65-165 死亡是什麼？ 文章 65 165 作者 CARM 死亡是什麼？ 盧克·韋恩 （ Luke Wayne） （ https://carm.org/author/luke-wayne/） 2021年4月7日 死亡是生命的終結或停止。當曾經活著的某人或某物不再活著時，死亡就臨到了。在人類世界中，這意味著神賦予我們的生命之息被收回，構成我們身體的部分和精神的部分相互分離。人的生命既包括肉體又包括靈魂或精神。當身體和靈魂分開後，這個男人或女人就不再是活著的，就像雅各書所說：「身體沒有靈魂是死的。」（ 雅各書2：26 ） 塵土和被賜予的氣息 雖然聖經解釋說，人類是按照神的形象和樣式被獨特地創造出來，因此具備尊嚴與高貴（創世紀 1：26-27 ， 5：1 ， 9：6 ， 雅各書3：9 ，等等），聖經也讓我們謙卑，提醒我們，從本質上講我們人類只不過是塵土，得到了被（神）賜予的氣息。關於我們的受造，我們讀到： 「耶和華神用地上的塵土造人，將生氣吹在他鼻孔裡，他就成了有靈的活人。」（ 創世記2：7 ） 在人類犯罪墮落後，當聖經第一次描述人的死亡時，我們讀到： 「你必汗流滿面才得糊口，直到你歸了土，因為你是從土而出的。你本是塵土，仍要歸於塵土。」（ 創世記3：19 ） 約伯記同樣提醒我們，我們只能靠從神而來所賜予我們的生命氣息而存活，並發出冷靜的警告： 「他若專心為己，將靈和氣收歸自己。凡有血氣的就必一同死亡，世人必仍歸塵土。」（ 約伯記34：14-15 ） 詩人以類似的方式描述死亡： 「你掩面，它們便驚惶。你收回它們的氣，它們就死亡，歸於塵土。」（ 詩篇104：29 ） 因此，死亡至少可以在某種程度上描述為，當神收回了賦予生命的氣息、我們的身體回歸到了無生命的物質時、我們所處的狀態。 死亡與人的靈魂 死亡同樣被描述為人類身體與人類靈魂或精神的分離。人是由身體和精神兩個層面混合而成的，當這兩方面分開時，這個人就死了。正如我們在上面已經提到的，雅各書正是以這種方式清楚直白地明確定義了死亡（ 雅各書2：26 ）。死亡的那一刻通常被描述為靈魂離開身體的時候，例如在創世紀中我們讀到的內容： 「她將近於死，靈魂要走的時候，就給她兒子起名叫便俄尼。他父親卻給他起名叫便雅憫。」（ 創世記35：18 ） 因此，死亡不是靈魂的存在終止了，而是靈魂與身體的分離。我們的靈魂死後仍然存在，但是如果沒有靈魂和身體連接在一起，我們仍然是死的。 死亡與無實體的靈魂 我們可以留意到聖經中有些地方的描寫，死者是沒有身體卻有意識的靈魂，借此來進一步理解這一點。在舊約中，我們讀到這樣的段落： 「你下到陰間，陰間就因你震動，來迎接你。又因你驚動在世曾為首領的陰魂，並使那曾為列國君王的，都離位站起。他們都要發言對你說，你也變為軟弱，像我們一樣嗎？你也成了我們的樣子嗎？」（ 以賽亞書14：9-10 ） 在新約中，也有類似的記載，關於耶穌對財主和拉撒路的描述： 「後來那討飯的死了，被天使帶去放在亞伯拉罕的懷裡。財主也死了，並且埋葬了。他在陰間受痛苦，舉目遠遠地望見亞伯拉罕，又望見拉撒路在他懷裡。」（ 路加福音16：22-23 ） 因此，我們看到亡者的人類精神（靈魂）仍然存續，並具有意識和話語能力。然而，只要他們的靈魂從身體上分開，該人就已經死了。 與主同在 信徒將我們的終極盼望寄託於我們未來的身體復活，到時我們將作為活著的人繼續存在，並與基督同享永生時；但在信徒的死亡中耶穌也預備了極大的安慰和應許。在這此生之後，在等待未來時代的復活的同時，我們的靈魂在主的同在中得蒙安慰： 「所以我們時常坦然無懼，並且曉得我們住在身內，便與主相離。因我們行事為人，是憑著信心，不是憑著眼見。我們坦然無懼，是更願意離開身體與主同住。所以無論是住在身內，離開身外，我們立了志向，要得主的喜悅。」（ 哥林多後書5：6-9 ） 因此，盡管基督徒不渴盼死亡，我們也不需畏懼死亡。當我們的最終盼望是永生時，即便是死亡，也只是一種欣悅回饋，因為我們與我們的神和君王同在。 這篇文章翻譯自Luke Wayne的在線文章「What is death?」 https://carm.org/other-questions/what-is-death

9999-37 為沙特阿拉伯人禱告 文章 9999 37 作者 為沙特阿拉伯人禱告 沙特阿拉伯是伊斯蘭發源地，世上最抗拒基督教的國家。2012年3月15日，窗戶國際網絡（Window International Network）與為沙特禱告網站（Pray4Saudi.com）開始持續禱告，求神打開福音的門，使許多穆斯林得聞神國的真理。 以下是《全球禱告文摘》2009年12月號關於沙特阿拉伯一篇文章摘要（ www.globalprayerdigest.org/index.php/issue/saudi-arabia-islams-foundation ）： 沙特阿拉伯人口2,870萬，其中包括約600萬外地人。1932年，阿卜杜拉‧沙特（Abd Saud）征戰而取得沙特的控制權，統一了阿拉伯大部份地方，取名「沙特阿拉伯」，以伊斯蘭教法為國家的主要法律和憲法，直到如今。1953年沙特去世，由其子接手統治。目前由阿卜杜拉（Abdullah）當國王，其子費薩爾（Faisal）引進工業革命及社會福利制度，另一位王儲哈立德（Khalid）則引進外地勞工。在法赫德（Fahd，1975－1982）治下，沙特諸王被冠以「兩個神聖清真寺守護者」（指麥加和麥地那兩所清真寺）銜頭。穆斯林相信伊斯蘭教法是安拉親自賜下的，規範著日常生活每個方面。 沙特阿拉伯是世上最嚴厲執行伊斯蘭教法的地方，婦女尤其在各方面受限制，包括衣著、就業、教育、在公眾場合的舉止等。沙特阿拉伯沒有宗教自由，以伊斯蘭為國教，所有國民必須是穆斯林，沙特的少數基督信徒通常只在因特網上聊天室、或秘密地方聚會，一旦被發現可判死刑。 在伊斯蘭的嚴厲的瓦哈比派影響下，沙特政府取締所有別宗教的傳播、勸皈，及未經登記的聚會，聖經與其他基督教讀物遭禁；該國是世上人權記錄最差的地區之一。外國基督徒可以在註冊教會聚會，這些教會都在使館裡面。請堅持努力為沙特阿拉伯人代禱，他們有很大的需要，謹記神愛他們，在祂沒有難成的事！請瀏覽www.pray4saudi.com網頁。 2012年3月

9999-110 隨著跨宗派的新冠特別小組的建立，印度基督教徒呼籲5月7日星期五為禱告和禁食日 文章 9999 110 作者 隨著跨宗派的新冠特別小組的建立，印度基督教徒呼籲5月7日星期五為禱告和禁食日 通訊稿 印度跨宗派的基督教領袖聯合呼籲呼籲在同一天進行禱告和禁食，因為印度飽受新冠病毒（Covid-19）摧殘，正面臨著其近代歷史上所遭受過的最嚴重的災難之一。 如果可以的話，您是否願意在5月7日星期五加入他們一起禱告和禁食？以下是詳細的禱告請求，取自北印度教會的宗教會議（Synod of the Church of North India）。 巴拿巴基金會（Barnabas Fund）促進創建印度新冠緊急特別小組（INDIA-COVID-19 EMERGENCY TASK FORCE） 5月4日星期二，大約40位主要的印度教會領袖參加了由巴拿巴基金會召集並主持的線上會議，看看教會如何協調應對印度第二波新冠病毒。來自北印度教會，南印度教會，衛理公會，浸信會，路得會，長老會，神召會以及基督教網路和組織的幾位獨立牧師和領袖都參加了會議。 這是一次獨特的聚會，聚集了許多不同宗派的領袖。 可怕悲慘的情況分析 教會領袖形容情況極為嚴峻可怕。在第二波（疫情）中，有超過350多位基督徒牧者、牧師和教會領袖去世。其他人精疲力盡，試圖解決他們會眾的屬靈和實際需要。在教會領袖之間和教會成員之間都存在恐懼和焦慮，引發心理健康問題。 許多人因無法及時得到醫護治療而死亡。由於印度一些地區施行封鎖隔離，導致家庭中的負責養家的人死亡或喪失生計之後，教會會眾非常需要幫助。人們迫切需要屬靈和物質上的幫助，但是印度剛剛引入的新的財務條例正使基督教機構很難獲得海外捐助者的支持。 回應 領袖呼籲在5月7日禱告和禁食一天，並商定了一項滿足緊急、中期和長期需要的三階段干預措施。他們同意組建印度新冠緊急特別小組，並發表了一份聯合聲明。 聯合聲明 我們，作為教會的領袖，以及巴拿巴基金會推動建立的印度新冠緊急特別小組的成員，都同意 無論彼此之間宗派機構的區別，團結一致共同抗擊新冠病毒以及由此引發的相關貧困與生計問題， 處理個人、家庭和會眾的屬靈、物質和情感需要， 建立網路並支持我們當地/地區的基督徒同胞的救濟和金錢支持的分發工作， 支持因新冠病毒失去主要經濟支柱的家庭和成為孤兒的兒童， 在我們經歷新冠病毒流行病的同時，定期聚會一起禱告祈求神的同在、保護和旨意， 提供與新冠病毒相關的實用資訊和屬靈資源，傳播到印度各教會，新創建的 barnabastoday.in 網站將為此提供平台， 進行短期和長期干預，以處理印度教會的需要。 2021年5月7日，星期五，印度禱告和禁食日的禱告指南 禱告印度當局將有效地解決所報導的氧氣供應、呼吸機、醫院病床和救生藥品等短缺問題。 禱告在印度進行有效的新冠疫苗接種工作—包括充足的劑量供應和疫苗的協調管理。 為所有不辭辛勞進行治療和護理新冠病毒患者的專業醫療人員、輔助醫療人員和其他後勤人員禱告，禱告神給他們保護和力量。 為武裝部隊的人員禱告，他們正在向政府當局提供巨大的支持，特別是他們正在運輸醫療用品並且設置預製帳篷作為新冠病毒的醫院，為被召回到離家較近的醫療機構工作的退休武裝部隊醫務人員禱告。 為那些表示聲援印度的國家以及已經做出回應的國家，特別是在醫療用品供應上做出幫助的國家禱告。 為在工作場所實行更嚴格的限制、宵禁和隔離而失去生計的窮人、日薪工作者和流動工人及其家庭禱告。 為人民的心理健康和福祉禱告。印度現在是僅次於美國的第二大新冠病毒感染國家。隨著新冠病毒感染者的死亡率上升，火葬場難以應對這種壓力。越來越多的家庭遭受喪親之痛，但由於社會限制，社區的相應支持似乎很少。 在這個充滿疾病、死亡、喪親和恐懼的時刻，禱告基督徒能夠服侍處於困境中的廣大群體。 為正在治療新冠病毒患者的基督教醫院及其員工禱告，特別是那些來自社會經濟弱勢階層的人。 為教會正在開展的救濟工作禱告，特別是向窮人和弱勢群體分發食物、口罩等。 當局關閉宗教場所以減少病毒的傳播，為那些無法上網或使用智能設備進行線上主日敬拜的基督徒的靈命禱告。 最重要的是，讓我們禱告神持續為所有國家施予恩典和醫治憐憫。 這篇文章翻譯自在線文章「INDIAN CHRISTIANS CALL FOR DAY OF PRAYER AND FASTING ON FRIDAY 7 MAY AS INTERDENOMINATIONAL COVID TASKFORCE IS CREATED」 https://barnabasfund.org/en/press-releases/day-of-prayer-for-india/

第二七章 附錄（一）：THE TRINITY AND THE GLORY OF THE CROSS 第二七章 附錄（一）：THE TRINITY AND THE GLORY OF THE CROSS 知己知彼：面向穆宣挑戰的辯道護教 書 (I) Subject of the Chapter In this chapter Christian doctrine of the Trinity with its soteriological connection to Christian doctrine on Salvation is explored, with special reference to elements on related subjects in Islam. It is impossible to make a comprehensive comparative study on the doctrine of God and the doctrine of Salvation in the world’s two major religions adequately in such a short chapter, and so it will deal with only those aspects of the subjects concerned vis-à-vis the title of this chapter. (II) What the Trinity Is Not There is first of all the need to ward off some false concepts of the Trinity before defining its true content and significance. Some false concepts include: （1）The idea that the Trinity is a union of the Father, Jesus, and Mary, as the Qur’an seems to imply in 5:116. It would indeed be blasphemous to speak of the Trinity in terms of God having sexual relation with Mary and thus conceiving and giving birth to Jesus. Some cult followers known as the Collyridians that seemed to “worship” Virgin Mary in the 4th century might have given rise to this misconception. （2）Another false concept is to speak of the Trinity as three different Gods (or gods) bound in the unity of will and purpose; that would be Tritheism contradicting the Monotheism of the Christian faith. And so in this regard Christians certainly never say Allah is “one of three” as stated in Q. 5:73, as the phrase implies a plurality of Gods. However, Yusuf Ali misleads when he translates the phrase “thaalithu thalatha” in the above verse as “one of three IN A TRINITY” (emphasis mine), because the words “IN A TRINITY” are not there in the Qur’an and these words are the translator’s own addition. Likewise while the Qur’an in 4:171 simply says “Do not say three” (thalatha), Yusuf Ali also translates the word “three” here as “Trinity”, thus jeopardizing Christian concept of the Trinity as if we worship three different Gods. The word for the Holy Trinity (al-Thaaluuth al-Aqdas) never appears in the Qur’an.[[1]] （3）It is also wrong to say the Trinity means one God playing three different roles, like one and the same man who acts as a husband to his wife, a father to his children, and a boss to his workers. Neither is it like the one and same God that put on the “mask” (persona) of the Father in the OT era, then the “mask” of the Son in the Incarnation, followed by the “mask” of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. That would be Modalistic Monarchianism (as taught by Noetus, Praxeas, and the Sabellians) which the Church countered and rejected since the third century CE. Such a false concept will lead to the equally false idea of Patripassianism which implies that the Father was nailed to death on the cross. Also rejected in about the same period were some groups categorized as exponents of Dynamic Monarchianism (e.g. Cerinthus, Paul of Samosata, and the Ebionites), referring to those who believed in Jesus as the spirit-empowered Messiah but denied the essential Deity of Christ. (III) Christians Are Definitely Monotheists The oneness and unity of God is repeatedly taught and affirmed in both the Old and the New Testament of the Bible. （1）In the Old Testament (OT), there are: Exodus 20:2-3, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me.” Deuteronomy 6:4, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” Lots of other passages could be quoted in this regard, but there is no need for that, because it is universally accepted that Old Testament Judaism is effectively the “Mother” of world Monotheism. （2）Coming to the New Testament (NT), Jesus Christ quotes the Deuteronomy passage affirming the oneness of God. (Mk 12:29-31) He also says in John 17:3, “Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” And Paul teaches in 1st Timothy 2:5, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people...” Again in 1st Corinthians 8:5-6, “Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.” James also affirms in 2:19, “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that — and shudder.” And so it is clear the whole Bible teaches the oneness of God. Both Judaism and Christianity are definitely monotheistic faiths preceding Islam. （3）In view of Biblical Monotheism, whatever the Christian concept or doctrine of the Trinity may mean, it should never be presented and construed as worship of three different gods. That is why Christians, in confessing that “I believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”, often end with affirmation of “One God”. There is the need for such a practice especially in Muslim-majority countries, as Christians are often maligned as worshippers of three gods (shirk!). This truth is also implicit in Holy Baptism and Christian Benediction in which the invocation of blessing is done with the Holy Trinity expressed in the singular: “In the NAME of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” Since Christianity is definitely Monotheistic, “How Come” the concept of Trinity? Doesn’t it contradict belief in the oneness of God? (IV) A Contextual, Biblical-Theological Approach vis-à-vis the Trinity Christians have sought to understand and explain the Trinity through various perspectives and approaches, such as, loosely speaking the systematic theology approach, the rational analogical approach, the psychological relational approach, the comparative religions approach, (and perhaps a ‘modern scientific’ approach?) and so on. Personally this writer has adopted a Contextual (in dialogue with Islam), Biblical-Theological Approach (rooted in and theologizing based on progressive Biblical revelation from Genesis to Revelation), making use of the Islamic concept of Allahu Akbar, meaning “God is Greater” or “God is the Greatest” as the cut-in point. This writer’s “approach” as deliberated in the present chapter is substantially his own, being worked over since over 30 years ago, with blessings of insights/inputs accumulated from various sources along the way, and beefed up with occasional personal “illumination” which are all so difficult to pin-point. However it should be acknowledged here that in the process the book by G.A.F. Knight titled A Biblical Approach to the Doctrine of the Trinity used to be of much help.