測試: 不用理會 (Test: Please Ignore)

Test 1

Test 2

這文章純粹給我測試 CSS 設定,不用理會。

I use this post to test my CSS. Please ignore.

Heading 1: fdaskfds fjaslkfj akdsjafldsk kfldsajf d fkdajfldjs kfasjdlfjs alfdsaljf sl 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 

Heading 2: fdaskfds fjaslkfj akdsjafldsk kfldsajf d fkdajfldjs kfasjdlfjs alfdsaljf sl 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 

Heading 3: fdaskfds fjaslkfj akdsjafldsk kfldsajf d fkdajfldjs kfasjdlfjs alfdsaljf sl 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 

Heading 4: fdaskfds fjaslkfj akdsjafldsk kfldsajf d fkdajfldjs kfasjdlfjs alfdsaljf sl 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 

Heading 5: fdaskfds fjaslkfj akdsjafldsk kfldsajf d fkdajfldjs kfasjdlfjs alfdsaljf sl 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 
Heading 6: fdaskfds fjaslkfj akdsjafldsk kfldsajf d fkdajfldjs kfasjdlfjs alfdsaljf sl 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 

Class: PostSubtextfdaskfds fjaslkfj akdsjafldsk kfldsajf d fkdajfldjs kfasjdlfjs alfdsaljf sl 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 

Class: PostSubtextfdaskfds fjaslkfj akdsjafldsk kfldsajf d fkdajfldjs kfasjdlfjs alfdsaljf sl 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 

Class: FootnoteReffdaskfds fjaslkfj akdsjafldsk kfldsajf d fkdajfldjs kfasjdlfjs alfdsaljf sl 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 

Class: FootnoteTextfdaskfds fjaslkfj akdsjafldsk kfldsajf d fkdajfldjs kfasjdlfjs alfdsaljf sl 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 

Class: PostReference. fdaskfds fjaslkfj akdsjafldsk kfldsajf d fkdajfldjs kfasjdlfjs alfdsaljf sl 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 測試文字 

Unordered List:

  • Item 1
  • Item 2

= The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People = [By Stephen R. Covey]

I originally posted the following short article to hk.rec.books on March 16, 1997. I made some minor revisions and republished it here. However, as it reflects my view in a particular stage of life, I did not revise the main ideas presented then. Instead, I included a new paragraph at the end as an update.

Book Details: Stephen R. Covey (1990) Fireside edition. ISBN: 0671708635.

Contrary to what I thought at first, in my opinion it was a book useful for people doing any jobs. I am pretty sure that those people at the management level and leaders in various organizations were the intended audience. However, I think the ideas introduced in the book can actually be adapted to be used by most other people. The "principle-centered" thinking style emphasized by the writer is not intrinsically restricted to any particular setting. The ideas are quite (though not absolutely) independent of the values and principles a person holds. Once you are sure of your own principle, the habits the author presented may help you to live effectively in accord with your own principle.

For example, it talks about bearing in minds our own ends when we live. By ends I think the author meant your own major missions or goals, even if it is to be a good househusband, housewife, father, mother, son, artist, etc. He suggested the readers to live everyday towards these goals. Certainly, this does not preclude taking a rest, which is also critical to living toward a goal.

What I like most is the emphasis on effectiveness, in contrast to efficiency. Reading 20 books in one week may not help you to learn something you desire any more than reading a handful of good books in one month. Something we almost always know when someone told us, but we often forget about this distinction when we are pressed by the many deadlines and projects and assignments.

Another idea I highly appreciate is the emphasis on inter-personal relationship. Although I think the book was aimed for business people, the author emphasized sincere relationship, genuine empathy, understanding without attempt to manipulate, and some other humanistic styles that you might not find in many other "self-improvement books" that tell you how to get what you want at the expense of others.

My View on 2005-02-25

Though the book has been published for over 10 years, I still think the book is worthy to read. I learned that a 15th Anniversary Edition was published last year. However, I virtually did not read any other book by Stephen R. Covey except this one, so I have no idea whether the author updated or revised his thoughts and suggestions. There are some ideas not mentioned above but I still bear in mind and try to practice them.

