to think of Jesus Christ as we do of God, as judge of the living and the dead. And we ought not to belittle the one who is our salvation” (2 Clement 1.1).
革利免二書是在新約外，最古老的希臘文宣道文；這篇文章可能寫於100到120AD之間：『兄弟姐妹們，我們應當用思考神的方式思考耶穌基督，祂將會審判活人和死人。我們不能貶低那是我們救恩的那位。』(2 Clement 1.1)
Ignatius of Antioch (martyred 110), says: “There is one only physician, of flesh and of spirit, generate and ingenerate, God in man, true Life in death, Son of Mary and Son of God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom 7:2). He clarifies this further in one of his epistles to the church in Ephesus: “...God Himself appearing in the form of a man, for the renewal of eternal life” (Epistle to the Ephesians 4:13). And: “For our God Jesus Christ was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost” (ibid 4:9).
安替阿的英格那丟（111年殉道）說：『唯有一位肉身和靈的大醫生，祂是被生的也是非受生的，是身在人裡面，在死亡中的真生命，瑪利亞的兒子也是人的兒子，是受苦的並是不可受苦的，是耶穌基督我們的主』（Rom 7:2）他在他寫給以弗所教會的一封信中進一步澄清這個觀念：『神自己顯現在人的形式中，為了用永遠的生命更新我們』（Epistle to the Ephesians 4:13）。並且，『因為我們的神耶穌基督，根據神的安排，成孕在瑪利亞腹中，出於大衛的後裔，但是是藉著聖靈而成孕的。』（ibid 4:9）
Irenaeus (died 202), in Ad. Her. 2.17.4, says: “The Father is God revealing himself, the Son is God revealed (the appearing revelation)”… “But he, Jesus, is himself in his own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, Lord, and king eternal, and the incarnate word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles …The Scriptures would not have borne witness to these things concerning him, if, like everyone else, he were mere man” Ad. Her. 3:19.1-2.
愛任紐（死於202），在反異端2.17.4中說：『父是啟示自己的神，神的兒子被啟示出來（顯現出來的啟示）』。。『但是祂，耶穌，祂自己就在祂自己那個從未人居住過的光中，是神、主、永遠的王、成為肉身的道，被所有的先知和使徒所宣告。。。如果祂像其他的每一個人一樣，僅僅是人，聖經就不會為那些關於祂的事做見證。』
Irenaeus even went on to present a clear belief in the Triune God:
愛任紐甚至還進一步展現出一種對於三一神的明確信仰：
The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: ...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess, to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all...’ (Ad. Her. 10.l)
教會雖然分散在全世界，甚至達到地級，從使徒並他們的門徒們領受了這個信仰。。。一位神，全能的父，天、地、海並其中一切生物的創造者；在一位基督耶穌，神的兒子，為我們的救恩成為肉身中；並透過被眾先知在聖靈中所宣告之神的諸多分賜，並道的臨及，透過童女降生，受苦，並從死人中復活，在悲哀的耶穌基督，我們的的主的肉身中升到天上，並祂從天在父的榮耀中向顯現，『將萬有歸附到一位中，』 並讓整個人類在新樣中富含，好叫基督耶穌、我們的主、神、救主、王，根據不可見之父的旨意，『讓天上、地上並地底下所有的萬有屈膝，讓所有的語言承認祂，讓祂能夠公義的執行審判。。。』（Ad. Her. 10.l）
Melito of Sardis identified Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man in his writings around 177 AD: “Being God and likewise perfect man, he gave positive indications of his two natures: of his deity, by the miracles during the three years following after his baptism… he concealed the signs of his deity, although he was the true God existing before the ages” Anastasius of Sinai's, The Guide 13.
撒迪的Melito在他寫於177AD左右的著作中認為耶穌基督是完全的神並完整的人：『同時作為神並完全的人，祂為祂的兩個性質提供了積極的記號：對於祂的神性，藉著在祂受浸後三年中行的神蹟。。。祂隱藏了祂神性的表號，雖然祂是在萬世之前就存在的真神。』Anastasius of Sinai's, The Guide 13。
Athenagoras wrote in 160 AD: “…they [the Christians] hold the Father to be God, and the Son God, and the Holy Spirit, and declare their union and their distinction in order.” A Plea for the Christians 10.3.