[[2]] Obviously none of the approaches could ever be adequate by any standard to really and effectively expound on the Trinity. In fact even the smartest combination of all the approaches would not be able to do the job, for the simple reason that God is eternal, almighty and holy Spirit; He is essentially Spirit (Jn. 4:24), whereas humans are such puny, temporal, earthly, and sinful creatures. The present writer fully concurs with Irish scientist-theologian Alister McGrath in his quotation of Augustine of Hippo which says, “If you can understand it, it’s not God.” As McGrath puts it, “Augustine rightly pointed out that that no human mind could ever fully comprehend God, but we must at least try to understand who God is and what He is like. The Christian understanding of God, culminating in the doctrine of the Trinity, is remarkably deep and rich… ”[[3]] And it is true that the best that any human mind could deliberate of it is but “to scratch the surface”. Indeed related historical discussion in the Graeco-Roman (Latin) context on philosophical/theological concepts such as “ousia”, “substantia”, “hypostasis”, “persona” (essence/substance/subsistence/mask/person), as well as terms such as “generation/eternal generation”, “filiation”, “spiration”, “perichoresis’” or “co-inherence”, “hypostatic union” and so on, would always be confusing to the general believers, and often be like “a poor reflection as in a mirror”, blurry, as mirror used to be in ancient time (1st Cor. 13:12), even to so-called “experts” in theology, in the past and even more so in modern time. Therefore in Islamic theologizing especially on the essence, nature, and attributes of Allah, the maxim of Mukhalafa meaning “Nothing to compare”, and Bilakaifa meaning “Without asking how” would often come into play, as Allah is believed to be Cosmic Spirit totally different from and beyond anything and everything in the universe that human intellect could ever comprehend or imagine; and so for Him there is absolutely nothing to match or compare. How much more preposterous and indeed ridiculous for puny human minds seeking a “dissection” into the “anatomy” of this Divine Spirit Being! And that implicitly is what Christian theologizing on the Trinity seems to attempt, as it seeks to pry into the in-most constitutional being of God, deliberating and rationalizing on divine Thought and Speech (Dabar/Logos/Kalimah), divine Breath and Spirit (Ruach/Roh/Pneuma), as well as the “intra/inter” divine “self-differentiation” and “mutual penetration” (perichoresis) vis-à-vis the Godhead/Divine Self in relation to the three distinctive Persons involved. As such in this regard, even this present writer’s presentation is also at best a reflective, rationalized attempt towards an informed theological “grasping” of the subject, within the perimeters of the Biblical, historic, and orthodox faith in the Oneness of God, as well as the Triune Godhead and Deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. However, as Christians believe that God has truly and graciously revealed Himself and His divine plans supremely through His Incarnate Son and the In-dwelling Spirit (as taught in the Scriptures), and since humans are being endowed with God’s own image, and invited to “know” Him, therefore unworthy and inadequate as we are, we still have the obligation to seek to know the Trinity rationally the best we could. This is also in view of His call for us not only to worship Him in Spirit and in Truth (Jn. 4:24), but also to love Him with all our heart, with all our soul, and with all our mind (Mt. 22:37). (V) The Trinity Reveals the God Who Is Greater, “Allahu Akbar”, in Relation to His Word That Became Incarnated (or Became Flesh) in the Person of Christ God is indeed so great, that the divine Word (Dabar/Logos/Kalimah) in Him, of Him, with Him, and from Him could be so dynamic as to bring forth creation out from nothing (creatio ex nihilo). This is revealed in the opening chapter of the OT book of Genesis as follows: Gen. 1: v.3, And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light; vs. 6-7, And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so; v.9, And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so; v.11, Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. Note, “God said,..And it was so.” Such a dynamic and creative Word of God (Kalimah Allah), as per creation, also appears in the Qur’an, expressed in Arabic as Kun fayakun (be, and it is). Q. 2:117, “To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: When He decreeth a matter, He saith to it: “Be,” and it is (read also 3:47). Historically speaking, both Christianity and Islam inherited such a dynamic concept of the Word of God from Judaism. Indeed all Jews, Christians, and Muslims (the three so-called “Abrahamic Faiths”) could say “Amen” to it. However, in the OT, God’s Word also used to be “personified” and dispatched to do God’s work effectively, as stated in Isaiah 55:11, “So is my (Jehovah’s) word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it. ” This part of it is not seen in the Qur’anic revelation. Progressing to the NT, we read of something much more marvelous and monumental concerning the divine Word, as recorded in John 1:1-4, 14: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind… The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” And so according to the testimony of John, the creative Word/Logos of God is by nature personal and relational (with God), besides being inherently eternal (was already there in the beginning), and divine (was God). This Logos has taken a definite step in salvation history by its “Incarnation” in the Person of the Lord Jesus 2,000 over years ago among humans at the first Christmas! In comparison human words often carry no weight and mean nothing. Unfortunately such a dynamic, living and divine Logos/Word is not there in Islam, except for a pale distortion of it, in which Christ is said to have been created out of “a word” from Allah (Q. 3:45). Islam is opposed to Jesus Christ as the Incarnation of the divine and eternal Logos Himself. The Incarnation is the major premise for Christian confession of Christ as “God”. However, it needs to be stressed here that when Christians say Jesus is God, it never ever means that He is “another — of a different kind” (in Greek heteros) God, nor a “second” or “smaller” god (as believed by the Jehovah Witnesses) “apart from” God the Father. The truth is He is God because He is the Incarnate Word (also known as the Unique Son as stated in Jn. 1:18) in God, of God, with God, and from God, bearing the fullness of divine personality/personhood and nature. The Incarnation has presented Christ as a unique person. There is no doubt whatsoever regarding His absolutely unique personhood. However, it needs to be evidenced that in the personhood of Christ there indeed dwells within the fullness of divine nature, as declared in Colossians 1:19, and 2:9 which says: “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.” There are ample evidences in the Bible, particularly in the New Testament to show the Deity of Christ. A few are listed below for reference in this respect (The present writer finds Robert L. Reymond’s Jesus, Divine Messiah: The New Testament Witness. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1990) as being most helpful in the deliberation concerning the Deity of Christ, and recommend it as a “must-read” in this regard: （1）Biblical revelation of Christ’s pre-existence and absolute eternity, even as the Father/the OT Godhead Jehovah is (Isa. 44:6, 48:12; Jn. 1:1-2; 1 Jn. 1:1-2; Rev. 1:17-18, 22:12-13). In fact when Christ declared Himself as “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End” (Rev. 22:13), it is as strong a statement, if not stronger, as the verbatim “I am God”. Apart from the self-existent, almighty and eternal Jehovah, who else could use such terms? （2）Biblical revelation of Christ as Co-Creator and Co-Sustainer of the Universe with God the Father. In fact, God had created the whole Universe with Christ, through Christ and for Christ (Jn. 1:1-4; Col. 1:15-18; Hb. 1:10-12). （3）Biblical revelation of Christ as co-source and co-giver of blessings with the Father (grace, peace and love) upon humankind (see greetings in Rom. 1:7; 1st Cor. 1:3; 2nd Cor. 1:2-3, 13:14; Gal. 1:3; Eph. 1:2; Phil. 1:1-2, etc. Several epistles also conclude with blessing of grace in Christ’s name alone — 1st Cor. 16:23; Gal. 6:18; Phil. 4:23, etc.) （4）Biblical record of divine names ascribed to Christ (Isa. 9:6 — the “Mighty God and Everlasting Father”; Dan. 7:13, 22 — the “Ancient of Days”/see also Micah 5:2; Ps. 68:7, 18 — “God/Lord God”; cf. Eph. 4:7-8; Zech. 14:3-4, 9, 12-16 — the “Jehovah” revealed here is none other than Christ at His Second Coming with His feet standing on Mount Olives; 1st Tim. 6:15, Rev. 19:16 — “King of kings, Lord of lords”; Christ called “God” as noted in Jn. 1:1-2, 18; 20:28; Hb. 1:8; Rom. 9:5, etc. （5）Biblical revelation of Christ essentially as divine Spirit as the Father，pre-Incarnation; post-Resurrection Christ is also divine Spirit, with/in a glorified body (Jn. 4:24; 1st Cor. 15:45; 2nd Cor. 3:17). In this regard Christ may also be seen as Spirit of God, as the Qur’an describes (Q. 21:91; 66:12, etc.). （6）Biblical revelation of Christ as recipient of divine worship which is due to God alone (Mt. 2:14, 14:33, 28:16-17; Lk. 24:50-52; Jn. 5:23; Phil. 2:10-11; Rev. 5:11-14). This is why Christians worship Christ as Unique Son in full union-oneness with the Father. （7）Biblical revelation that the fullness of divine nature is in Christ — Col. 1:19, “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him.” Also 2:9, “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.” (In Christ dwells the fullness of divine grace and truth, wisdom and power, etc.) In this regard Jesus is essentially God in human form. （8）Christ is One with God not just in nature, but also in salvific work (Jn. 14:8-11; 10:27-30). The following are just a few of lots of Triadic/Trinitarian passages exhibiting that all the three persons of the Trinity cooperate somehow in God’s salvific scheme for the human race. So for those who may find issues with ontological Trinity，there should be no doubt with regard to functional Trinity, at least. Numerous Triadic passages manifesting oneness of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit at the very least “functionally”. However to us Christians such functional unity could not be realized without some sense of ontological unity: Read for instance — Mk. 1:8-12; Jn. 1:32-34; Mt. 4:1-4; Lk. 10:21-22; Mt. 12:18, 28-32; 28:18-20; Jn. 3:34-36; 14:15-17, 26; 15:26; 16 :7-15; 20:21-22; Acts 1:4-8; 2:17-21, 32-33, 38-39; 5:3-9, 29-32; 7:55-56; 10:38, 44-48; 20:21-24, 27-28; Rm. 1:1-4; 5:1-5; 8:1-4, 9-11, 14-17, 22-34; 15:11-13, 15-16, 30; 1st Cor. 2:1-5, 7-16; 3:10-16; 6:9-11, 17-20; 12:4-6; 2nd Cor. 1:20-22; 13:14; Gal. 4:4-6; 5:19-25; Eph. 1:3-14, 17; 2:18-22; 3:14-19; 4:4-6, 30-32; 5:18-20; etc.