In the section on the first habit, Be Proactive, the author said that we should focus our energy on the circle of influence. Interestingly, it is not unusual that people spend much time on something out of their control. Moreover, using the concept of stimulus-response which I thought he borrowed from behavioralism, he said that as people with free will, we are not determined by stimulus. This does not mean that we are completely free of the influence from external stimuli. This is obviously not the case. However, to a certain extent we can influence how we react. This has an important implication to the now hot concept Emotional Intelligence. In emotional control, sometimes we focus incorrectly on how to control the emotion itself. Actually, we can readily find that this is extremely difficult. However, we can shift our focus to controlling our reactions to the emotion. Put it simply, I may feel anger to somebody. I may find it very difficult to get rid of this emotion quickly. However, it would be relatively easier to control my reaction to this inner emotion. This is an example of applying the concept of the circle of influence.

Another habit I am still trying to practise is to Put First Thing First. Similar concepts could also be found in many other books, especially those on time management. Put it simply, there are two dimensions for most tasks, urgent or not, and important or not. The author suggested the readers to put more resources on the important tasks, not the urgent tasks. Certainly, this is not a simple A-or-B decision. However, people like me who need to work on several different projects in parallel may be easily driven by those urgent tasks which are actually not that important. Reactive dominates proactive. Reminding myself of putting first thing first can help me to become more conscious of the need to evaluate the importance of each task and prioritize them accordingly. In my experiences, there are actually a lot of so-called urgent but relative less important tasks at work. They need to be done, but not to be done with that much effort.

It is interesting to note that, two of the terms the author mentioned are now believed to be buzzwords by some writers. They are win-win and synergy. Personally, I agree that these two terms are used by some people as buzzwords. However, the ideas themselves do have important values when used properly. Win-win may sound like an ideal, but I believe it is simply because we forgot that it takes two to tango. The failure of win-win may be the consequence of single-sided win-win, or the win-win concept being used to "lure" others to yield. Win-win works best, and may even work only, when both parties take this approach. The case for synergy is similar. It is never simply 1+1=3. A facilitating environment and the appropriate mindset are required for all parties involved.

The book is certainly not perfect. Nevertheless, as a source of insights, I still find the book useful today. More importantly, I found that the ideas proposed by the author are quite practical. Practical in the sense that they can be practiced in real life situation. The book may seem to be a big one. However, we know that this kind of books are usually full of examples and elaborations to interest the readers. Once the readers finished the book, the essential ideas to be recalled and reviewed occasionally are not that many.


我想大部份人都會同意樂觀是好的。坊間亦不少書藉是教人如何樂觀的(如《真實的快樂》,《學習樂觀,樂觀學習》,Being Happy 等)。但有趣的是,許多時我們著眼的是個人生命上面的樂觀,包括如何詮釋自己的際遇,如何面對困境,如何和身邊人相處等。若看一看近年的報紙或其他媒體上有關時事政經的新聞、論壇文章、專題等,實在很難感受到樂觀積極氣氛(「打官腔」的不計)。當然這不是一面倒的,某些媒體不時都會有一些激勵人生的感人故事或個案,但始終不是主打,亦鮮有見於頭條。



可能我真的是偏向理想化。有感在近年正面心理學(Positive Psychology)開始普及,但在樂觀這價值在個人及社會層面似乎有點割裂。正在努力學習在是非對錯仍要分明的底線下,在個人及社會層面皆嘗試保持現實及合宜的樂觀。以實踐來驗證。


說實在,最初看《魔戒》(The Lord of the Rings), 十分不喜觀主角 Frodo。常覺得他不行,意志不堅定,又易被人離間。他身邊的 Sam 就比他好得多,像是做大事的人。按常理應由 Sam 來擔當滅戒重任,而不是由 Frodo。當然,首先我沒有看完整本原著。其次,我看這系列的電影時亦不是太留心。所以我可能對劇情有誤解。不論如何,我之前的主觀感覺就是這樣。



既然 Frodo 被揀了,又眾望所歸,那就去罷。既然 Sam 被揀了幫助 Frodo,難得他忠心,那就幫罷。我這個不認真看這套電影的自大觀眾,憑甚麼「說三道四」。 ^_^