Athenagoras 在60AD寫到：『。。。他們（基督徒）堅稱父、神的兒子並聖靈都是神，並宣稱他們的合一，並在次序中的分別。』A Plea for the Christians 10.3。
Clement of Alexandria in 190 AD makes a strong case for Christ’s deity and the Trinity in several writings: “I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father.” Stromata, Book 5, ch. 14. “This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, both God and man.” Exhortation to the Heathen, ch 2
亞歷山大的革利免在190AD在好幾篇作品中強烈的指出基督的神性並三位一體：『除了神聖的三位一體外，我不知道別的事物；因為第三位是聖靈，第二位是子，萬有藉著祂們，根據父的旨意被造』Stromata, Book 5, ch. 14。『這點道就是基督，乃是我們存在的起因（因為祂在身裡面）並我們能夠存有的起因，這位道如今顯現為人，唯有祂是神又是人。』Exhortation to the Heathen, ch 2
Alexander of Alexandria (died 326 AD) wrote:
亞歷山大的亞歷山大（死於326AD）寫到：
Thus concerning this, we believe--as it seems best to the apostolic church--in one unbegotten Father, who of his being has no cause, who is immutable and unchangeable, always according to the same things in the same state, neither receiving progress nor diminution, who is giver of the Law, Prophets, and Gospels, who is Lord of patriarchs, apostles, and all the saints; and in one Lord Jesus Christ the only-begotten Son of God, begotten not from nothing but from the Father who is, not according to the likenesses of bodies by dissections or emanations from divisions, as it appears to Sabellius and Valentinus, but inexplicably and indescribably, according to him who said, as we set forth above, 'Who will describe his generation?' (Isa. 53:8). Letter to Alexander of Thessalonica, 46
雖然關於我們所相信的——它看起來乃是屬於使徒教會——一位非受生的神，他的存在沒有起因，祂是不可變化並不快改變的，沒有任何的過程也不會減少，祂賜下了律法、限制和福音，祂也是列祖、使徒並所有聖徒的主；並在以為主耶穌基督和神獨生的兒子中，祂是不是從虛無中生的，而是從父而生，祂不是如果撒伯流和瓦倫天奴認為的，是從分割某種事物產生之身體的樣式，而是以無可說明並無法被描述的方式，根據那位我們前面提及的說，『誰能訴說祂的出生』（Isa. 53:8）而生的。』Letter to Alexander of Thessalonica, 46
Those confessions of faith were never mere theoretical writings, but were also repeated and recited throughout the liturgies for baptism and the Eucharist. The oldest Coptic baptismal formula says: “I believe in One God, the Father, Almighty, Jesus Christ our Lord.” There is also a Roman baptismal formula that dates back to 125-135 AD: “I believe in God, Almighty, (the Father), and in Jesus Christ His only Son, who dominates us, born of the Holy Spirit and Virgin Mary, who is crucified in the time of Pilate of Pontus and buried and raised in the third day.”
那些承認信仰的人從不會僅僅用理論寫作，而是不斷的在浸禮和聖餐禮的禮儀中重複並背誦這些信仰。最古老的科普特受浸公式說到：『我相信一位神，父，全能者，耶穌基督我們的主。』可以追溯到125-135AD的羅馬受浸公式說到：『我相信神，全能者，（父），並耶穌基督祂的獨生子，祂掌管我們，從聖靈並瑪利亞而生，為我們在本丟皮拉多的時候釘死在十字架上，並被埋葬，三日後復活。』
This Orthodox faith is supported by the testimony of history and theology. It is supported also by the geographical spread of the faith, especially in the first centuries of Christianity, when the church was strongly oppressed.
這個正統的信仰完全被歷史和神學所支持。它也被在不同區域散佈的信仰所支持，特別是第一世紀的基督教，當教會被強烈的鎮壓的時候。
In conclusion, these ante-Nicene, Patristic texts demonstrate that the confession of the faith of Nicaea did not promulgate any new teaching. The concepts and vocabulary used there were already in wide circulation among the teachers and elders of the churches throughout Asia, Africa, and Europe.
我結論到，那些尼西亞前和教父時期的本文證明了尼西亞信仰中所承認的信仰並沒有頒布任何新的教訓。所使用的觀念與詞彙早已經在亞洲、非洲和歐洲教會中的教師和長老間流傳
4 The Story of Nicaea: What Really Happened There?
尼西亞的故事：到底發生了什麼事？
Let us examine the historical facts. The beginning of the controversy was when Arius (a cleric in Alexandria) offered his heretical ideas. This was during the divine war. Constantine saw that this Arian controversy was dividing the bishops of his empire, so in 323 AD he appointed Hosius of Cordova (Spain) to assist in resolving this conflict. Hosius delivered a letter from the Emperor, though it might have been written by Hosius himself, to Alexander bishop of Alexandria and to Arius, but the letter had no effect.