[[4]] （9）Numerous miracles and wonders performed by Christ, especially the “sign miracles” portrayed in John’s Gospel, pointing to His divine nature and glory. (Mk. 1:32-34; Mt. 15:29-30; Jn. 2:11; 4:54; 6:14, 26; 7:31; 9:16; 12:18; 20:30-31; 21:25, etc.) Thus what God is — ontologically and essentially, Christ is. However, Christians must also be taught that by virtue of the Incarnation, Christ had also become truly human. He had a human body and had exhibited all aspects of human nature and living, except that He was without sin (Hb. 4:15). Knowledge in this respect is essential to ward off Muslim polemics emphasizing on the humanity of Christ at the expense of His divinity. In His Incarnate state Christ had “emptied Himself”, and had taken upon Himself the self-imposed restriction of His divine prerogatives. (Phil. 2:5-8) That was why as human He had always submitted Himself to the Father, and had said: “...The Father is greater than I.” (Jn. 14:28) Unfortunately Islam denies the deity of Christ, and highlights only on His humanity. Orthodox Christology is to accept both the divinity and the humanity in the one Incarnate person of the Lord Jesus Christ, as indeed the unique God-Man and Savior. And so there is still just ONE GOD with His Incarnate Word/Son — the “Second Person” of the Trinity, so-called; who is, to put it “crudely”, “part and parcel” of God Himself (of course Christians realize God cannot be split into “parts and parcels” like material things!) The Incarnate Son is also described in Hebrews 1:3 as “the radiance of God’s glory, and the exact representation of his being.” Of course there could never be a time when God was without “radiance of His glory”, nor without “the exact representation (or image)” of Himself; just like the Sun in the sky could never be at any moment without the radiance of its light, nor a human to be at any moment without an “image” of oneself. (VI) The Trinity Reveals the God Who Is Greater, Allahu Akbar, in Relation To His Holy Spirit (Roh Allah) The Trinity consists of the Father, the Son/the Word, and the Holy Spirit. So what is the position of the Holy Spirit in relation to the Trinitarian faith? Similarly, the Holy Spirit comes into the scheme of the Trinity also due to the greatness of God (Allahu Akbar). The Qur’an also mentions the spirit of Allah (70:4; 78:38; 97:4; 15:29; 17:85-86; 58:22) and the “holy spirit” (roh qudus; Q. 2:87, 253), which Muslims believe to be either the breath of Allah, or the angel Jibrail (Gabriel) – a created being, or some great angel. In the Bible the term for the word “spirit” is ruach in Hebrew, and pneuma in Greek (spiritus in Latin). The word in both Hebrew and Greek could be understood as “breath”, “wind”, or whatever “spirit” being (as it is also for the word roh in Arabic). Usually the literally context will tell the meaning of the word. Biblically speaking, God being “Allahu akbar”,the Holy Spirit is never just the “breath” or “wind” of Allah, nor an angelic creature, but the very “Personal” Spirit that is of God, in God, with God, and from God, inseparably linked to Him not just as His essential life force, but is also being “impregnated” (or “infused” — this writer fumbling for the right word to express) eternally with the fullness of divine personality and nature. The Islamic “spirit” is not like this. In comparison the human breath/spirit is by nature so transient and frail. The Bible reveals that this Spirit has also been sent forth as God’s distinctive and “alternate-self” (alter-ego; like the Incarnate Word) to accomplish divine purposes, such as in Creation (Gen. 1:2; Ps. 33:6), Inspiration (Num. 11:25-26; 2nd Pt. 1:21), Judgment (Jn. 16:7-8), Regeneration (Jn. 3:5-6; Titus 3:5-7), Guidance (Jn. 16:12-13) etc. in synergic cooperation with the Father and the Son. It is the “intra-inter” personal greatness of the Divine-Self that has made it possible. Though not being incarnated, the personality (or personhood) of the Holy Spirit, that originated in and expirated/proceeded from the one Godhead or Divine-Self, is also clearly evidenced in the expression of His rational (Jn. 14:16-17,15:26; 1st Cor. 2:10-11), emotional (Isa. 63:10; Eph. 4:30), as well as volitional (Acts 13:1-2,16:7; 1st Cor. 12:11) Being. The Spirit’s distinct personhood also stands out in John 14:16, where He is referred to as “another” Counselor (Greek: “allos — another” of the same kind, along with Christ), as well as in the fact that His name is also being associated with the personhood of the Father and the Son. (Mt. 28:18-20; 2nd Cor. 13:14) As for His divine nature, the Holy Spirit is described as being Eternal (Hb. 9:14); Omnipresent (Ps. 139:7-10); Omniscient (1st Cor. 2:10-11); Omnipotent (Zech. 4:6), which are all divine attributes. His divine activities accomplished in conjunction with the Father and the Son in creation, inspiration, redemption etc. have already been noted. Such are the premises for Christian belief in the personhood and Deity of the Holy Spirit, thus designating Him as the Third Person who is in God, of God, with God, from God, and in total union with the Father and the Son. And so when Christians call the Holy Spirit “God”, He is like in the case of the Incarnate Word/Son, never ever “another” (heteros) God (of a different kind) apart from God. Putting in view the person and Deity of the Holy Spirit, together with the person and Deity of the Incarnate Word, with reference to progressive Biblical revelation, the Church has somehow been “forced” to deliberate on and formulate the doctrine of the Trinity, through centuries of intellectual and spiritual struggles; unfortunately also with some physical conflicts. This writer describes the Trinitarian formulation as a “forced” endeavor, because the Trinity is indeed the most complex of any subject that human minds could have ever thought of. However, the Church has courageously, albeit somewhat painfully, responded to its challenge, and has done what it can in this regard, though never being fully satisfactory to all parties concerned, friends or foes alike. However thankfully, the hard work has paid off in the knowledge of the God who is truly Allahu Akbar, who is one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, as the Athanasian Creed puts it.[[5]] Very often Muslims would challenge Christians, asking: “Where is the word “Trinity” in the Bible? Show it to me and I will believe.” We do admit that the word “Trinity” is not found in the Bible, just as the pivotal word Tauhid in Islamic theology which is also not found in the Qur’an, but as deliberated above, the concept of the oneness and unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in the Godhead or Divine-Self is definitely there for all who have eyes to see (just as the concept of the Tauhid pervades the Qur’an in spite of absence of the word in it). (VII) Controversies and Analogies/Illustrations Muslims often seek to confound Christians by asking: “How can 1 + 1 + 1 = 1?” Our response shall be: In view of the infinite greatness of divine personhood and nature of Allah, it is in fact offensive to think of the oneness of Allah in terms of matter like a stone or a piece of wood, and thus always sticking to kindergarten-level counting such as 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, like in terms of 3 stones or 3 pieces of wood! For Allah certainly is never so “wooden” — Mashaallah (how can it be!); and Mukhalafa (never like that!). Since Allah is Spirit, to be more respectful the oneness of Allah should at least be considered under the “multiplication” category of 1 × 1 × 1 = 1, if not the category of “Infinity × Infinity × Infinity = Infinity”! In fact the word for “one” in the Jewish confession of faith — the “Shema”, as in Deuteronomy 6:4 is “ehadh” (composite oneness — as in Gen. 1:5, “one” day consisting of day and night; 2:24, “one” flesh consisting of man and woman), and not “yahidh” (solitary oneness — as in Gen. 22:2, 12; Jer. 6:26 etc., “one and only” son). In view of the oneness and unity in our Trinity, Christians may in fact also legitimately employ the word Tauhid for our doctrine of God, as being the “Christian (Trinitarian/Composite) Tauhid” versus the “Islamic (Unitarian/Solitary) Tauhid”. Also it is well known that God (Elohim) in the OT book of Genesis is a “compound/composite” noun (singular — Eloah), and that He has used “WE” in self-reference as in Gen. 1:26, 11:6-7, Isa. 6:8 (in the Qur’an Allah almost always use the term “WE” for self-reference). Belief in the Trinity intimates that there could be greater significance to such usage other than treating it only as a majestic/honorific term (as Muslims and some scholars do; the notion of which could be true, but not necessarily confined to it).[[6]] And thus, according to Michael Brown again: “(the composite WE in reference to God) These verses are certainly in harmony with Trinitarian beliefs, but they don’t prove them...On the other hand, even Zechariah 14:9 which is supposed to confirm absolute/solitary oneness does not mean that, as it also uses the word “ehadh”.