近日有不少人談論《殘酷一叮》,當中不少人把它和 American Idol (《一夜成名》) 相比較。但從他們的字裡行間可以發現部份人根本沒有看過 American Idol。覺得實在要為兩套節目還一個公道。

American Idol 在香港媒體「成名」,主要原因是孔慶翔 (William Hung)。但其實他只是出現在 American Idol 正式比賽之前那個篩選階段 (之後有沒有因為他的名氣而再播他的片段則不清楚)。正式比賽是十多名入選的參加者每星期一同表演,然後每星期淘汰一位。這的而且確是一般所謂「真人騷」,評判用詞有時亦頗刻薄。但和《殘酷一叮》不同的,是他們所謂偶像除了要有觀眾緣之外,亦要有真材實料的。是否客觀一回事,評判們很大程度仍是會就著 歌唱技巧及台風等給意見。參加者亦要嘗試唱不同的歌曲,而並非只是唱最擅長的。最重要的是,雖然說是選「偶像」,入圍的絕大部份都唱得十分好,有實力。不 是跨張,入圍的參加者最差的那一位,都可能比香港不少新人或二三線的歌手唱得好。

我是否得了甚麼利益,在這裡賣廣告?當然不是。我太太便是因為喜歡聽他們唱歌,覺得他們唱得好聽,而追看 American Idol 的。

那麼是否意味我覺得《殘酷一叮》比 American Idol 差?絕對不是。只是我認為《殘酷一叮》和 American Idol 跟本是屬於兩個不同類別的節目。《殘酷一叮》某程度可視為《獎門人》的變奏,藉參加者的勇敢表現和評判的「為窒而窒」而娛樂觀眾。如果互動做得好,有火花,是可以很有娛樂性的。說到底,大部份人,或至少大部份成年人,都明白「窒」與「被窒」有時只是一場戲。再者,部份參加者的勇氣是值得欣賞的,就如「少林足球」的「槳爆」一樣。但表演的質素本身明顯不是這節目的焦點。而且把表演時間與金錢掛勾一來意識上有爭議,二來「叮」人的準則不清楚。對我來說,「早叮」或「遲叮」根本沒甚意義,最好只是象徵性地「叮」,讓我能欣賞參加者的勇氣表演。

其實我覺得與其說《殘酷一叮》參考 American Idol ,不如說是參考 30 Seconds To Fame(可到 TV Tome資料)。這節目每集會有數隊人參加表演。表演甚麼都可以,但只限30秒。現場觀眾則份演「叮人」的角色。若開始的表演不吸引,真的可以10秒之內就眾望所歸地被現場觀眾通過電子投票腰斬,即時下台。這節目每集的得獎者亦是有獎金的,不過並不與表演時間掛勾。

不過《殘酷一叮》可能真的有參考 American Idol 亦說不定。 據聞某台播配音版的 American Idol,不是全部翻譯原來的對話,而是自行「本地化」,而「本地化」了的對白就是那種「為窒而窒」。(我只是聽聞是這樣,有錯請告訴我,讓我可更正。)若不看英文版,只看本地版,可能真的會誤會《殘酷一叮》參考 American Idol。當然,亦可說成是《殘酷一叮》參考「本地版」Amerian Idol




這些年來,心態上有很大轉變,對中國及中華文化的認同加深了許多。在學時甚少接觸中華文化,接觸的多是西方的哲學、科學、政治、音樂、及娛樂等。過去數年參與了一系列和華人性格有關的研究。漸漸地認識多了華人特有的文化及社會現像。亦發現原來有很多前輩在這方面下了許多的功夫。誠然,科學其中一個目的是找尋普遍現象及規律,但亦不能抹殺及否定各文化的獨特性。即使歷史上分隔了這麼多年,中港兩地深層文化上仍是連貫的。1 雖然我不同意只有華人才可研究華人2 ,但卻認為華人的角度是瞭解華人文化不可或缺的一環。或許是使命感,或許是愛國情,不論如何,真的有那顆熱心去在本行為瞭解華人文化出一分力。







= Elektra = [Rob Bowman] {黑天使}


電影資料: 可到官方網頁 看故事簡介。

看之前的期望: 看武打場面。在預告片中看到壞人的手下皆有特殊技能,所以亦想看角色設計。如果有一點科幻成份都好。對故事沒有特別期望。亦不會有預設背景,因為沒有看原著漫畫。