讓我們檢視歷史事實。爭議起源自當亞流（一位亞歷山大的神職人員）提出他的異端性觀念。這件事發生於一個神聖的戰爭期間。康士坦丁視亞流爭議會分裂他遞給中的主教，所以在323AD，他指定Cordova（西班牙）的Hosius協助解決這個衝突。Hosius用皇帝的名義發了一封信，雖然那封信可能是Hosius自己寫的，給亞歷山大的亞歷山大和亞流，但是那封信沒有任何效果。
So by an invitation from the emperor himself, a council was held in 325 AD in the town of Nicaea, in Bithynia, which was a vital city near Nicomedia. The council consisted of 318 bishops (we get this figure from Athanasius’ writings. Some other sources claim that the number was 300 or 270). In addition, there was a great number of priests (presbyters), deacons, and assistants present, most of them from the East, to settle the Arian debate and fix the Passover date. Another concern was to discuss the subject of re-baptizing heretics.
所以，因著皇帝的邀請，325AD在Bithynia的尼西亞鎮舉行了一個大會，該處是尼哥米迪亞（Nicomedia）的重要城市。大會包括了318位主教（我們從亞他那修的著作得到這個數字。其他的資料來源宣稱這個數字在300到270之間。）此外，還有很多的神父（長老）、執事和助手在場，他們大部分都是東方來的，為了解決亞流的爭議和確定復活節的日期。另一個問題是討論關於異端分子重新受浸的問題。
There are evidences that the title “pope” or “patriarch” did not exist in the ante-Nicene era, or even in Nicene time. We have primary materials from the Council of Nicaea, like a letter from Eusebius of Caesarea to his church there. (It was kept in the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates, and in Athanasius’ Apology of Nicaea.) The description of the council sessions is kept in Eusebius’ book Life of Constantine, and letters from Constantine and letters from the council to the churches are also present there. Also, we still have the twenty canons issued by the council. Also, the historical writings of Socrates, Sozomen, Rufinus and Eusebius of Caesarea contain many details about the council.
有證據表明『教會（pope）』或『大主教（patriarch）』這個稱呼在尼西亞前的時代，甚至在尼西亞時代都不存在。我們擁有尼西亞大會的原始資料，就像從該撒利亞的優西比烏寫個他教會的信。（被保留在蘇格拉底（Socartes）的教會歷史並亞他那修的尼西亞護文中。）優西比烏的康士坦丁生平一書保留了大會進程的記載，從康士坦丁和大會分別寫給眾教會的信件也被保留在該書中。並且，我們還有大會所頒布的二十個條例。另外，蘇格拉底，Sozoman，Rufinus和該撒利亞的優西比烏的作品都包含了許多關於大會的細節。
In fact, there is no reference to the subject of fixing the number and identity of the books of the New Testament or the deification of Christ in either of these ancient primary sources (like Socrates, chapter 8, Sozomen, chapters 17 to 21, and Eusebius).
事實上，在那些古代的第一手資料中（如同Socrates, chapter 8, Sozomen, chapters 17 to 21, and Eusebius）並沒有如果新約或基督的神化這些主題一樣具有固定數目的資料來源。
The Available historical sources on the council of Nicaea:
關於尼西亞大會的歷史文獻資源：
Theodoret, Historia Ecclesia, Book I, ch. 6 .13
Socrates, Historia Ecclesia, Book I, ch. 8 ch 21
Esuebius,Vita Constantini, Book III, ch 6 ff
Eusebius, On the Feast of Easter / De solemnitate paschalis.
Athanasius, Ep. Ad Episcopos Africae, 5.ff
Athanasius, de decretis synodis.