[[7]] However, let it be definitely affirmed that despite belief in the Trinity, Christians do not worship three different gods, but holding firm to the worship of the one and only true God — the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and Jesus, who has revealed Himself progressively, out of His infinite greatness, through the distinct personalities or personhood of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. As God is Spirit, we are certain that in the physical universe there is nothing that may serve to illustrate, and even less to “prove” the Trinity. However, just for the sake of giving a cue to the possibility of the “three-in-one” idea, showing that it is after all not that preposterous to speak of a “three-in-one” God, a few illustrations/analogies could be mentioned. The traffic light with its three bulbs: As the present writer stopped at a traffic light while driving for work one morning about thirty years ago, the idea dawned upon me that perhaps I could make use of it to illustrate the “three-in-one” God. The one set of traffic light manifests its existence and operates in unison through its three bulbs with their distinctive colors — red, amber, and green. There are three distinctive bulbs but only one traffic light. Could it be used as a cue to illustrate the Trinity which consists of and operates through the three distinctive divine personalities/persons (or “Modes of existence” as some prefer), while in essence constitute only one God. I suppose “water”, which is H2O in substance and could manifest itself in the forms of vapor, ice or liquid, with even the “triple-point” where all the three forms co-exist under certain physical conditions, may also be used for illustration. Is Allah even less than water in this respect? And how about the three basic parts of an atom composing of neutrons (with no/neutral charge) and protons (with a positive charge) at its core, while leaving the electrons (with a negative charge) to fly about in their cloud-like orbitals (and subjected to push/pull forces from within/without)? Each basic atomic component has its distinctive characteristics, and yet the three always function as one. Is Allah even less than a tiny atom? Moreover, how about taking for illustration the mode of operation of the three resonance structures of nitrate (NO3-), as Nabeel Qureishi MD put it in his book Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus: “One molecule of nitrate is all three resonance structures all the time and never just one of them. The three are separate but all the same, and they are one. They are three in one...if there are things in this world that can be three in one, even incomprehensively so, then why cannot God?”[[8]] To pose the question most pointedly: In light of modern knowledge of E = mc2 as it regards constitution of the physical universe(that the whole visible universe is composition of invisible energy, and that matter and energy are inter-changeable)-knowledge which would have sounded most preposterous/ridiculous/fabulous to pre-modern mind, how can a sensible modern person just write off belief in the “Trinitarian Godhead” as being illogical and impossible, realizing that this divine Godhead is the eternal sovereign cosmic Spirit that brought all things visible and invisible into existence? (VIII) The Trinity and the Glory of the Cross Deliberation above has focused on the “WHAT” and “HOW COME” of the Trinity, the following parts shall address the “WHY” of the subject. The question is: Since the Trinity is rationally and logically so problematic and so hard to understand, WHY has God revealed Himself to the human race in such a manner, that is through His Incarnate Word/Son and the Personified Holy Spirit? Surely it was never meant only for our mental exercise! The answer to the question is: GOD IS SO GREAT, NOT JUST IN TERMS OF HIS INFINITE POWER AND INNATE POTENTIALS THAT COULD PRODUCE ALTER-EGOS OF HIS DIVINE SELF, BUT ALSO IN TERMS OF HIS SELF-SACRIFICIAL AND REDEMPTIVE LOVE OF THE CROSS FOR HUMANKIND — “ALLAHU AKBAR”! It is only through the Incarnate Word and the In-dwelling Holy Spirit that such a divine love has been truly demonstrated and God’s redemptive purposes achieved. To elaborate on this subject one needs to survey on divine mercy and love for humankind, unveiling from the Old Testament to the New, and culminating in the Cross and the Pentecost. （1）The Old Testament Reveals the God Who Grieves and Suffers for His People Two OT passages could be cited here in this respect: Psalm 68:19, “Praise be to the Lord, to God our Savior, who daily bears our burdens.” It says God identifies with the hardship of His people, and daily bears them up. Isaiah 63:9-10, “In all their distress he too was distressed, and the angel of his presence saved them. In his love and mercy he redeemed them; he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old. Yet they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit. So he turned and became their enemy and he himself fought against them.” These verses combine to show the Cross of self-sacrificial and painful love of God for His rebellious people. （2）The New Testament Reveals Further the Cross of the Self-Sacrificial and Suffering Love of God (A) The Cross on Calvary Reveals the Self-Sacrificial Love of God Romans 5:8, “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” The meaning of these words is plain; however, there is a question to answer: How is it that it was Christ that suffered, but it is the love of God that is being demonstrated? The answer could be read in 2nd Cor. 5:18 which says: “All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them...” The verse shows that the redemptive death of Christ was “from God”, and that God had somehow implicated Himself “in Christ” in the Cross. But what does “all this is from God” mean? And how to explain the phrases “through Christ” and “God was in Christ”? The answer is contained in the Trinitarian relationship between God and his Incarnate Son. As Christ is the eternal Word/Son in God, of God, with God, and from God, bearing the fullness of divine personality and nature, linked to God inseparably as the Sun to its light, and as a person to his word, which is indeed a relationship that is closer than “flesh and blood”. Therefore, although it was not the Father that was nailed to the cross, the suffering and death of Christ was in a very real sense also the suffering and self-sacrificial love of God, as John Stott describes in his book The Cross of Christ — the “Self-substitution of God”. The Calvary has indeed bared the Cross in the heart of God.[[9]] (B) The In-dwelling Holy Spirit in Humans is Also a Form of the Cross God is Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the Personal Spirit of God. What says of the Word of God in John 1:1-4 could be predicated on the Holy Spirit except for the fact the latter had not incarnated as in the case of the Word. Instead, God has given the Holy Spirit to believers to dwell with them in their hearts. The Cross of the Incarnate Word on Calvary is familiar to all of us. But few seem to realize that the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit is also a form of burden-some Cross. Explanation to this effect is as follow: （i）The Holy Spirit in-dwells a child of God with a job to perform, that is the really tough job to nourish, guide, and mold him or her unto Christ-likeness. Where the Cross of Christ’s atoning death ends on Calvary, the Holy Spirit carries it forward as the Cross for our sanctification. It took God six days to make the world and all that is in it, but it takes more than a lifetime to really make a person. Romans 8:14, “For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.” Also Romans 8:28-30, “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.” (There is indeed much food for thought in these verses) （ii）When a person disobeys, the Holy Spirit grieves and even groans for the person. Remember how the Israelites grieved the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament in Isaiah 63:9-10. Ephesians 4:30 applies the same to the New Testament saints: “And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.” Parents realize how grieving for an obstinate child can at times be more painful than death! （iii）The Holy Spirit constantly upholds, intercedes, struggles along and even groans for believers in life’s journey. Romans 8:26-27, “In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.” Up-holding, interceding, struggling along with, sighing and groaning are certainly all signs of the Cross — of sanctification. (IX) Redemptive Works of the Trinity Thus the Cross in the heart of the Father has been revealed through both the Incarnate Son and the In-dwelling Holy Spirit, that is the second and the third person in the Trinity, without whom there would be no such realization, as it is in the case of the Unitarian and Solitary Allah. However, God has revealed His distinctive Triune personhood not just to show humans His suffering love, but more importantly to accomplish His ultimate purpose in the creation and redemption of the human race; as deliberated below: （1）Without the Incarnate Word, there would be no “Immanuel — God With Us”, in and through the person of Christ. God came to dwell in the midst of humans in the incarnation of the Eternal Son/Word of God. (Our theme of Christmas) （2）Through the Incarnate Word/Son, God has provided for our atonement the Sinless One to become sin for us, as our penal-substitute. 2nd Cor. 5:21, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” Since all have sinned, who could have qualified for such an atoning task, that is apart from the Incarnate and perfect Son? Here lies the emphasis of soteriology of churches in the Medieval Roman West, with its deep concern for the solution of sin and guilt problem, somewhat reflecting a legal Latin mind-set. But of course, the penal-substitution death of Christ is for all people. (Our theme of Good Friday) （3）The Word became Jesus Christ to face and overcome sin and death, by virtue of His atoning death and glorious resurrection, thus crushing the power of the Evil One, and liberating humankind from its bondage. Hebrews 2:14-15, “Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death — that is, the devil — and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.” Likewise, there would be no victory in these regards without the Incarnate Christ. (Our theme of the Resurrection/Easter Sunday) （4）The Incarnate Christ and the In-dwelling Holy Spirit brought eternal life from Heaven to earth, that all who repent and accept Christ may receive the Holy Spirit who brings about regeneration and renewal in a person’s life, thus enabling a person to partake in the eternal and spiritual life and nature of God. 1st John 5:11-12, “And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.” 