看完之後--武打場面: 武打都頗好看。我好看的意思不是因為十分暴力或血腥。這些我並不喜歡。好看是有美感,武打場面有舞蹈感。其中一個角色的武器如頸鍊一般,頗有趣。

看完之後--角色設計: 的確是有些特別。例如紋身可變動物,作探子,或攻擊用。有一個則只是大隻,後來死得幾兒戲。有一個則用毒,數次出招殺人要透過接吻。但不明白為何那毒彷彿很容易解。Elektra 中了毒但她的師父卻十分淡定。但角色設計只是在出場時吸引,之後便沒有相應的發展,重複那些特殊技能亦反而令我覺得有點兒沉悶。

看完之後--故事: 幸好沒有期望。首先因為我看過 Daredevil(「夜魔俠」),自然會留意如何連貫兩套電影。結果發現,除了提及她曾起死回生外,與 Daredevil 可說完全無關。而最大問題是在 Daredevil 有詳細交代 Elekctra 的性格及家庭,這一點和本套電影的所描述的背景似乎不大吻合,令真實感打了折扣。


編劇方面其實可見到一些心思的,例如 Elektra 和那被追殺的女孩間有如母女亦如姊妹的感情,兩人背景的相似,及對女孩身份的一些伏線。但不知如何,就是不能吸引我去投入故事發展。

簡而言之: 單單看武打場面,不錯。雖然不能投入故事,亦沒有甚麼值得回味,但當看有武打場面的音樂電影,都已能滿足我入場前的期望。




回想以前,因為時有接收不清的情況,我要十分用心去聽別人說話,根本不能分神去打岔。而且因為不能百分百接收,就如收到一封部份字不見了的電郵,我常要依 靠上文下理,或藉著重覆別人別人的說話(paraphrase),以確認我真的明白別人說甚麼。這樣錯有錯著,反而較為用心聆聽別人。

現在因為聽得較好,反而失去了那顆珍惜的心,變得和許多人一樣,聽得一點就急著判斷別人,自 以為明白別人,急著回應。聽是聽到了,但其實未必完全明白。常說平日許多爭拗都源於誤解及沒有聆聽別人,聽人辯論時心中暗為大家浪費時間而不值。誰知道現 在我卻越來越多犯上不聆聽的錯誤。


《 A1 頭條 》[陳嘉上 鐘繼昌] (= A1 Headline = [Gordon Chan, Kai-Cheung Chung])


電影資料:可到這裡 提供的資料,亦可到官方網頁 看官方故事簡介


看戲之後:可能編劇原意真的是想探討一下傳媒道德,但我看時,卻感覺有如看偵探片。阿玲(李心潔)大部份時間似是為了查明男友 Peter 之死而跟進那新聞,不似是為了傳媒的專業精神。說是跟進新聞,不如說是為男友申冤。雖然如此,但作為「偵探片」加一兩條愛情線,我其實又幾喜歡這部電影。





分手後又離職。但阿玲卻和男友拍了兩年拖,雖不算長,但如他可和阿玲拍兩年拖,假若沒有拈花惹草,則稱不上花心了。再者,電影初段阿玲因為分手問題而向老總請辭,老總想挽留,因為她才剛上手。但若阿玲到了報館才拍拖,即在那裡工作了兩年,一般都不會視之為剛上手吧。另外,這電影亦有部份支線是故事完結後沒有解決的 (還是忘了解決?)。但話說回來,其實劇本整體是不錯的,有部份情節首尾呼應,上述那些只是小瑕疵罷了。




轉眼間已遊歷網上不下十年。長不算長,有不少朋友比我更早馳騁網上。短亦不算短,橫跨人生的數個段落。近年因為愈來愈多網站有自己的討論區,我已較少在公開的新聞組 (newsgroups) 及 BBS 貼文。不過有時看回那些短文或「小字條」,回想一下那時期自己看甚麼書、玩甚麼遊戲、或看甚麼電影,都頗有趣。都算是看自己的歷史的其中一個角度。