Epinphanius, Haereses or Panarion, 69
Philostorgius, HE I, 7, 7a
Rufinus, Historia Ecclesiastica 10.1-6
Geasius of Cyzicus, Historia Concilii Nicaeni
Jerome, Prologue to Judith
When the Council Fathers endorsed the ante-Nicene hermeneutical tradition regarding the correct, Orthodox interpretation of Holy Scripture, they denounced Arius’ contention that the Logos had been at some point in time created, and that his essence was not the same as the divine essence. This they did with the memorable words: “We believe […] in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father…”
當教父的大會採取了尼西亞前的釋經傳統，就是正確和正統對於聖經的詮釋方式，他們否定了亞流堅稱的，就是道在時間的某個點被造，祂的素質與神的素質不同。他們以一種令人印象深刻的話說到：『我們相信[...]一位主耶穌基督，神的兒子，從父而生，是光中之光，神中之神，是被生的，不是被造的，與父同實質。。。』
It’s clear now that the Christology of Nicaea was the same faith of the New Testament and the early centuries before Nicaea; it’s “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 1:3). Claims by authors like Pagels that Nicaea somehow produced the doctrine of the full divinity of Christ by borrowing from GrecoRoman thought are empty and indefensible.
如今，很明顯的，尼西亞的基督論與新約並在尼西亞前的早期教會的信仰一致；它乃是『交託給聖徒的信仰』（Jude 1:3）。Pagels此類作者宣稱尼西亞從某個方面借用了希臘——羅馬思想以產生基督具有完全神性的教義的說法是空洞並站不住腳的。
St Francis Magazine is a publication of Interserve and Arab Vision
Abstract/摘錄:
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在他的書，耶穌報告：探索歷史中最大的騙局中宣稱尼西亞大會的目的就是『要支持耶穌基督與父神是‘同一個存有（of one being）’，這是亞流並其他人士所否定的；對於他們，耶穌不是神』（P.83）。普林斯頓的Elaine Pagel乾巴巴的觀察到：『那些反對這個句子的人支持，這個關鍵既沒有出現在經文，也沒有出現在基督教傳統中』（Beyond Belief, p.173）。我將在本文中爭辯基督在尼西亞大會中被神化的觀念，是語無倫次並站不住腳的。他們完全無視於三個世紀的書寫傳統（教父、新約、墓碑並讚美詩的文字）並口述傳統（表明在禮拜儀式中），兩者都完全支持尼西亞。
1 Jesus Christ: A Deified Man, or an Incarnate God?
耶穌基督：一個被神化的人，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: （希臘文）.” 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和其他認為基督所謂的尼西亞定義乃是希臘—羅馬文化影響的直接結果，特別是對於在巴勒斯坦的猶太文化。支持這個觀點的證據乃是羅馬皇帝所提供的特徵和屬性，就像『神（the god）』、『主（the lord）』，『賜予者（the giver）』。例如，在一份三世紀的碑文上，我們讀到，『托勒密是救主與神（Ptolemy the savior and god）：（希臘文）』我們或許看見許多碑文和文字對於我們的第一個題目提出相同的意義，那些關於基督神性的觀念是否與基督的神格有關呢？或，更為特別的是，這種觀念是否導致尼西亞關於道與父『同質（of one substance）』的教義，就像Pagels和Baignet那些作者所認為的嗎？
2 The Theology of Christ’s Incarnation
基督道成肉身的神學
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.
為了駁斥Pagels和其他觀點一致的思想家，我爭辯神成為肉身的神學遠遠超過一位『成為肉身的神（an incarnated god）』的觀念。在聖經的思想中，關鍵的觀念乃是與救恩和救贖有關的，例如：它的主要目的是救贖並拯救人類。我們能夠在舊約和猶大拉比作品中看見這個神學的主題。它完全並從根本上與神（god）在神秘邪教和系列—羅馬思想中成為肉身的觀念不同。這個聖經的說法，暗示一個救贖論的向度，與基督在希臘和羅馬人被神化的意義上被神化的觀點是完全向悖逆的；的確，『基督被神化』的教育不能符合新約展現的基督教救贖教義並正統傳統的認知。
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).
基督教被認為是一個根據聖經的記載，將哲學與教義系統和禮儀儀式結合以在十字架上交通神的道和祂的死亡的複合物。意識不過就是根據那些教義。相反地，希臘—羅馬的異教的基礎乃是完全與其向悖逆的。它們的意識並沒有表達某種的書寫文字或口述傳統，或教義，或任何哲學的佐證。事實上，希臘—羅馬的宗教更聯繫於儀式，而不是信仰。這與基督教完全不同，基督教講交通中並教會中的關係聯繫於在基督裡的神，在這個信息中使用神的恩典並信仰讓人們認識並熟知。教義透過教會在儀式中的經驗被活化，在正統中被稱作奧秘。（阿拉伯語，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.