2nd Peter 1:4, “Through these (Divine power and knowledge of Him) he (God) has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.” Thus God has worked through His “alternate-selves”, i.e. the Second and the Third Person of the Trinity to share with us His divine life and nature. This is indeed something most mind-boggling that only the Triune God could fulfill. The second and this third point of divine redemption have been the soteriology emphases of Eastern Orthodox Churches, flavoring of the more philosophical and mystical Grecian mentality. Of course this is also Gospel blessing for all who believe. (Our theme of the Pentecost) （5）Through the Incarnate Christ and the In-dwelling Spirit, God has personally entered the world and human lives, empowering His Church and engaging with humanity in its struggles against evils and injustice, not just for individual persons, but also for social and ecological renewal and shalom. This would be a major theme of contemporary “Kingdom” soteriology. Romans 8:18-21, “I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.” Revelation 21:3-5 projects the definite prospect of God’s dwelling with His people in the New Heaven and New Earth, which is the ultimate faith and hope of Christians of all ages. (Our theme of the Feast of Tabernacle) The multi-fold blessings of redemption mentioned above have all been made possible only by the Triune God. Prominent Greek Church Father Irenaeus (c. 130-202) had likened the Word and the Spirit as two mighty hands of God stretched down from Heaven to earth for the salvation and spiritual nurturing of humankind. A Unitarian God would not be able to really bridge the chasm between Heaven and earth, and between God and humanity. The type of God will produce the corresponding type of redemption and blessing. The doctrine of God determines the doctrine of salvation. So it is essential to know well the God that one worships, for it will surely determine one’s ultimate destiny. One added note: Doctrine of the Trinity does not diminish on the primacy in order of the Father in the Triune relationship. As Paul put it in 1st Corinthians 15:24-28, “24 Then the end will come, when he (Christ) hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet... 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.” However, such subjection will not diminish one bit on the co-eternal Deity and glory of the Son. If it is asked per se whether Christianity is God-centered or Christ-centered, the answer could be either “God-centered” or “Christ-centered”, depending on whether one speaks from a “up-down” (starting with God) or a “down-up” (starting with Christ) perspective. However there should be no dichotomy in this respect. (X) The Theology That Denies the Trinity As it regards theology that denies the Trinity, this writer has in mind the Unitarian Islamic concept of Tauhid as well as other Unitarian creeds. To orthodox Islam, Allah is one, both in essence and in person, transcendental and solitary. He is pervasive in His presence (omnipresent), but never immanent in any of His creation, whether it be human or angelic beings, animate or inanimate objects. The following could be said of the Unitarian and Solitary Allah in Islam: （1）Its Allah may be most Almighty, but as deliberated in the former parts of this chapter, He has not been able to effect self-differentiation within His divine being in the person of the Son and the Holy Spirit, so as to send them forth as His “Alternate-Selves”, bearing the fullness of divine personhood and nature, and working in unison with the Godhead to accomplish creative and redemptive purposes as in Trinity. （2）Its Allah may be most merciful to humankind, but He offers no “self-sacrificial” love to anybody, even less for sinners. Being Almighty He could just do anything He wants without being self-condescending and self-sacrificing, which seems demeaning to Muslims. Therefore verses such as John 3:16 and Romans 5:8 could never be applied to Allah in Islam. In fact Muslims reject them outright. Its Allah is without the Cross in His being. （3）Its Allah may be most forgiving, but without the Incarnate Word there would never be any authentic Savior or Mediator who could serve as “penal-substitution” for sinners, as in Christ Jesus. Hence each person would ultimately have to solve his own sin and guilt problem, and final salvation depends sorely on personal faith and deeds, as well as on Allah’s will and mercy, without real assurance to that end. （4）Its Allah may be closer to a person than the jugular vein (Q. 2:186; 50:16), but due to lack of the personal divine Spirit, Allah could not and never takes up residency in the life of a person, and so there can be no authentic personal communion with God in the Spirit. And also because of this, human can never partake in the divine life and nature of God. Hence Muslims dare not call God “Father”. The great sufi Al-Hallaj who claimed to realize divine in-dwelling and immanence had been killed for such “blasphemy” by orthodox Muslims. （5）Its Allah may be most generous, who could grant great success in this life and the next to whom He favors, but He has not been able to give out anything OF Himself, such as His Personal Word/Son and Spirit, as well as His divine life and nature, as in the Christian Gospel. All that Allah seems able to offer are only blessings FROM Himself, that is from His great power and grace. Such blessings would include forgiveness of sins, success and abundance on earth, as well as more enduring ones created and reserved in Paradise above, supremely the pleasures of inexhaustible sumptuous food and non-intoxicating wine, and also the blissful company of ever young and fresh virgins (Q. 4:57; 37:40-49; 38:49-52; 52:17-20, 23; 55:56, 70-72; 56:10-38; etc). Since Allah is without any form or image, it is debatable (as argued among Muslim scholars) whether the desire of some “more spiritual” Muslims to see the “Face” of Allah in Paradise could ever be realized. But as far as plain Qur’anic revelation is concerned, apparently Paradise bliss weighs more on the sensual side. （6）Its Allah may be most perfect, but would logically be lacking in terms of an inherent “social” nature within His divine being, as there would be no other “personalities” of His nature with whom the Divine Self could commune and interact. Christian theology sees in the Trinity as the source of social nature in human, which is our basis for communion with God and with one another. （7）Its Allah may be most glorious, but He is definitely lacking in the glory of Fatherhood in relation to His creation, particularly the human race. In Islam Allah has no “children”, even in spiritual sense, albeit some rare Muslim intellectuals may concede on “metaphorical” use of the term. As such its Allah seems to be lacking also in terms of the glory of authentic “intra-personal” communion within Himself, as well as “inter-personal” communion with humans (seemingly and pitifully forever solitary in and with Himself, especially before creation!). In this regard His people would also be deprived of the “Paradigm of unity in divine love” which unites humans to the Deity, and among humans to one another, as prayed for by the Lord Jesus in John 17:20-21, “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” So Trinity is cosmic basis of unity in plurality and plurality in unity. Above all and most significantly, its Allah is definitely lacking in the glory and beauty of self-sacrificial love for humans as gloriously manifested at the Cross, by the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, who is also God and Father of all Christians (Jn. 20:17), as it is supposed to be for all human race. (XI) Conclusion: Implications and Applications Our “Conclusion” answers to the “SO WHAT” part of the chapter. Granted that the belabored deliberation presented above is Biblically, theologically and apologetically sound and justified, some may ask: “So What?” As a response, the following implication and application points could be induced: （1）The Christian faith is definitely Monotheist. So Muslims should never accuse Christians of polytheism or shirk. （2）The Trinity in fact manifests the inherent greatness and infinite potentials of the authentic Allah, who in and through His personified Word and Spirit, that are both in Him, of Him, with Him, from Him, and in unity with His Divine-Self, has revealed Himself fully to humankind. It is NEVER worship of three different gods. （3）Allah has revealed Himself as being Trinitarian out of His redemptive and “self-sacrificial” love for sinners, in order to accomplish ultimate divine purposes in the creation and redemption of humans and the world. He has not only come down to earth through his Incarnate Word, but has even gotten deep into human hearts through the In-dwelling Holy Spirit. （4）The Trinity has revealed to the utmost the true glory of the Personhood and Deity of God, which culminates in the brilliance of His “Fatherly” suffering and redemptive love. In the perfected life, atoning death, as well as the resurrection and glorification of Christ Jesus the Unique Son, the glory of His power and love has indeed been most gloriously manifested. All these factors work out to the accomplishment of the great salvation for all humans, freely offered in Christ. And in this regard all Muslims are summoned to come to the Father through the Lord Jesus Christ. （5）AND SO THIS WRITER IS CONVINVED THAT TRINITARIAN REVELATION AND KNOWLEDGE OF ALLAH IS DEFINITELY MUCH SUPERIOR TO THAT OF ITS ISLAMIC COUNTERPART. THEREFORE CHRISTIANS NEED NOT FEEL CONFUSED ABOUT THE TRINITY, BUT BE THANKFUL AND ENCOURAGED IN THE FAITH, AND BE PREPARED TO SHARE IT WITH ALL CONCERNED, INCLUDING THOSE WHO ARE OPPOSED TO IT, PARTICULARLY MUSLIMS. （6）This sixth point is specially contextual and relevant to the Malaysian situation. In view of the fact that Christians are Monotheists worshipping the one and only Allah as Muslims do, theologically-speaking Christians in Malaysia do have every right to use the word “Allah” for God. The Malaysian Government prohibited use of the term “Allah” by Christians for God in December 1986, which thus ignited decades of legal tussles between the Church and the State with regard to the issue, with much suppression upon the Church along the way, which however thankfully ended in vindication (at least partly) for the Church in March 2021 through a court verdict. Historically Arabic-speaking Christians had used the term Allah for God even before the emergence of Islam. And it was most probably Arab Christians (Zayd ibn Hamad and his son Adi) who had invented the Arabic scripts about 200 years before the birth of Islam.[[10]] Notably no Arab Muslims have ever voiced objection in this regard, nor Indonesia – the country with the most numerous Muslims in the world. In fact not even the Prophet of Islam Muhammad himself, who certainly knew that Christians were worshipping Allah; and even though in his perception at least some Christians had wrongly associated Mary and Jesus with Allah, and yet Muhammad was able to say in Q. 29:46: “And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better [than mere disputation], unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong [and injury]: but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow [in Islam]." Please note seriously the words “Our Allah and your Allah is one”. So in this regard Muhammad as well as the Qur’an acknowledges that the “Trinitarian Allah” (though wrongly conceived by some) should still be respected as much as his “Unitarian Allah”. Nabi Muhammad himself had never ever forbidden Christians from using the word “Allah”, as Muslims in Malaysia have tried to do. And so their attempt in this regard is indeed bida’ah (meaning “unjust innovation / heresy”) in contemporary Islam! Indeed this present point (together with the overall deliberation of the present chapter) consists the “theological” premise in terms of argument for Christian right to use the term “Allah” in the Malaysian context. Related historical, linguistic, social-cultural, missiological, dialogical, as well as constitutional-judicial factors and so on would combine to reinforce Christian position in this respect. However, as such other points are plentiful and have been convincingly presented elsewhere, there is no need for any repeat here.