(2005-02-26: 修改了 Google 連結)


可能有人會問我,為甚麼有時間寫工作以外的文章呢?不是很忙的嗎?心理學有一個概念叫「工作倦怠」(Job Burnout),大意是指因為工作上長期的沮喪及壓力而引致的情緒及生理上的消耗怠盡。其中的一個預防方法是盡量每天都做一些自已喜歡的事情。我十分喜歡我現在的工作的本質。但一份工作不論本質多好,有時總伴隨一些相對地較沉悶的成份,例如是一些文件工作。撥時間做一些工作以外而感興趣的事情,對工作本身會有正面幫助的。再者,暫時都只是貼舊文章,不用花甚麼時間 ^_^(這回應會加進「常見問題」。)

Somebody may ask me why I have time to write articles not directly related to my job. There is a psychological concept called job burnout, which roughly refer to emotional and physical exhaustion due to prolonged job-related stress and frustration. One preventive measure is doing something enjoyable everyday whenever possible. I do like the nature of my job very much. However, no matter how desirable the job nature is, sometime the job is accompanied by some relatively boring aspects, such as paperwork. Spare some time for enjoyable thing unrelated to job would actually be beneficial to the job life itself. Moreover, I am actually posting old articles in this stage, and it take minimal time. ^_^ (This short reply will be added to FAQ section.)


























與大家分享一句說話:「神為了使我不驕傲,沒將所有收割機會都給我;但祂為了增加我的信心,間中也讓我有收成。其實,都是神自己動工。日後看見曾撒下的種子有成果,我與收割者一同歡喜快樂。」節錄自《為高科技人找心靈出路》- 蕭永正.【傳書】2001年10月號



= Know Why You Believe = [By Paul Little]

I wrote this report for the book Know Why You Believe by Paul Little (updated and expanded by Marie Little, 1999) as my assignment for a course on apologetics I attended at the Chinese Graduate School of Theology in 2003. To be frank, this report was written in a rush. Nevertheless, I found the book quite good, and so would like share my views on it. You can find the details of this book from the InterVarsity Press (here).

As stated in the introduction (p.7), this book is intended to provide answers to the problems that Paul Little encountered when discussing faith and Christianity with students, especially those "brainly" students (p.7). In his twenty-five years of lecturing, he found twelve FAQs (frequently asked questions). Therefore, this book is for those rational students seeking answers regarding faith. The organization of the book has a logical structure, starts from discussing whether Christianity is a rational religion or superstition, then discuss whether there is a God, whether Jesus is the God, and whether resurrection actually happened. Assuming there is only one God, Jesus, the next three chapters (Ch.5-7) focus on the Bible: whether it's God's Word, its reliability, and Archaeological support that verify the historical description in the Bible. In Chapters 8 and 9, the problems of miracles and compatibility with science are addressed. Assuming Jesus is the only one true God, the problems of suffering and evil are discussed in Chapters 10. In the last two Chapters, the author compares Christianity with other popular religions, and examines the validity of Christian experience.

Because of the diversity of topics covered and the introductory nature of the book, I decide not to evaluate the book's reasoning specifically. Instead, I discuss the book's role as an apologetic book for students. First, this book is amazingly comprehensive. Nearly all of the religious "puzzles" I have encountered since my secondary school are discussed to some extent, such as the existence of God, resurrection, evolution, and reliability of the Bible. Second, the author included a wide variety of perspectives and issues, especially those in the 20th century. For example, in discussing the problem of beginning of the universe, the Big Bang theory is presented. In examining the reliability of the Bible, he demonstrated the implication of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were discovered in 1947. Third, in my opinion, the author demonstrates his rigorous rationality and honesty in the presentation. Albeit he clearly is a Christian, I do not feel that I am being persuaded while reading it. Instead, I feel that the author and I are exploring each issue together in equal status (certainly not in the sense of background knowledge).

This book has some limitations that could not be neglected. First, the book lacks a bibliography. For students seeking understanding, I being one of them several years ago, a bibliography is a frequently searched for item for books of this type, especially an annotated one for each chapter. It is especially important for a little book like Know Why You Believe. Albeit its comprehensiveness, usually it would induce the readers to have more questions in their minds. It is not a problem of the book, but a nature of the topics being covered. Certainly not a fatal problem, but the absence of a bibliography is unexpected to me.