道成肉身並不是自身的目標，而是達成目標的手段。這個手段就是人性。它表明道成肉身如何展示神與人見最深邃的關係。因為，是靈的神為我們成為肉身，好叫祂的救恩不再僅僅是理論的——只能在心裡被相信，並在心思中被肯定——而是實實在在的，能被人有份。因為這個原因，正統派，像耶穌和保羅，並不認為強烈的人都一種真實並物質的聖禮禮儀作為有份與三一的交通產生的救恩會有任何的張力，在同時也肯定救贖純粹是一種恩典和恩賜。希臘—羅馬的異教則完全無法融合這些方面的人類經驗—儀式與信仰—因為它們沒有辦法把神與人帶入一個人之中。正統基督教卻又辦法。
3 Patristic Testimony and Ante-Nicene Christology
教父的見證和尼西亞前的基督論
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.
尼西亞前的基督論與尼西亞的基督論並沒有任何的不同，這是Pagels的看法。兩者完全相同，也都根據與聖經基督論（Biblical Christology）。我們可以從聖經中找到這個基督論的兩個重要觀念：道的觀念（道成肉身）並神的兒子的觀念。
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.
神的兒子：這是污靈並那些被邪靈附身之人的呼喊，『你是神的兒子，』（Mr 3:11, 5:7, Lk4:41）不能被認為是一種異教的影響，這乃是昆蘭文獻所留給我們的稱為。例如，4Q246抄本被視為亞蘭文的啟示錄（日期可以追溯到25BC）是源自於雅威的傳統，也遠比新約古老。本文論點一個人被稱作『神的兒子（son of God）』或『至高者的兒子（son of the High）』，並『他的政權是永恆的國度（his rule will be an eternal kingdom）』。本文看見一個人是宇宙的救助，所以這個啟示錄肯定了新約中『神的兒子』並不具有某種異教的起源。
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.
聖經神學版本則緊密的把神等同於祂的基督，成為肉身的道。這是我們在使徒教父並尼西亞前時期發現的信仰。
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:
巴拿巴書（可能寫於聖殿被毀的70AD之後，並在Hadrian重建耶路撒冷之前--132-135AD），視基督為神的兒子，並將會執行審判：『祂將會執行審判。。。祂其實他自己是神的兒子/』（5：7-9）。巴拿巴在好幾處重複了這種觀點：在7：2中他說：
If, therefore, the Son of God, who is Lord and is destined to judge the living and the dead, suffered in order that his wounds might give us life, let us believe that the Son of God could not suffer except for our sake.
故此，如果神的兒子，就是主並被設立審判火熱死人的那位，為了賜我們生命的緣故受苦，讓我們相信神的兒子若不是為了我們的緣故，就不能受苦。
The Didache is a catechism written in Greek and is dated around 60-80 AD. This manual quotes from Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, Thessalonians, and 1 Peter. It quotes more than 22 times from the book of Matthew. Concerning baptism, the Didache says:
十二使徒遺訓是由希臘文所撰寫的教義手冊，日期可追溯子60-80AD.這個手冊音樂了馬太、路加、約翰，使徒行傳、羅馬書、帖撒羅尼迦書和彼得前書。它超過20次引用了馬太福音。遺訓論到浸禮說：
As regards baptism, baptize in this manner, having first given all the preceding instruction baptize in the name of the father, and of the son and of the Holy Spirit and immerse 3 times in running water.
關於浸禮，要用這種方式施浸，先要在父、子和聖靈的名裡教導先有的程序，然後在活水中浸三次。
The second epistle of Clement is the oldest complete Greek homily still existent outside the New Testament; it is likely that the epistle was written between 100 and 120 AD: “Brothers and sisters, we ought to think of Jesus Christ as we do of God, as judge of the living and the dead. And we ought not to belittle the one who is our salvation” (2 Clement 1.1).
革利免二書是在新約外，最古老的希臘文宣道文；這篇文章可能寫於100到120AD之間：『兄弟姐妹們，我們應當用思考神的方式思考耶穌基督，祂將會審判活人和死人。我們不能貶低那是我們救恩的那位。』(2 Clement 1.1)
Ignatius of Antioch (martyred 110), says: “There is one only physician, of flesh and of spirit, generate and ingenerate, God in man, true Life in death, Son of Mary and Son of God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom 7:2). He clarifies this further in one of his epistles to the church in Ephesus: “...God Himself appearing in the form of a man, for the renewal of eternal life” (Epistle to the Ephesians 4:13). And: “For our God Jesus Christ was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost” (ibid 4:9).