[[11]] （7）AND SO FINALLY, may all faithful disciples of Christ Jesus take up the Gospel mandate as entrusted in Matthew 28:18-20, which says: “Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” And — “May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” (2nd Cor. 13:14) The Triune God be praised — Allahu Akbar!Cross references: Matthew 28:1 : 28:1-8pp — Mk 16:1-8; Lk 24:1-10; Jn 20:1-8 [[1]] This writer first came to know of the prejudiced translation of Yusuf Ali regarding “three” and the “Trinity” from reading of Samy Tanagho’s book titled Glad News! God Loves You My Muslim Friends (Colorado Spring: Authentic Publishing, 2006; Ch. 25). Later he found an article at https://www.answeringislam.org /Quran/Versions/ali.html, which also deliberates on the matter, exposing more of Yusuf Ali’s prejudices and ill-intents, which includes translating“disbelief” as “blasphemy” and so on. [[2]] The book was originally published as Scottish Journal of Theology Occasional Papers 1 (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1953), read pp. 1-59 in particular. It deliberates on Hebraic thinking about God, Hebraic psychology and categories of thought, etc., with expositions on the “solidified/objectified” and dynamic word/ Word, the “living extension” and alter ego of God and God as “organism/compound/composite Being”, the ehadh and yahidh (“diversity in unity”) concepts and so on, which really help in elucidating the subject. [[3]] Alister McGrath, Understanding the Trinity (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988), p. 9. [[4]] Robert M. Bowman Jr., “Triadic New Testament Passages and the Doctrine of the Trinity”, The Journal for Trinitarian Studies and Apologetics, edited by Michael R. Burgos Jr., vol. 1, no. 1 (Biblical P, 2013), pp. 7-54. [[5]] The difficulty in theologizing on the Trinity is well summed up by Louis Berkhof in his Systemic Theology (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1939/1976; p. 89), as follows: “The many efforts that were made to explain the mystery were speculative rather than theological. They invariably resulted in the development of tritheistic or modalistic conception of God, in the denial of either the unity of the divine essence or the reality of the personal distinctions within the essence. The real difficulty lies in the relation in which the persons in the Godhead stand to the divine essence, and to one another; and this is a difficulty which the church cannot remove, but only tries to reduce to its proper proportion by a proper definition of terms. It has never tried to explain the mystery of the Trinity, but only sought to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity in such a manner that the errors which endangered it were warded off.” [[6]] Michael L. Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book, 2000). Brown’s vol. 1 and 2 on “Theological Objections” are also somewhat akin to Islamic issues concerned and so worthy reading; pp. 9-11. [[7]] Brown, Answering Jewish Objections, pp. 10-11. [[8]] Nabeel Qureishi, Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), pp. 195-196. [[9]] John Stott, The Cross of Christ, 2nd ed. (Leicester: Inter-Varsity P, 1989), pp. 133-163. [[10]] Kenneth Cragg, The Arabic Christian (Westminster: John Knox P, 1991), p. 45. [[11]] The Bible Society of Malaysia, Lembaga Alkitab Indonesia, Sidang Injil Borneo (SIB) Sabah, the Roman Catholic publication The Herald, the Christian Federation of Malaysia (CFM), and many Christian scholars/lawyers have contributed substantive defense for Christian rights to use the term Allah for God. Notably Dr. Ng Kam Weng, Director of Kairos Research Centre Malaysia, wrote 20 over scholarly articles covering various perspectives on the subject (refer to krisispraxis.com ), and also a book on it. 41 ： Go Go Go Go

我在聖約翰大學的生活 我在聖約翰大學的生活 一個蘇菲派穆斯林的尋主之路 書 上大學對我來說意味著進入了一個更大的世界，一個更廣泛的基督徒群體圈。我害怕進入這個新世界，事實上我曾表達過預科畢業考試之後我的願望是直接進入某神學院，但一些好朋友比如學校的校長N. H. Tubbs牧師（後來做了主教），還有A. W. Davies教士（現為英格蘭伍斯特學院的教長）非常善意地堅決要求我上大學。N. H. Tubbs牧師是我的一個了不起的朋友，他非常真誠地深愛著我，總是盡全力來幫助我屬靈上和身體上的共同進步。他給我介紹好書，尋找一切手段來拓寬我的知識面，像他關注我的身體狀況一樣敏銳地注視著我的道德進步。他懷疑我的肺部有一點點小問題，他就把我送到山上，讓我在那裡呆了九個月，直到我體重增加了許多磅才允許我下山。正是通過他我才第一次有機會接觸群眾運動的工作，而且參加了錫亞爾科特大公會。這是我第一年上大學的時候，放假時他帶我連同其他幾個學校宿舍的高年級學生去了阿里格爾，在那裡我得以有機會在村子里巡迴地造訪基督徒群體。我帶著既失望又有希望的混合心情從阿里格爾返回。我高興的是看到這麼大的一個新基督徒群體，但進一步熟悉之後傷心地發現他們大部份人對他們以為接受的那位救主只有一點點的了解甚至一無所知。 然而，我看到未來在這群人中極有可能會有真正的皈依。隨後參觀了阿里格爾的群眾運動區，我有很多機會在北印度的某些城市看到這項偉大的工作。 在大學，接觸到新的東西，結交到新的朋友。Davies教長是我另一位好朋友，他非常關心我的未來。他默默地慈愛關注著我的進展，尋求我向上向好。我現在有了跟基督徒群體接觸的機會；在學生宿舍裡那受保護的生活結束了。跟基督徒群眾和出身於基督教家庭的高年級學生的近距離接觸在許多方面帶給我許多喜樂，但也有幾個人好幾次令我失望。在我進到大學不久，其基督徒聯合會在R. C. Das教授（現為貝拿勒斯朝聖者差會的教授）鼓舞人心的領導下領受了巨大的屬靈復興，作為主席，在他的推舉下我被選為秘書，很快差傳學習小組成立，Mohallas也舉行了福音大會。包含請求積極加入基督徒事奉信息的宣傳冊和單頁被印刷和出版。當時還未上任的大學校長A. W. Davies教長在聽到大學裡這項新計劃時欣喜地寫道：「我剛剛看過你的報告，感到無比高興和感激，我會懇切地為此項計劃的成功而禱告。你在基督徒宿舍成立了這麼一個宣教工場，對此我倍感高興，我希望這將起到領頭羊的作用，能帶領許多男孩子們把他們的生命投身於為事奉基督的事業當中。藉助這些傳單來進一步延伸這種影響力，這是一個非常好的主意。」 24 ： Go Go Go Go

787-1 與不信道者作戰：穆斯林神學家對古蘭經9：29的各種看法 文章 787 1 作者 與不信道者作戰：穆斯林神學家對古蘭經9：29的各種看法 引言 「當打擊那些不信真主和末日、不遵真主及其使者的戒律、不奉真教的人，即曾受天經的人，你們要與他們戰鬥，直到他們俯首稱臣、規規矩矩地交納丁稅，並感覺自己被降服。」（Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the people of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued）（古蘭經9：29） 對這節經文有許多不同的解釋。今天一些穆斯林認為，這段經文並沒有號召穆斯林對其他宗教的人進行攻擊。古蘭經有一些翻譯版本，如拉沙德·哈利法（Rashad Khalifa）的英文譯本將古蘭經9：29的第一句話解釋為「你應該反擊」。古蘭經改革派譯者之一伊迪普·尤塞爾（Edip Yuksel）在古蘭經9：29的注釋中指出：這段經文的上下文是胡奈因（Hunain）之役，而此戰役是被敵人激怒的，幾乎每個譯者都誤譯了這一節。這意味著此段經文根本不涉及到猶太人和基督徒。由約旦皇家貝特（Aal Al-Bayt）研究所發表的《聖戰與伊斯蘭戰爭法》（Jihad and the Islamic Law of War）一文中說：穆斯林發動戰爭只是為了防禦，或像塔布克（Tabuk）之役那樣作為先發制人的武裝力量。此外，有人認為只有沙菲耶（Shafi'i）法學院強調說人的信仰可以成為攻擊他們的理由這種觀點，然而這一觀點也被歸屬於沙菲耶的所緩和。同樣還有人指出，在古蘭經9：29所言的曾受天經的人需要卑微地繳納丁稅（吉茲亞稅，伊斯蘭的人頭稅），「是由於該團體先前對穆斯林社群所表現出的敵意和仇視」。 那些聲稱這節經文呼籲穆斯林要對基督徒和猶太人表現出侵略性的人，經常被指控為對古蘭經有誤解，或者不懂阿拉伯語等等。為了找出古蘭經9：29所記載的要攻擊曾受天經的人的原因，我們將研究不同時代、不同區域的人所寫的不同類型的古蘭經注釋（塔夫西爾，tafsirs），此外，我們也會參考一些穆斯林學者和法學家的著作。 … 對比和分析 根據古蘭經的兩篇注解—賈拉林（Tafsir Al-Jalalayn）和扎馬赫沙里（Zamakhshari）的注釋，古蘭經9：29中提到的要與曾受天經的人戰鬥的原因是：要使穆斯林富裕，因為他們損失了與阿拉伯異教徒的貿易。同時，這些注解的作者指出，猶太人和基督徒都是不信道的人。伊本·凱西爾（Ibn Kathir）提到了要使穆斯林富裕，但在他看來是穆斯林同猶太人、基督徒作戰的結果，而穆斯林征伐之因是猶太人、基督徒不信及否認穆罕默德。百得維（Baidawi）、庫圖比（Qurtubi）、庫特布（Qutb）、馬杜迪（Mawdudi）以及伊本·凱西爾都提到，穆斯林征伐猶太人和基督徒是因為他們不信真主。賽義德·庫特布（Sayyid Qutb）認為，前往塔布克（Tabuk）的遠征具有先發制人的特徵，但同時他斷言，也有經文第一部分所賦予的特性（不信真主和末日，不遵真主及其使者的戒律，不奉真教伊斯蘭者）會使猶太人和基督徒不管怎樣都會與伊斯蘭陷入戰爭。馬杜迪進一步解釋到「他們應該被攻打，因為不信者不應該統治人類」。上面提到的注解者都沒有說這節經文中爭戰的理由是作為防禦。除了庫圖比和馬杜迪，所有的注解者都花了更多的時間來解釋關於交納丁稅（吉茲亞稅，伊斯蘭人頭稅）的規定，暗示注解者的關注點不應在是否要與曾受天經的人作戰，而是當征服他們之後該如何處置他們？與生活在廣泛實施進攻性聖戰時代的其他注解者不同，庫特布和百得維沒有詳細說明、論述交納丁稅的問題，因為他們認為該問題涉及更多的是歷史問題而不是實際問題，他們更關心的，是為攻擊曾受天經的人辯護，並說服他們的讀者，穆斯林必須結束異教徒的主權和至高無上的地位。 根據泰伯里（Al-Tabari）、伊本·魯世德（Ibn Rushd）、伊本·泰米耶（Ibn Taymiyya）和伊本·赫勒敦（Ibn Khaldun）的說法，曾受天經的人屬於多神教徒中的一個次類別。所有作者都同意，對多神教徒發動戰爭是為了使伊斯蘭勝於其他宗教。古蘭經9：29之所以被提到是因為其中包含了一個選擇—皈依伊斯蘭，交納定稅，或死亡。泰伯里和伊本·赫勒敦提到古蘭經9：29關於戰爭的先決條件，而伊本·魯斯德和伊本·泰米亞亞談及了這一節中關於戰爭目的的部分。 結論 根據本文所考察的不同的穆斯林評論家和法學家的著作，對曾受天經的人發起爭戰的主要原因是猶太人和基督徒的信仰和實踐，或用這些作者的話來說—他們的不信。 這些作者中沒有一位提到「防禦」才是穆斯林征戰猶太人、基督徒的理由。只有一位，即賽義德·庫特布，提到了前往塔布克的遠征具有先發制人的特點，他還同時指出，不信的猶太人和基督徒的狀態使他們與伊斯蘭本身處於戰爭狀態。 古蘭經的注解者傾注很多時間解釋「交納丁稅」這一事，而不是解釋戰爭的原因，法學家更多使用古蘭經9：29是關於「三重選擇」，這意味著他們的主要問題不是—是否要與曾受天經的人戰鬥，和為什麼要與他們戰鬥，而是在戰鬥之前和擊敗他們之後要做什麼。 這篇文章翻譯自Denis Saveliev的在線文章「Fighting the Unbelievers: Various Perspectives on Qur'an 9:29 by Muslim Theologians」的部分 https://www.academia.edu/4217510/Fighting_the_Unbelievers_Various_Perspectives_on_Quran_9_29_by_Muslim_Theologians

醫治的棗樹枝 醫治的棗樹枝 伊斯蘭先知的奇異教導 書 Bukhari vol. II. No. 443 The Prophet passed by two graves and those persons (in the graves) were being tortured. He then took a green leaf of a date-palm tree, split it into two pieces, and fixed one on each grave. The people said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Why have you done so?” He replied, “I hope that their punishment may be lessened until they (i.e., the palm leaves) become dry.” 使者路經兩座墳坑時?，他聽見兩個人在墳坑裏受刑的聲音。使者?：“他們不是因大事受刑，唯罪大惡極者才受酷刑。他們之一，因便溺不檢點；另一個則是因在人們中間撥弄是非。：然後，他拿來一根棗樹枝的綠葉折成兩截，分別插在兩座墳上。使者向問其原委的人?：”我希望他們的刑罰可減輕，直到這些棗樹葉枯乾。“（布哈里聖訓2：1361） 這書是翻譯自Dr. Abdullah Aziz的’The Amazing Teachings of Islam’s Prophet – Mohammed’s Believe It or Else!’。 1至5的內容取材自古蘭經。6至21的內容取材自布哈里聖訓實錄全集卷一至卷三（中文譯本由康有璽翻譯，經濟日報出版社出版）。22至35的內容取材自布哈里聖訓實錄全集卷四至卷九（英文譯本由美國南加州大學穆斯林協會翻譯，放在http:// www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari）。 9 ： Go Go Go Go

209-1 三位一體論 文章 209 1 作者 三位一體論 我們不能削減三位一體論，以為是指神彰顯自己的三個接連階段（神格唯一論）。以下我們嘗試理解這概念，只是嘗試理解而已，而非形容其實況。 這就好像三位一體裡每個位格都不斷從其他位格裡爆發出來，但同時處於圓滿狀態，因為位格之出現與圓滿，皆發生於時間之外。每個位格之所以能發出，皆因其他二位格之虛己成全，放下自己及一己之「權利」。聖子謙卑，「反倒虛己，取了奴僕的形像」（腓立比書2：7）即為一例。祂成為奴僕的身份雖關乎其人性，但事實上早在道成肉身以先，祂已取了奴僕的形像，在與聖父的關係裡，這是聖子所處的永恆位置。然而三位格也是彼此委身、虛己的。 因著每個位格向其他二位格倒出自己，每位格都在其他位格「裡面」，所以又是一位：「父在我裡面，我在父裡面」；「我在父裡面，父在我裡面，你不信嗎？…住在我裡面的父做他自己的事」；「使他們都合而為一。正如你父在我裡面，我在你裡面」。（約翰福音10：38；14：10，11；17：21） 總言之，三位一體裡每個位格的生命原則或動力，並不是要自得圓滿，而是完全為對方交出自己，即絕對的愛！ 因此，真愛常以委身的形式表達：「神愛世人，甚至將祂的獨生子賜給他們」（約翰福音3：16）；「因信神的兒子而活；他是愛我，為我捨己」（以弗所書5：2）；「正如基督愛教會，為教會捨己（以弗所書5：25）。 同樣地，神位格之間不斷彼此委身，其中的愛如連環緊扣；而神就是愛，因為祂的本質是愛。神讓耶穌基督為我們的罪犧牲，然而這與神原本的、本質的愛相比起來，不過如烈焰裡一個火花，因為愛本來就在神懷裡展現。因此，聖父榮耀聖子，子也榮耀父，聖靈榮耀聖子、聖父。 「耶穌回答說：我若榮耀自己，我的榮耀就算不得甚麼；榮耀我的乃是我的父，就是你們所說是你們的神。」（約翰福音8：54） 「父啊，願你榮耀你的名。」（約翰福音12：28） 「如今人子得了榮耀，神在人子身上也得了榮耀。神要因自己榮耀人子，並且要快快的榮耀他。」（約翰福音13：31，32） 「…叫父因兒子得榮耀。」（約翰福音14：13） 「只等真理的聖靈來了…他不是憑自己說的，乃是把他所聽見的都說出來…他要榮耀我，因為他要將受於我的告訴你們。凡父所有的，都是我的。」（約翰福音16：13－15） 「父啊，時候到了，願你榮耀你的兒子，使兒子也榮耀你。」（約翰福音17：1） 「我在地上已經榮耀你…父啊，現在求你使我同你享榮耀，就是未有世界以先，我同你所有的榮耀。」（約翰福音17：4，5） 就這樣，聖父將所有賜給聖子，因為當祂「生出」聖子時，已將永恆的己完全轉化（除了祂作為聖父的條件）；同樣地，聖父與聖子「吹氣」、「差遣」聖靈。 約翰福音1：1譯作「與神同在」（pros ton Zeon）的經文，原文字面意思是「由神發出」，即聖子也虛己，進入父裡面。這並非「生出」的狀態（父並非由子來的），因為回歸聖父的道－Kalam－即是道的回音。可見聖父所表彰的聖子－道－有完全的神性，而子之圓滿神性也由父的所是來定義，子反映父如鏡。永恆的道完全、圓滿地定義道，甚至盛載著神性之本質與完全，如此毫無阻隔的「轉載」發生在獨一神的核心裡，在永恆不斷的「當下」裡。 當我照鏡子，就看見自己的反映，這反映描述了我，以影像的形式讓我看見，但這影像不會反過來定義我之所是，也不會反過來模塑我。聖道之反映或回聲，是自願的謙卑，卻並非處於低下位置；若我這樣形容，這自願的謙卑在道成肉身裡發揮至極，因為在聖子裡，成為肉身的道在神面前成了人的樣式，在這種情況下，祂不以自己與神同等，乃以自己比父小。