One may argue that, the author does include a lot of references in the endnotes. It is correct. However, judged by the titles, the references cited are usually books more or less taking a "pro" Christianity perspective. This is its second limitation, in my opinion. It is not a unique feature of this book, as I found a similar tendency in some other books on apologetics. However, in addition to posturing as being fair, the inclusion of references taking an "against" view would actually help to increase the readers' confidence in their faith. I wholeheartedly believe that, as the author wrote, "after 2,000 years, no question is going to bring Christianity crashing."(p.7) For readers whole dare to doubt with faith, they will eventually find the God, as Frank Morrison did, the author of Who Moved the Stone.

Third, for Hong Kong Chinese students, the appeal to the search for God, the only one God, may be relatively weaker. In the Chinese culture, we brought up with a folk religion of many different "spirits," if not gods. Some may cite Lao Tzu or Daoism, or even Chung Yung (中庸), as a source of Chinese monotheism. However, this view is quite controversial, at least not yet has achieved a high level of consensus. I know many youth Christians who are still involved in some kinds of idol worships or fortune telling. This is not addressed in the book, especially in the comparison of Christianity with other religions. Moreover, in the three "major" religions, only Buddhism can be considered to be major in Hong Kong, and only among the adults. The Chinese culture is certainly not the scope of the book, but nevertheless it is a limitation with respect to the Chinese readers.

Fourth, despite the logical structure of the book, I would like to comment on the sequence of discussion. To me, one of the obstacles that made me difficult to believe in God is the validity of a book, the Bible, as a medium of "absolute truth," especially when I was exposed to the various claims that the book has several different versions and translations. It must be noted that, in the first four chapters, before the discussion of the Bible, the Bible is cited as a support of the author's position, especially in the investigation of whether Christ is God and His resurrection. Before establishing to a certain extent the reliability of the Bible, at least as an account of historical events, it is not very convincing to use it as a support. This is especially true for readers who are not yet inclined to believe, but are trying to criticize.1 

Despite the limitations I mentioned, I still think it is an excellent book in the market, making a good balance between comprehensiveness and length. When compared to other similar books, the last chapter covers a topic we frequently overlooked, especially when we are engulfed in rational discussion. Without personal experience, the "faith" is merely a knowledge, a cognition. After all the rational and honest exploration with the reader, the author rhetorically challenges the reader to experience the faith, to face God himself/herself. This is not merely a book of defense. This is a book of conversion.

(2003 March)

1:  My article Resurrection of Jesus (in Chinese), another assignment of the class, provided a (very very) brief discussion of what I learned from the course on resurrection. Certainly not a good essay, but may serve as a starting point. The three references cited there, as well as the book Who Moved the Stone by Frank Morrison, are very good sources for the rational and empirical basis of the resurrection of Jesus.



耶穌真的曾復活嗎?在討論這一問題前,讓我們先作以下假設:一、歷史上確曾有耶穌這人;二、他曾受審,並被釘十字架;三、復活本身不合自然規律,若曾發生的話是一個神蹟;四、沒有關於復活的直接證據,即沒有記錄顯示有人親眼看見耶穌從屍體變為活人。1 有人可能不同意部份以上的假設,但因編幅所限,未能在本文處理。


最少有三個理由相信耶穌已經死在十架。第一、他被釘前所受的鞭傷足以令他身體非常虛弱及大量失血,因那種羅馬鞭是裝有金屬片,能令人傷處的肌肉筋腱外露。2 第二、「一個兵拿槍扎他的肋旁、隨即有血和水流出來。」3 醫學上可推斷他在被扎前,心臟已經停止跳動,以至血管有大量血塊4 。第三、彼拉多、百夫長、及士兵並不輕率,他們查明了耶穌已死才把屍首給亞利馬大的約瑟。5 