安替阿的英格那丟（111年殉道）說：『唯有一位肉身和靈的大醫生，祂是被生的也是非受生的，是身在人裡面，在死亡中的真生命，瑪利亞的兒子也是人的兒子，是受苦的並是不可受苦的，是耶穌基督我們的主』（Rom 7:2）他在他寫給以弗所教會的一封信中進一步澄清這個觀念：『神自己顯現在人的形式中，為了用永遠的生命更新我們』（Epistle to the Ephesians 4:13）。並且，『因為我們的神耶穌基督，根據神的安排，成孕在瑪利亞腹中，出於大衛的後裔，但是是藉著聖靈而成孕的。』（ibid 4:9）
Irenaeus (died 202), in Ad. Her. 2.17.4, says: “The Father is God revealing himself, the Son is God revealed (the appearing revelation)”… “But he, Jesus, is himself in his own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, Lord, and king eternal, and the incarnate word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles …The Scriptures would not have borne witness to these things concerning him, if, like everyone else, he were mere man” Ad. Her. 3:19.1-2.
愛任紐（死於202），在反異端2.17.4中說：『父是啟示自己的神，神的兒子被啟示出來（顯現出來的啟示）』。。『但是祂，耶穌，祂自己就在祂自己那個從未人居住過的光中，是神、主、永遠的王、成為肉身的道，被所有的先知和使徒所宣告。。。如果祂像其他的每一個人一樣，僅僅是人，聖經就不會為那些關於祂的事做見證。』
Irenaeus even went on to present a clear belief in the Triune God:
愛任紐甚至還進一步展現出一種對於三一神的明確信仰：
The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: ...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess, to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all...’ (Ad. Her. 10.l)
教會雖然分散在全世界，甚至達到地級，從使徒並他們的門徒們領受了這個信仰。。。一位神，全能的父，天、地、海並其中一切生物的創造者；在一位基督耶穌，神的兒子，為我們的救恩成為肉身中；並透過被眾先知在聖靈中所宣告之神的諸多分賜，並道的臨及，透過童女降生，受苦，並從死人中復活，在悲哀的耶穌基督，我們的的主的肉身中升到天上，並祂從天在父的榮耀中向顯現，『將萬有歸附到一位中，』 並讓整個人類在新樣中富含，好叫基督耶穌、我們的主、神、救主、王，根據不可見之父的旨意，『讓天上、地上並地底下所有的萬有屈膝，讓所有的語言承認祂，讓祂能夠公義的執行審判。。。』（Ad. Her. 10.l）
Melito of Sardis identified Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man in his writings around 177 AD: “Being God and likewise perfect man, he gave positive indications of his two natures: of his deity, by the miracles during the three years following after his baptism… he concealed the signs of his deity, although he was the true God existing before the ages” Anastasius of Sinai's, The Guide 13.
撒迪的Melito在他寫於177AD左右的著作中認為耶穌基督是完全的神並完整的人：『同時作為神並完全的人，祂為祂的兩個性質提供了積極的記號：對於祂的神性，藉著在祂受浸後三年中行的神蹟。。。祂隱藏了祂神性的表號，雖然祂是在萬世之前就存在的真神。』Anastasius of Sinai's, The Guide 13。
Athenagoras wrote in 160 AD: “…they [the Christians] hold the Father to be God, and the Son God, and the Holy Spirit, and declare their union and their distinction in order.” A Plea for the Christians 10.3.