1464-1 從尋求到服事—易卜拉欣的見證 文章 1464 1 作者 從尋求到服事—易卜拉欣的見證 從尋求到服事—易卜拉欣的見證 大家好，我是易卜拉欣。我來自遜尼派穆斯林背景。我曾遠離神—我和祂之間毫無關係。我曾祈禱、禁食，並「做盡一切正確的事」，卻從未在生命中感受到神的同在。 真正的信仰之旅始於我受邀前往推羅的教會。我花了一段時間適應所見的愛、感受到的大家庭氛圍、以及親眼見證的寬恕— 但我持續回訪 。目睹如此喜樂時，我不斷思索：「這位耶穌基督究竟是誰？」 某日，約瑟牧師的講道觸動了我的心。他談及人類罪孽之深、 本性之敗壞、生命之缺陷，而神卻依然愛我們。 這番話使我睜開雙眼，看見神賜下祂的獨生子，為要讓我們歸回祂的懷抱，重建與祂的關係。 這時我做出了生命中最美好的決定：我走向約瑟牧師，告訴他 我準備好將生命交託給耶穌 。他鼓勵我，並引薦我認識拉雅姊妹和傑瑞米弟兄。我們一同坐下，禱告了救恩禱告。 此後，我真切感受到神那洶湧澎湃的愛，以及生命中發生的轉變—這份經歷變得如此真實而個人化。 我迫不及待地與親友分享這份愛和轉變 ，而祂正如改變我、使我成為新造之人那般，始終信實地傾聽他們的心聲，幫助他們經歷轉化。正如我鍾愛的經文所言：「你們尋求我，若專心尋求我，就必尋見」（耶利米書29：13）。 在我帶領的新信徒小組中，已有四人歸向基督！懇請代禱，願我能傳遞所領受的真理來使他們作門徒，並持續在推羅建造神的國度。願神賜福於你們！ 這篇文章翻譯自IBRAHIM的在線文章「From Seeking to Serving – IBRAHIM’S TESTIMONY」 https://static1.squarespace.com/static/52830695e4b06d07dd739812/t/68dd0e433ab77a116eea2874 第2頁

參考書目 參考書目 東土耳其斯坦的宣教和變革 書 （材料的原始語言註明在條目最後的括號裡） A. 未出版公印的材料 書信： -來自東土耳其斯坦的信（差會檔案，Frimurarv，7，Lidingo，瑞典，檔案1891－1938）（瑞典語） -發往東土耳其斯坦的信（差會檔案，檔案1－135內的副本）（瑞典語） - Sigrid Larsson-Selvey收藏的信（她的女兒：Anne Hines, 2 A West Common Gardens, Scunthorpe, DN 17, I. E. H., S Humberside，英格蘭，和Margaret Selvey. Villa Stallen, Saro，瑞典）（瑞典語） - Rikard Nystrom收藏的書信（他兒子Lars Nystrom, Riddargrand 18. Boras，瑞典）（瑞典語） 雜項（差會檔案，瑞典行道會檔案MCCS），Tegnergatan 8，斯德哥爾摩，瑞典，和John Hultvall, Timotejvagen 7, Knivsta（瑞典） 日記： - Sigrid Larsson-Selvey (Margaret Selvey)（瑞典語） - Helena Nystrom，包括錄在磁帶上的回憶（她的女兒Astrid Persson, Valsang 711, Skarhamn，瑞典）（瑞典語） - Rikard Nystrom (Lars Nystrom)（瑞典語） - George Sherriff，喀什葛爾副領事1927－31（L. E. Nyman摘錄） 訪談（所有注釋均來自John Hultvall的訪談）： - 宣教士：G A Arell, Vendla Gustafsson, Elisabeth Hook, Ester Johansson, Ester and Sigfrid Moen, Carl Persson, Hanna Raquette, Elin and Georg Roberntz, Stina Rydberg, Naemi Terning（瑞典語） - 宣教士的後代：Mrs. Svea Egeskog (Arell), Mrs. Anne Hines (Larsson-Selvey), Dr. Lars Nystrom, Karl-Erik Palmberg, Mrs. Astrid Persson (Nystrom), Dr. Margaret Selvey - 駐蒙古的宣教士：Paul Eriksson和Anders W Martinson（瑞典語） - Gunnar Jarring大使（瑞典語） - Mrs. Gerda Selvey（瑞典語） - 東土耳其斯坦的Mr. Jacob Stephen, Sundbyberg，瑞典（瑞典語） 差會的聖經翻譯工作： - 英國與外國聖經公會裡的未付印的檔案資料，146 Queen Victoria St，倫敦，EC4: - 編輯部的通信文件（跟Waldenstrom先生的通信，講關於1910年起Avetaranian的聖經翻譯情況） - 編輯附屬委員會會議記要 - 「年鑒」，關於過去幾十年間聖經翻譯的情況（打字機打的文件） 會議記要： - 差會董事會會議（差會檔案資料）（瑞典語） - 瑞典行道會會員大會（差會檔案資料）（瑞典語） - 東土耳其斯坦大會（差會檔案資料）（瑞典語） 報告： - 1913「視察」（差會檔案資料）（瑞典語） - 季度調查和印刷廠調查（差會檔案資料） (瑞典語) - 「革命期間的報告」，Arell, Tornquist, Andersson（差會檔案）（瑞典語） - 「探索之旅1946－1947」，來自宣教士的報告，還有他們個人的感想，有篇關於差會財產的報告是摘自英國總領事館的（差會檔案資料）（瑞典語） 論文： - Fritzson, Anders，「東土耳其斯坦的事件和境況，包括宣教士Rikard和Helena Nystrom提供的資料」，Lidingo神學院上的畢業論文，瑞典，1968－69（瑞典語） - Fritzson, Karin和 Anna Nystrom-Massror，「信件摘錄和一個宣教士的生命和工作評論」，Lidingo神學院上的畢業論文，1972（瑞典語） - Nystrom, Rikard，「關於東干人的事項」，1937（Astrid Persson）（瑞典語） - Nystrom, Rikard，「東土耳其斯坦的動蕩」，1935（Lars Nystrom）（瑞典語） - Palmberg, Gottfrid，「一個宣教士的回憶」，記錄在一磁帶上（K-E Palmberg）（瑞典語） B. 公開出版的材料 （以下列出的僅僅是本書使用過的文獻） Aagaard, Johannes（編輯），Verdens religione（世界宗教），哥本哈根，1966（丹麥語） Adrup. K A, “129 svenskar”（「129個瑞典人」），照片由Movin-Hermes, B. Bra Bocker, Hoganas所攝，1978（瑞典語） Aftonbladet，瑞典斯德哥爾摩的一份晚報 Ahlbert, Gustaf, Bachta Chan eller Lykobarnet（Bachta Chan或快樂的孩子）第二版，斯德哥爾摩，1934（瑞典語） - Habil，第二版，1935 Alm, Ragnar, Missionen och nationalismen（差會事工和民族主義）。瑞典差會研究出版協會，4號，烏普薩拉，1953（瑞典語） Andersson, Axel, En fard till Indien（印度之旅），斯德哥爾摩，1929（瑞典語） Andersson, John, Ostturkestan（東土耳其斯坦），在Ekberg，照片中的差會，斯德哥爾摩，1948（瑞典語） Andersson, Theodor（編輯），Svenska Missionsforbundet（瑞典行道會），行道會50週年紀念的海外宣教出版物，斯德哥爾摩，1928（瑞典語） 瑞典行道會年報，每年的5月份出版，斯德哥爾摩（瑞典語） 匿名作者： __ Durchdringungspolitik in Zentralasien. Berichte des Asien Arbeitskreses（在中亞的滲透政策），來自亞洲研討會的一篇報告，維也納和北京，1號，1939年2月（德語） __ 「楊昇星閣下」，皇家中亞學會，卷XVI (iii)，倫敦，1929 __ 中國土耳其斯坦的叛亂，皇家中亞學會，卷XII，倫敦，1935 __ 俄羅斯對新疆的控制，皇家中亞學會，卷XXVI，倫敦，1939 __ 新疆的新生命，中亞觀察雜誌（CAR），卷IV. 1號，倫敦，1956 __ 新疆總發展主席，中亞觀察雜誌，卷VI，1號，倫敦，1958 Ansgarius，「瑞典行道會年報」，每年10月出版，斯德哥爾摩（瑞典語） Anvill. Elis（編輯），De tjanade Gud I Asie（他們在亞洲事奉神），斯德哥爾摩，1946（瑞典語） __ Kinas religioner（中國的宗教），斯德哥爾摩，1932（瑞典語） Ambolt, Nils, Karavan（一商隊），斯德哥爾摩，1935（瑞典語） __ Tandlagning per brev.（透過郵件補牙），在Aventyr jorden runt（世界探險），斯德哥爾摩1962（瑞典語） Arbman, Ernst (ed.), Varldsreligionernas karnord（世界宗教裡的關鍵詞），斯德哥爾摩，1957（瑞典語） Arell, G A, et al, “Din broder blod ropar”（「你兄弟的血在咆哮」），斯德哥爾摩，1935（瑞典語） Aulen, Gertrud, Kristendomes vag till folken（基督教走向萬民之路），第三版，烏普薩拉，1933（瑞典語） Axelson, Sigbert, Forsamlingens internationella ansvar（教會的國際責任），一本講述教會工作一百年的書，烏普薩拉，1970（瑞典語） __ Om vackelsens missionssyn（復興時期的差會事工總攬），在Varmland's Ansgarii組織一百年，奧雷布洛，1965（瑞典語） Barnavannen（兒童之友），兒童和主日學報，瑞典行道會出版（瑞典語） Bibliotheca Missionum（Streit），卷XIV:1. Herder, Rome, Freiburg, Vienna, 1960 瑞典行道會歷史相冊，第一和第四版，斯德哥爾摩，1934和1947（見下面的Ohlden項）（瑞典語） Bjork, Folke和N F Hoijer, Varmlands Ansgariiforeningen 100 ar (Varmland's Ansgarii組織一百年)，奧雷布洛 1965（瑞典語） Blacker, L V S，關於高亞洲的秘密愛國者，倫敦，1922 __土耳其斯坦之旅1918－20，地理雜誌，卷58，3號，九月（178－198頁），倫敦，1921 Blomquist, L E, Lindstrom, K G和Oden B, Revolutionernas Kina（中國及其革命），克里斯蒂安斯塔德，1967（瑞典語） 蘇聯大百科全書，第三版，卷23，條目1315 ff. 莫斯科，1976（俄羅斯語，翻譯成英語的工作正在進行中: 蘇聯大百科全書，紐約和倫敦，倫敦，卷24，1980，第23冊關於新疆的文章已經由加納嘉林翻譯好了，本書引用的就是他的翻譯。） Bradnock, W J（編輯），多種語言的福音，倫敦，1965 Bredberg, W, Genom Guds nad（透過神的恩典）瑞典行道會75週年紀念，斯德哥爾摩，1954（瑞典語） - Ordet och tjansten（主道和事奉），斯德哥爾摩，1946（瑞典語） Broomhall, M，伊斯蘭在中國，一個忽略的問題（中國內地會出版，塞姆爾‧池維謀作序），倫敦，1910 Braker, Hans, Kommunismus und Weltreligionen Asiens（世界的宗教和亞洲的共產主義），圖賓根，1971, 1:2（德語） Cable, Mildred，「中亞作為宣教工場」，國際宣教評論，卷XVIII，倫敦，1929 Cable, Mildred和French, Francisca，英國與外國聖經公會大眾公報1948，星火燎原，倫敦，1948 - George Hunter－東土耳其斯坦的使徒，倫敦，1948 - 一個先驅者－中亞的馬慕傑，倫敦，1935 - Something Happened，倫敦，1935 -Through Jade and Central Asia, 6th edition，倫敦，1937 （看下面：French） Canton, W, A History of the British and Foreign Bible Society，卷I－IV，倫敦，1904－10（看下面：Moulton） Carrington, Goodrich和Mogard, Kinas historia（中國歷史），馬爾默，1968（瑞典語） Central Asian Review，倫敦，卷IIl－VII，1955－59使用蘇聯資料，卷XVI，1968使用西方資料（見下：Drew. 1968） Charpentier, J, Vilhelm av Ruysbroeks resa genom Asien 1253－55（Ruysbroek的Vilhelm亞洲之行1253－55），斯德哥爾摩，1919（瑞典語） Cherbakoff, "In Kashgar. Dec 1927-Oct 1931"在JRCAS卷XX: iv，倫敦，1933 蔣介石，Soviet Russian in China，紐約，1957 China in Maps，Harold Pullard MSc編輯，倫敦，1968 Christensen, Jens, Anstodssten（絆腳石），向穆斯林解釋關於道成肉身、三位一體和救贖的教義，哥本哈根，1936（丹麥語） - Islam, Muhammedanisme og Muhammedanermission（伊斯蘭、穆斯林和穆斯林當中的宣教事工），第二版，Alfred Nielson編輯，哥本哈根，1959（第一版1949－53）（丹麥語） Christensen, T和Goransson, S, Kyrkohistoria III（教會的歷史III），隆德，1976（瑞典語） Clubb, Edmund，中國和俄羅斯，紐約和倫敦，1971 - 二十世紀的中國，第二版，哥倫比亞大學出版社，1972 Cobbold, R P，亞洲最內陸，倫敦，1900 Cochrane, Th（編輯），中亞的挑戰，世界主權調查系列，倫敦，tr. 1925 Cordier, Henri, Melanges d’histoire et de geographie orientales（東方歷史和地理雜記），T2，巴黎，1914－23（法語） Crosby. O T，西藏和土耳其斯坦，紐約和倫敦，1905 Cragg, Kenneth, Sandaler vid mosken，斯德哥爾摩，1965（瑞典語）（翻譯自原文：Sandals at the Mosque，紐約，1958） Dagen，瑞典斯德哥爾摩出版的基督教報紙 Dagens Nyheter斯德哥爾摩出版的日報，卷1899，1924，1933 Darlow, T H和Moule, H P，「英國與外國聖經公會圖書館裡已付印聖經版本的歷史目錄」，兩冊，倫敦，1911 Davidson, Basil，活著的土耳其斯坦，倫敦，1957 Deasy, H H P，西藏和中國土耳其斯坦，三年探索實錄，倫敦，1901 Den Evangeliska Missionen（DEM）（福音宣教工作），龍德出版的一本宣教雜誌，現在的新名字叫做：Missionsorientering（瑞典語） 穆斯林和基督徒的對話，非基督徒秘書處1969年出版 Roma，Alf Ahlberg的瑞典譯本，斯德哥爾摩，1971 Diehl, Carl Gustav, Kristendomens mote med religionerna（基督教面對其他宗教）馬爾默，1961（瑞典語） Drew W J, "Sinkiang: The land and the people."在Central Asian Review卷XVI，3號，倫敦，1968（用西方來源，看上面：CAR） Edsman, C-M, De utomkristna varldsreligionerna och kristendomens forhallande till dem（非基督教的世界宗教和基督教）Hemberg-Jeffner, Att valja standpunk（選擇一種觀點），斯德哥爾摩，1966（瑞典語） - Asiens huvudreligioner av idag（今日亞洲的主流宗教），烏普薩拉，瑞典，1971（瑞典語） Ekberg, Nils（編輯），Missionen i bild（宣教圖片展：瑞典差會宣教工作圖片集），與瑞典宣教委員會合作出版，斯德哥爾摩，1948（瑞典語） Ekman, E J et al, Minnesskrift vid Svenska missionsforbundets 25-arsjubileum（瑞典行道會歷史），出版於差會25週年紀念，斯德哥爾摩，1903（瑞典語） Ericsson, Bjorn, Intervju i Roster i Radio-TV（週刊雜誌Roster I Radio-TV裡的一篇訪談）5號，1964（瑞典語） Ericson, John et al, Till alla folk och lander（到各國各族中去），第八版，烏普薩拉，1961（瑞典語） Essen, Rutger, Fran Asiens oroshardar（來自亞洲動蕩地區）斯德哥爾摩，1931（瑞典語） Etherton, P T，翻越世界屋脊，倫敦，1911（喀什葛爾的總領事，1918－22）. - 「中亞：作為一個政治和經濟因素的崛起」在JRCAS，卷X (ii)，倫敦，1923 - 「中國土耳其斯坦」在The Asiatic Quarterly Review，20號，倫敦，1924 - 亞洲腹地，波士頓和紐約，1926 Fleming, Peter, News from Tartary，倫敦，1936（時代的記者；在中國和東土耳其斯坦1934－35） - One's company，倫敦，1946（第一版，1934）（News from Tartary和One’s Company合併出版名為Travels in Tartary，倫敦，1948） - Panik i Peking，斯德哥爾摩，1960（瑞典語）（原作：北京圍攻，1959） Fletcher, Harold R, A Quest of Flowers，愛丁堡，1975 Folke, Erik（編輯），Sveriges yttre mission（來自瑞典的宣教工作）I－II斯德哥爾摩，1927，III－IV斯德哥爾摩，1928（瑞典語） Francke, Hermann, Durch Zentralasien in die indische Gefangenschaft (Through Central Asia in the Indian Captivity), Herrnhut, 192（德語） Fraser, David, The Marches of Hindustan，愛丁堡和倫敦，1907 Fredberg, Gustaf（編輯），Helgelseforbundet 1887－1937（一個瑞典教派），Motala，瑞典，1937（瑞典語） French, Cable和French，Okenbrev，斯德哥爾摩，1935（瑞典語）（原作：一沙漠刊物）（見上面：Cable） Frenne, G, Lotveit, T et al, Kina – tradition och fornyelse（中國－傳統和更新），馬爾默，1974（瑞典語） "Frikyrkofragor"（關於自由教會的若干問題）－1919年斯德哥爾摩第三屆瑞典自由教會聯合大會上的討論和演說，烏普薩拉，1919（瑞典語） Friska Vindar（強／鮮風），MCCS出版的青年雜誌，斯德哥爾摩（瑞典語） Furberg, Tore, Mote med varldsreligionern（世界宗教），Karlskrona，瑞典，1969（瑞典語） "Gemensam gaming"（一起去事奉），1925年斯德哥爾摩Nordic宣教大會上的演講，斯德哥爾摩，1925（瑞典語） Gillen, C W, Under en open himmel（光天化日之下），斯德哥爾摩，1952（瑞典語） Gillett, M C, "Hill Trips"或Excursions in China，私人流通，拉合爾，1937付印了50本，一本在Dr. Selvey, Villa Stallen, Saro，瑞典 Goldston, Robert，紅色中國的崛起，美國，1967 Gore, R，「中國遠西部之旅」，國家地理雜誌，3號，1980，華盛頓DC Grenljuset, C J Ekman出版的一本基督教日曆，1899年版（1898年印刷）和1904年版（1903年印刷） Griffiths, Michael, Asien i forvandlin，新加坡 1977（原題的瑞典語翻譯：變化中的亞洲） Goteborgs Handels - och Sjofartstidning（瑞典報紙），1923年8月，在瑞典的哥德堡出版 Goteborgs-Posten，瑞典一報紙，在瑞典的哥德堡出版 Hallencreutz, C F, Svensk mission over sex kontinenter（瑞典在六大洲的宣教事工），馬爾默，1970（瑞典語） Hannestad, K, Ruysbroek… Rejse gennem Centralasien（Ruysbroek…穿越中亞之旅，1253－55），哥本哈根，1957（丹麥語） Hartman, Martin, Chinesisch-Turkestan（中國土耳其斯坦）法蘭克福，1908（德語） Hayit, B, Turkestan im XX Jahrhundert（20世紀的土耳其斯坦），達姆施塔特，1956，主要寫關於西土耳其斯坦的情況（德語） - Turkestan zwischen Russland und China（俄羅斯和中國之間的土耳其斯坦），阿姆斯特丹，1971（德語） Hedin, Sven, Asien, Tusen mil pa okanda vagar（亞洲，在未知的道路上的一萬公里），I，斯德哥爾摩，1903（瑞典語） - Central Asian Atlas, Memoir on maps，卷2，Index of geographical names. By D M Farquhar, G Jarring和E Norin（斯文‧海丁醫生領導下對中國西北省份的科學探索報告，1：3）（印刷品49），斯德哥爾摩，1943 - En fard genom Asien（穿越中亞之旅）1893－97，1，斯德哥爾摩，1898（瑞典語） – Genom Khorasan och Turkestan（穿越霍拉珊和土耳其斯坦），II，斯德哥爾摩，1893（瑞典語） - Sidenvagen（絲綢之路），第二版，斯德哥爾摩，1936（瑞典語） - Stora Hastens flykt（大馬的逃亡），斯德哥爾摩，1935（瑞典語） Hem Hem（家家），瑞典行道會出版的一基督教雜誌，斯德哥爾摩 Henrikson, Alf和Hwang Tsu-yu, Kinesisk historia（中國歷史），斯德哥爾摩，1967（瑞典語） Hentig, Otto von, Mein Leben eine Dienstreise（我的生活－一次經商之旅），歌廷根，1962（德語） - Meine Diplomatenfahrt ins verschlossene Land（我在封閉國家的外交之旅），柏林和維也納，1918（德語） Hjarpe, Jan, Islam, Lara och livsmonster（伊斯蘭、它的教義和生命道路），瑞典隆德，1979（瑞典語） "Hundred and Thirty-sixth Report of the British and Foreign Bible Society"，倫敦，1940 Hunter, G W, "Turki People of Chinese Turkestan"在Chinese Recorder，1920年8月，Foorhow Huntingdon, Ellsworth, The Pulse of Asia，波士頓和紐約，1907 Hogberg, L E, Bland Persiens muhammedaner（在波斯的穆斯林中間），斯德哥爾摩，1920（瑞典語） - En missionars minnen（一個宣教士的回憶），斯德哥爾摩，1924（瑞典語） - Ett och annat fran Kinesiska Turkestan（來自中國土耳其斯坦的記錄），斯德哥爾摩，1907（瑞典語） - Islam och evangeliet（伊斯蘭和福音），原稿在Hogberg死後出版，並經G Ahlbert和Tor Andrae修訂，斯德哥爾摩，1925（In the notes: Hogberg-Ahlbert）（瑞典語） - Jolbas. En Kashgargosses levnad（Jolbas，喀什葛爾一個男孩的生活），關於宣教工作的小冊子，瑞典行道會出版，第三版，斯德哥爾摩，1918（瑞典語） - Kultur-och missionsarbete I Ostturkestan（東土耳其斯坦的文化和宣教事工），為瑞典年輕人描述的宣教工作IV。