至於耶穌的屍首並不在墓中,不單抹大拉的馬利亞等婦女可作證,甚至守墓的士兵也可作證。若然並沒有守墓的士兵,則當時的猶太人要反駁門徒的見證非常容易,可向人說是有人偷了屍首。6 而且有理由相信,耶穌的屍首並不在墓中亦未曾被發現,對當時的人,不論是門徒或是耶穌的敵人,都是顯而易見。否則,要說耶穌並未復活,大可除便找個不能辨認的屍體,但並沒有人這樣做。7 

耶穌死在十架上,屍首亦不在墓中,都只是他曾復活的必要條件,有人見證他顯現才可推論至耶穌復活。早在《林前》8 ,約寫在主後五十多年間,就已提及主復活一事。必需注意到,保羅並不是說主只向少數人顯現,他說出見證人的名字,而這些人並不是全都已死,或不見經傳的。所以至少保羅自己是有信心他們真的曾見到主。9 再者,有關見證的人、時、地皆十分多樣化,有個人的,有群體的,有信的,有不信的(如雅各)。這些都直接或間接記載在福音書、使徒行傳、及林前。

最後聖經有關見證人的記錄的可靠性,將影響上述的顯現記錄的可相性。他們是否有部份是說謊者,其他人只是受瞞騙或唆使?須知有不少人在耶穌被釘那日,並沒有試圖營救,只是觀看,然後散去。如斯懦弱,有甚麼誘因叫他們為一個謊言去受逼迫,甚至死?10 牽連這麼多人,而完全沒有人受不了苦而「揭破復活的騙局」,是非常不合常理的。至少在常理來說,他們皆是可靠的,起碼他們自己是相信自己所宣稱的見證。

對上述四方面的回應,有人亦有一些批評。有人認為耶穌只是痛極昏過去,後來轉醒11 ,因此空墓、見證等全皆可解釋。第一,這完全不乎醫學上的理解。第二,即使只是昏過去,但受傷極重卻是事實,如何能鬆開細麻布及離開幕穴而不被發覺?12 第三,在被釘之後,很快便向人顯現,怎能這麼快復完?13 

亦有人說,是有人把屍體盜去。又有人說,見證只是幻覺。把這兩個說法加在一起,可解釋空墓及顯現,又可解釋墓中細麻布及頭巾在墓中的放法,甚至不需懷疑見證人的誠信。但必須注意,連基督徒的敵人亦沒有說屍體被盜,可見他們亦自知因為守衛的原故,難以編說屍體被盜。要解釋門徒為何有膽量去盜屍,則要解釋為何一兩天間會由懦夫變得英勇。14 更加不會是猶太人等盜屍,因他們大可把屍體那出來,證明並沒有復活。15 幻覺說亦不合理。一兩個人有幻覺故然可能,但有十多人同時間有相同的幻覺,甚至能同幻覺有接觸,有些見證人甚至是不信耶穌的,則有違心理學上對幻覺的理解。16 




《重審耶穌》L. 史特博著,李伯明譯。海天書樓2000年。(The Case for Christ. Lee Strobel, 1998. Zondervan Publishing.)

《鐵證待判》麥道衛著,韓偉等譯。更新傳道會1978年。(Evidence That Demands A Verdict Vol. 1 & 2. Josh McDowell.) 說實在,這本書二十多年前出,有不完善的地方。宜參考《新鐵證待判》麥道衛著,尹妙珍、陳寶嬋、伍美詩、晏小萍譯。福音證主協會2004年。(The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict. Josh McDowell, 1999. Nelson Reference.) 我還未讀過新版,希望遲些時候有機會。

《當代謢教手冊》賈斯樂、布魯克合著。楊長慧譯。校園書房1994年。(When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook of Christian Evidence. Norman L. Geisler & Ronald M. Brooks, 1990. SP Publications. Reissue edition by Baker Books, 1995.)




3:  約翰福音19:34「惟有一個兵拿槍扎他的肋旁、隨即有血和水流出來。」





8:  林前15:3-8「我當日所領受又傳給你們的,第一,就是基督照聖經所說,為我們的罪死了,而且埋葬了,又照聖經所說,第三天復活了,並且顯給磯法看,然後顯給十二使徒看,後來一時顯給五百多弟兄看,其中一大半到如今還在,卻也有已經睡了的。以後顯給雅各看,再顯給眾使徒看,末了,也顯給我看;我如同未到產期而生的人一般。」