Athenagoras 在60AD寫到：『。。。他們（基督徒）堅稱父、神的兒子並聖靈都是神，並宣稱他們的合一，並在次序中的分別。』A Plea for the Christians 10.3。
Clement of Alexandria in 190 AD makes a strong case for Christ’s deity and the Trinity in several writings: “I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father.” Stromata, Book 5, ch. 14. “This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, both God and man.” Exhortation to the Heathen, ch 2
亞歷山大的革利免在190AD在好幾篇作品中強烈的指出基督的神性並三位一體：『除了神聖的三位一體外，我不知道別的事物；因為第三位是聖靈，第二位是子，萬有藉著祂們，根據父的旨意被造』Stromata, Book 5, ch. 14。『這點道就是基督，乃是我們存在的起因（因為祂在身裡面）並我們能夠存有的起因，這位道如今顯現為人，唯有祂是神又是人。』Exhortation to the Heathen, ch 2
Alexander of Alexandria (died 326 AD) wrote:
亞歷山大的亞歷山大（死於326AD）寫到：
Thus concerning this, we believe--as it seems best to the apostolic church--in one unbegotten Father, who of his being has no cause, who is immutable and unchangeable, always according to the same things in the same state, neither receiving progress nor diminution, who is giver of the Law, Prophets, and Gospels, who is Lord of patriarchs, apostles, and all the saints; and in one Lord Jesus Christ the only-begotten Son of God, begotten not from nothing but from the Father who is, not according to the likenesses of bodies by dissections or emanations from divisions, as it appears to Sabellius and Valentinus, but inexplicably and indescribably, according to him who said, as we set forth above, 'Who will describe his generation?' (Isa. 53:8). Letter to Alexander of Thessalonica, 46
雖然關於我們所相信的——它看起來乃是屬於使徒教會——一位非受生的神，他的存在沒有起因，祂是不可變化並不快改變的，沒有任何的過程也不會減少，祂賜下了律法、限制和福音，祂也是列祖、使徒並所有聖徒的主；並在以為主耶穌基督和神獨生的兒子中，祂是不是從虛無中生的，而是從父而生，祂不是如果撒伯流和瓦倫天奴認為的，是從分割某種事物產生之身體的樣式，而是以無可說明並無法被描述的方式，根據那位我們前面提及的說，『誰能訴說祂的出生』（Isa. 53:8）而生的。』Letter to Alexander of Thessalonica, 46
Those confessions of faith were never mere theoretical writings, but were also repeated and recited throughout the liturgies for baptism and the Eucharist. The oldest Coptic baptismal formula says: “I believe in One God, the Father, Almighty, Jesus Christ our Lord.” There is also a Roman baptismal formula that dates back to 125-135 AD: “I believe in God, Almighty, (the Father), and in Jesus Christ His only Son, who dominates us, born of the Holy Spirit and Virgin Mary, who is crucified in the time of Pilate of Pontus and buried and raised in the third day.”
那些承認信仰的人從不會僅僅用理論寫作，而是不斷的在浸禮和聖餐禮的禮儀中重複並背誦這些信仰。最古老的科普特受浸公式說到：『我相信一位神，父，全能者，耶穌基督我們的主。』可以追溯到125-135AD的羅馬受浸公式說到：『我相信神，全能者，（父），並耶穌基督祂的獨生子，祂掌管我們，從聖靈並瑪利亞而生，為我們在本丟皮拉多的時候釘死在十字架上，並被埋葬，三日後復活。』
This Orthodox faith is supported by the testimony of history and theology. It is supported also by the geographical spread of the faith, especially in the first centuries of Christianity, when the church was strongly oppressed.
這個正統的信仰完全被歷史和神學所支持。它也被在不同區域散佈的信仰所支持，特別是第一世紀的基督教，當教會被強烈的鎮壓的時候。
In conclusion, these ante-Nicene, Patristic texts demonstrate that the confession of the faith of Nicaea did not promulgate any new teaching. The concepts and vocabulary used there were already in wide circulation among the teachers and elders of the churches throughout Asia, Africa, and Europe.
我結論到，那些尼西亞前和教父時期的本文證明了尼西亞信仰中所承認的信仰並沒有頒布任何新的教訓。所使用的觀念與詞彙早已經在亞洲、非洲和歐洲教會中的教師和長老間流傳
4 The Story of Nicaea: What Really Happened There?
尼西亞的故事：到底發生了什麼事？
Let us examine the historical facts. The beginning of the controversy was when Arius (a cleric in Alexandria) offered his heretical ideas. This was during the divine war. Constantine saw that this Arian controversy was dividing the bishops of his empire, so in 323 AD he appointed Hosius of Cordova (Spain) to assist in resolving this conflict. Hosius delivered a letter from the Emperor, though it might have been written by Hosius himself, to Alexander bishop of Alexandria and to Arius, but the letter had no effect.
讓我們檢視歷史事實。爭議起源自當亞流（一位亞歷山大的神職人員）提出他的異端性觀念。這件事發生於一個神聖的戰爭期間。康士坦丁視亞流爭議會分裂他遞給中的主教，所以在323AD，他指定Cordova（西班牙）的Hosius協助解決這個衝突。Hosius用皇帝的名義發了一封信，雖然那封信可能是Hosius自己寫的，給亞歷山大的亞歷山大和亞流，但是那封信沒有任何效果。
So by an invitation from the emperor himself, a council was held in 325 AD in the town of Nicaea, in Bithynia, which was a vital city near Nicomedia. The council consisted of 318 bishops (we get this figure from Athanasius’ writings. Some other sources claim that the number was 300 or 270). In addition, there was a great number of priests (presbyters), deacons, and assistants present, most of them from the East, to settle the Arian debate and fix the Passover date. Another concern was to discuss the subject of re-baptizing heretics.
所以，因著皇帝的邀請，325AD在Bithynia的尼西亞鎮舉行了一個大會，該處是尼哥米迪亞（Nicomedia）的重要城市。大會包括了318位主教（我們從亞他那修的著作得到這個數字。其他的資料來源宣稱這個數字在300到270之間。）此外，還有很多的神父（長老）、執事和助手在場，他們大部分都是東方來的，為了解決亞流的爭議和確定復活節的日期。另一個問題是討論關於異端分子重新受浸的問題。
There are evidences that the title “pope” or “patriarch” did not exist in the ante-Nicene era, or even in Nicene time. We have primary materials from the Council of Nicaea, like a letter from Eusebius of Caesarea to his church there. (It was kept in the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates, and in Athanasius’ Apology of Nicaea.) The description of the council sessions is kept in Eusebius’ book Life of Constantine, and letters from Constantine and letters from the council to the churches are also present there. Also, we still have the twenty canons issued by the council. Also, the historical writings of Socrates, Sozomen, Rufinus and Eusebius of Caesarea contain many details about the council.
有證據表明『教會（pope）』或『大主教（patriarch）』這個稱呼在尼西亞前的時代，甚至在尼西亞時代都不存在。我們擁有尼西亞大會的原始資料，就像從該撒利亞的優西比烏寫個他教會的信。（被保留在蘇格拉底（Socartes）的教會歷史並亞他那修的尼西亞護文中。）優西比烏的康士坦丁生平一書保留了大會進程的記載，從康士坦丁和大會分別寫給眾教會的信件也被保留在該書中。並且，我們還有大會所頒布的二十個條例。另外，蘇格拉底，Sozoman，Rufinus和該撒利亞的優西比烏的作品都包含了許多關於大會的細節。
In fact, there is no reference to the subject of fixing the number and identity of the books of the New Testament or the deification of Christ in either of these ancient primary sources (like Socrates, chapter 8, Sozomen, chapters 17 to 21, and Eusebius).
事實上，在那些古代的第一手資料中（如同Socrates, chapter 8, Sozomen, chapters 17 to 21, and Eusebius）並沒有如果新約或基督的神化這些主題一樣具有固定數目的資料來源。
The Available historical sources on the council of Nicaea:
關於尼西亞大會的歷史文獻資源：
Theodoret, Historia Ecclesia, Book I, ch. 6 .13
Socrates, Historia Ecclesia, Book I, ch. 8 ch 21
Esuebius,Vita Constantini, Book III, ch 6 ff
Eusebius, On the Feast of Easter / De solemnitate paschalis.
Athanasius, Ep. Ad Episcopos Africae, 5.ff
Athanasius, de decretis synodis.
Epinphanius, Haereses or Panarion, 69
Philostorgius, HE I, 7, 7a
Rufinus, Historia Ecclesiastica 10.1-6
Geasius of Cyzicus, Historia Concilii Nicaeni
Jerome, Prologue to Judith
When the Council Fathers endorsed the ante-Nicene hermeneutical tradition regarding the correct, Orthodox interpretation of Holy Scripture, they denounced Arius’ contention that the Logos had been at some point in time created, and that his essence was not the same as the divine essence. This they did with the memorable words: “We believe […] in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father…”
當教父的大會採取了尼西亞前的釋經傳統，就是正確和正統對於聖經的詮釋方式，他們否定了亞流堅稱的，就是道在時間的某個點被造，祂的素質與神的素質不同。他們以一種令人印象深刻的話說到：『我們相信[...]一位主耶穌基督，神的兒子，從父而生，是光中之光，神中之神，是被生的，不是被造的，與父同實質。。。』
It’s clear now that the Christology of Nicaea was the same faith of the New Testament and the early centuries before Nicaea; it’s “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 1:3). Claims by authors like Pagels that Nicaea somehow produced the doctrine of the full divinity of Christ by borrowing from GrecoRoman thought are empty and indefensible.
如今，很明顯的，尼西亞的基督論與新約並在尼西亞前的早期教會的信仰一致；它乃是『交託給聖徒的信仰』（Jude 1:3）。Pagels此類作者宣稱尼西亞從某個方面借用了希臘——羅馬思想以產生基督具有完全神性的教義的說法是空洞並站不住腳的。