教師差傳協會出版的系列小冊子，Gothenburg，瑞典1925（從1907年開始Hogberg書作的修訂版）（瑞典語） - Nar man borjar（當你開始的時候），瑞典行道會出版的關於宣教工作的小冊子，9號，斯德哥爾摩，1915（瑞典語） - Ruts besok i Ostturkestan（魯斯東土耳其斯坦之行），瑞典行道會青年和主日學校圖書館，第2系列1號，斯德哥爾摩，1917（瑞典語） - 俄羅斯和中國土耳其斯坦的宣教工場，斯德哥爾摩，1910（世界宣教大會上，愛丁堡1910） International Review of Missions，紐約和日內瓦，Index 1912－66，G. Myklebust，1967 Jackson, W, A. Douglas，俄－中邊境，普林斯頓，1962 Jacobsson, Emil和Oberg, Otto（E. J.和0. 0.），De Svenska martyrerna I Kina ar 1900（1900在中國的瑞典殉教士），斯德哥爾摩，1902（瑞典語） Jarring, Gunnar, Matters of Ethnological Interest in Swedish Missionary Reports from Southern Sinkiang, Scripta Minora，Royal Humanistic Academy of Science in Lund出版的研究，瑞典，1979－1980：4，Lund，1979 - Gustaf Raquette和Qasim Akhun給Kamil Efendi的信，Royal Humanistic Academy of Science in Lund出版的研究1975－76：1，Lund 1975 - "Swedish Relations with Central Asia and Swedish Central Asian Research"在Asian Affairs，61：3，倫敦，1974 - Svensk turkologi（瑞典關於突厥人的研究），發表於一俄羅斯科學雜誌。未出版的瑞典語原稿，1977（Jarring保存）（瑞典語） - Svenskt kulturarbete I Osterled（瑞典對東方的文化工作」），在The Swedish people through the ages，V，377－388頁，馬爾默，1939（瑞典語） - 「瑞典人關於維吾爾族人的研究」，1970年在莫斯科為語言研究者做的演說，差會檔案裡的瑞典語譯文，斯德哥爾摩 - Ater till Kashgar. Memoarer i nuet（回到喀什葛爾，當前的中亞記憶），斯德哥爾摩，1979（瑞典語）（英文翻譯，杜克大學出版社，1986） Johansson, O, PP Waldenstrom I kyrkomotet（P. P. Waldenstrom和Lutheran Church Assembly），Falun，1931（瑞典語） Jonson, Jonas, Kina, kyrkan och Kristen tro（中國\教會和基督教信仰），Falkoping，1975（瑞典語） - Kinabilden（中國圖片－20年關於宣教工作的討論），SMT 1973，218頁ff.（瑞典語） Journal of the Royal Central Asian Society（JRCAS），倫敦 Jagerskiold, Stig, Gustav Mannerheim 1906－1917，赫爾辛基，1965，看下面：Mannerheim，1940（瑞典語） KarIgren, Bernhard, Religionen i Kina Antiken（古代中國的宗教），斯德哥爾摩，1964（瑞典語） Keim, J A, Kinas historia（中國的歷史），克里斯蒂安斯塔德，1967（瑞典語）（法語原著：Petite Histoire de la grande China） Kina – Tradition och fornyelse（中國－傳統與更新）（Frenne, Lotveit, Malmqvist, Wolf），馬爾默，1974（瑞典語） 古蘭經，K V Zettersteen翻譯，斯德哥爾摩，1917（瑞典語） Kraemer, H, Det kristna budskapet I en icke-kristen varld（在一個非基督教世界的基督教信息）斯德哥爾摩，1940（瑞典語）（原著為英語，紐約，1938） Kuo, Ping-chia，中國，牛津大學出版社，1965，現代世界系列之一 Lansdell, Henry, Chinese Central Asia，卷I，倫敦，1893 Larson, E John, Magnus Backlund – ett Guds sandebud I Centralasien（Magnus Backlund－神給中亞的一個使徒）Kristinehamn，1914（瑞典語） - Vid Ararats fot. Skildringar fran Svenska missionsforbundets 35-ariga verksamhet i Kaukasien（在阿拉臘的庇廕下－瑞典行道會在高加索地區35年宣教工作的描述），斯德哥爾摩，1919（瑞典語） Larsson, A P, Tjugofem ar I Ryssland（在俄羅斯的二十五年）（關於宣教士Hoijer的故事），斯德哥爾摩，1905（瑞典語） Lattimore, Eleanor, Vi traffas i Turkestan，斯德哥爾摩，1935（瑞典語）（原著：土耳其斯坦的重聚，波士頓， 1932） Lattimore, Owen, Chinese Turkestan, The Open Court，47號，芝加哥，1933 - High Tartary，波士頓，1930 - Inner Asian Frontiers of China，紐約，1940，American Geographical Society Research, Series No. 21 - Kina idag – Revolution och politik（亞洲研究中心學會），隆德，1971（瑞典語）（原著：中國的歷史和變革，1970） - Pivot of Asia, Sinkiang and the Inner Asian Frontiers of China and Russia，波士頓，1950 - The Desert Road to Turkestan，波士頓，1928 Latourette, Kenneth Scott, A history of the expansion of Christianity，卷6，The Great Century in northern Africa and Asia: 1800 AD – 1914 AD，紐約和倫敦，1944，卷7，Advance through storm: 1914 AD and after，紐約和倫敦，1945 - China（從歷史角度看現代國家），新澤西，1964 Le Coq, Albert von, Auf Hellas Spuren in Ostturkistan（在東土耳其斯坦的希臘腳步），萊比錫，1926（德語） - Von Land und Leuten in Ostturkestan（關於東土耳其斯坦國及人民），萊比錫，1928（德語） Lindeberg, G, Den evangeliska missionen（福音傳教事工），第3版，烏普薩拉，1936（瑞典語） - De Svenska missionerna（瑞典宣教組織），斯德哥爾摩，1922（瑞典語） - Katolicismen i ljuset av dess missionsverksamhet（天主教及其宣教事工），隆德，1928（瑞典語） - Vad har den kristna missionen utrattat? （基督徒宣教完成了甚麼？）宣教系列小冊，14號，由瑞典基督徒學生組織出版（SKS），烏普薩拉，1918（瑞典語） - Varldsmissionens lage efter krigsaren（戰後世界宣教工作的處境）宣教系列小冊15號，SKS，烏普薩拉，1920（瑞典語） - Varldsmissionens nutidslage（世界宣教工作的當前處境），斯德哥爾摩，1927（瑞典語） - Varldsmissionen och svensk mission（世界宣教和瑞典宣教），在Ekberg（編輯），差會事工圖片，斯德哥爾摩，1948（瑞典語） Ljusglimtar fran Mongoliet（來自蒙古的好消息），瑞典駐蒙古差會的官方雜誌，斯德哥爾摩（瑞典語） Loy, Ferdinand, Die Mission Sinkiang「對新疆的宣教」，Steyl's Mission News，Steyl 1936－37（見Bibliotheca Missionum，卷14:1，369頁） Lundahl, J（編輯），Guds fotspar i dagens missionsvarld（當今世界宣教裡神的足跡），斯德哥爾摩，1946（瑞典語） - （編輯），I egna hander（在他們自己手上），瑞典宣教工場的本地同工，斯德哥爾摩，1916（瑞典語） - Jag motte dem pa vagen（我在路上遇到他們）斯德哥爾摩，1943（瑞典語） - （編輯），Pa obanade stigar（未觸及的領地，在東土耳其斯坦的二十五年），斯德哥爾摩，1917（瑞典語） - Var yttre mission（我們在其他國家的差傳事工），學習手冊5號，由行道會青年組織出版，斯德哥爾摩，1916（瑞典語） - （編輯），Varlden vart arbetsfalt（世界是我們的工作地，瑞典宣教士回憶），斯德哥爾摩，1945（瑞典語） - Varldsmissionen（世界差會），第二版，斯德哥爾摩，1939（第一版，斯德哥爾摩，1921）（瑞典語） Lundahl, Maria和Walder, Signe（編輯），I striden och vid trossen（在前線戰鬥或在後方支援），斯德哥爾摩，1938（瑞典語） Lundkvist, Sven et al, Forsok. En bok om ett forsamlingssekel（試煉，關於一個教會的百年歷史的書），烏普薩拉，1970（瑞典語） Lotveit, Tryggve, Kinesiska granskonflikter（中國邊境衝突），世界政治問題，12號，斯德哥爾摩，1967（瑞典語） - Sovjet og China fra 1920 til i dag（從1920年至今的蘇聯和中國），挪威外國政治研究學會，「時代的回聲」，10號，奧斯陸，1962（挪威語） Macartney, G（Sir George），「東土耳其斯坦：漢人對一個外族的統治」，中亞學會學報，吉爾福德，1909 Macartney，凱瑟琳女士，一位在中國土耳其斯坦的英國女士，倫敦，1931 McLean, N L D，「新主權」，JRCAS卷XXXV (ii)，倫敦，1948 Maillart, Ella K，禁行之旅－從北京到喀什葛爾，倫敦，1940（原名：封殺的綠洲）（土耳其斯坦單獨苦旅，關於西土耳其斯坦） Mannerheim, C G, Resa genom Asien（穿越亞洲之旅), 斯德哥爾摩，1940（摘要在：Through Asia on a horse，Goran Schildt編輯，斯德哥爾摩，1961）（看上面：Jagerskiold）（瑞典語） Marco Polos resor i Asien（Marco Polo的亞洲之旅），Bengt Thordeman翻譯，Uddevalla，1967（瑞典語） Marthinson, Anders W, Bibeln, mitt ode（聖經－我的命定），斯德哥爾摩，1972（瑞典語） - Mote med Mongoliet och Maos Kina（與蒙古和毛之中國的交遇），斯德哥爾摩，1975（瑞典語） Mathews, Bazil, Islam pa nya vagar（新道路上的伊斯蘭），斯德哥爾摩，1929（瑞典語），翻譯自英文，沒有提及原作名稱） - Varldsrorelser I kamp（世界運動艱難進行），烏普薩拉，1932（來自英文的瑞典語譯本，沒有提及原作名稱） Mehnert, Klaus, Peking och Moskva（北京和莫斯科，共產主義權力鬥爭之研究），斯德哥爾摩，1964（瑞典語）（原著：Peking und Moskau，斯圖加特，1962） 瑞典男人和女人的回憶，卷2，烏普薩拉，1922，卷4，烏普薩拉，1923（瑞典語） Mihi, Mari, Varldens vildaste vagspel（世界最野蠻的遊戲）斯德哥爾摩，1919（瑞典語），Pseudonym for Gustaf Lindqvist Mirsky, Jeanette, Sir Aurel Stein，考古探索者，芝加哥大學出版社，芝加哥和倫敦，1977 Missionsforbundet（瑞典行道會)，行道會出版的雜誌（瑞典語）（1940年更名為Svensk Veckotidning，瑞典週刊） Missionsuppgifter och missionsproblem（差傳－任務和問題），一系列差傳小冊子的16號，Swedish Organisation for Christian Students（SKS）出版，烏普薩拉，1921（瑞典語） Mosesson, Gust（編輯），Missionsskolan（差傳學校），差傳學校的歷史，出版於50週年紀念，斯德哥爾摩，1921（瑞典語） - Mitt livs mosaic（我的生命－一張拼圖）Falkoping，1954（瑞典語） Moulton Roe, James，英國與外國聖經公會歷史1905－1954，倫敦，1965（見上面的Canton） The Muslim World（穆斯林世界），哈特福德，Con卷1 ff.（1911 ff.） Myklebust, O G, Misjonskunnskap（差傳），奧斯陸，1976（挪威語） Myrdal, Jan, Sidenvagen（絲綢之路），馬爾默，1977（瑞典語） Nazaroff (-v), P S, Hunted through Central Asia，倫敦，1932 - Moved on! From Kashgar to Kashmir，倫敦，1935 Neill, Stephen et al（編輯），Concise Dictionary of the Christian World Mission, Nashville和紐約，1971 Neill, Stephen, A History of Christian Missions, Middlesex, 1964 - The Cross over Asia，倫敦（斯德哥爾摩出版的瑞典譯本，1950） Nicklasson, Gosta, Sett och hort i Indien（印度經歷），斯德哥爾摩，1963（瑞典語） Nordic Family Book，1922和1931－35 Norins, M R, Gateway to Asia: Sinkiang frontier of the Chinese Far West，紐約，1944 "Notes on Kashgar", 1938（為領事館人員提供的信息） Nylen, Erik, Svensk frikyrka（瑞典自由教會），Halmstad，1964（瑞典語） Nyman, Lars-Erik, Great Britain and Chinese, Russian and Japanese Interest in Sinkiang 1918-1934，馬爾默，1977 Nyren, Bernard, Svenska Missionsforbundets femtioarsjubileum（瑞典行道會50週年），斯德哥爾摩，1928（瑞典語） Nyren, Janne, Tidsbilder（過去圖片），瑞典行道會50週年，斯德哥爾摩，1928（瑞典語） Nystrom, Bruno, Kampen mellan Islam och kristendomen（伊斯蘭和基督教之間的鬥爭），2號，行道會青年圖書館，斯德哥爾摩，1917（瑞典語） Nystrom, Gustav, Fran mitt Honkongfonster（我在香港的窗口所看到的），Falkoping，1953（瑞典語） Nystrom, Rikard, An Open Door in Central Asia, World Dominion卷VI，2號，倫敦，1928 Ohlden, A, Photos of the MCCS，斯德哥爾摩，1906（瑞典語）（見上面：Biographic photo album for the MCCS） Palmberg, G, Missionarsminnen（宣教士回憶錄），Vetlanda-Posten（報紙），Eksjo，1960年2月－3月，1960年11月－1961年2月（瑞典語） - Over Pamir och Himalaja med Ostturkestanmissionarer（跟著宣教士跨過帕米爾高原翻越喜馬拉雅山脈到達東土耳其斯坦），第二版，斯德哥爾摩，1924（瑞典語） Palmaer, G (ed.), En ny port oppnas（一扇新開的門），斯德哥爾摩，1942（瑞典語） - I karlekens tjanst（愛的服侍），斯德哥爾摩，1923（瑞典語） - Mangkunnig svensk I Ostturkestan (「在東土耳其斯坦一位蒙恩瑞典人」），在Anvill（編輯），De tjanade Gud i Asien（他們在亞洲事奉神）斯德哥爾摩，1946（瑞典語） - Pa mastarens bud（因為主的吩咐），斯德哥爾摩，1938（瑞典語） - （編輯），Vid Yangtseflodens strander（長江邊），斯德哥爾摩，1940（瑞典語） Persson, C, A list of flowering plants from East Turkestan and Kashmi, Lund, 1938 Platt, W J, Tre kvinnor – Mildred Cable, Francesca French, Evangeline French，斯德哥爾摩，1966（瑞典語）（英文原著：Three Women，倫敦，1964） Pratt, Sir John, War and Politics in China，倫敦，1943 Raquette, G, "Eastern Turkestan as a Mission Field"在International Review of Missions，卷14，紐約和日內瓦，1925 - Missionarernas stallning i sin garning till de olika folken（在另一種宗教民族當中事奉的宣教士和他們的工作），在“Gemensam garning”（一起工作），斯德哥爾摩，1925（瑞典語） - Muhammedanmissionen（穆斯林當中的差傳－在世界差傳中的其地位和重要性），斯德哥爾摩，1928（瑞典語） - Muhammeds religion（穆罕默德的宗教），斯德哥爾摩，1935（瑞典語） - Nagra turkiska namn i Centralasien（中亞的一些土耳其語名稱），瑞典地理年鑑，隆德，1928（瑞典語） Reischauer, E O, Japans historia，斯德哥爾摩，1965（瑞典語）（原著：日本的過去和現在） Ringgren, H和Strom, Ake, Religionerna I historia och nutid（過去和現在的宗教）第四版，斯德哥爾摩，1968（瑞典語） Rinell, Oscar, Kristendomen i det roda Kina（紅色中國下的基督教），宗教和永遠的問題，1號，1978，Klippan，1978（瑞典語） Rundblom, Oscar, Att uppleva varlden（經歷世界），斯德哥爾摩，1973（瑞典語） - Kommunismen och kyrkan（共產主義和教會），斯德哥爾摩，1961（瑞典語）（第一章是寫中國的教會處境） Ruysbroek（看Charpentier，Hannestad和Schildt） Sabri, Ibrahim，一個電台演講，1948，在"我信甚麼？"系列（Wallensteen, I, From Buddha to Gyllensten，斯德哥爾摩，1967） Sandegren, P（編輯），Infor missionens krav（差傳的要求），在一系列關於宣教的小冊的6號，Swedish Organisation for Christian Students（SKS）出版，烏普薩拉，1913（瑞典語） Schildt, G（編輯），Guds fardeman（神的旅行者）（在其它事件中：Ruysbroek的旅程1253－55）Falun，1961（瑞典語） Schomherg, R E F, Peaks and Plains of Central Asia，倫敦，1933 Schroder, J O, Grandpa, en mission i Alaska (Grandpa, Mission work in Alaska), Falkoping，1979（瑞典語） Shipton, Eric，韃靼山脈，倫敦，1951 - 未踏足的世界，倫敦，1969 - 翻過那座山，倫敦，1943 Shipton, Diana，古老的土地，倫敦，1950 Sjoholm, W W，（編輯），Minnesskrift till PP Waldenstroms 75-arsdag（75歲生日有關P P Waldenstrom的出版物），斯德哥爾摩，1913（瑞典語） - Tjugofem ar I Kina（在中國的二十五年），斯德哥爾摩，1916（瑞典語） Skrine, C P (Sir Clermont), Chinese Central Asia，倫敦，1926 - 通往喀什葛爾之路，JRCAS卷XII，倫敦，1925 Skrine, CP. Nightingale, Pamela, Macartney在喀什，倫敦，1973 Skold, Hannes, En svensk missionars storverk（「瑞典宣教士的作為」）（報紙Goteborgs Handels- och Sjofartstidning的一篇文章，1923年7月16日）（瑞典語） Smith, W C, Islam i modern tid，H S Nyberg的前言，斯德哥爾摩，1961（瑞典語）（英文原作：現代歷史的伊斯蘭，1957出版） - Manniskor av annan tro. Solna 1965出版（瑞典語譯本）（原題：其他人的信仰，紐約，1963） Snow, Edgar, Rod stjarna over Kina. Boras, 1977（瑞典語）（英文原題：中國的紅星） - Striden om Asien，瑞典語譯本，於斯德哥爾摩出版，1942（原題：為亞洲的戰役，紐約，1941） Sommarstrom, J, Missionen och kommunismen（差傳和共產主義），在一系列Swedish Institute for Mission Research印刷的小冊的2號，烏普薩拉，1952（瑞典語） - Under Maos stjarna（在毛的紅星下），Falkoping，1952（瑞典語） Stein, Sir Aurel, Ancient Khotan，牛津，1907 - Innermost Asia，卷IV，牛津，1928 - On Ancient Central Asian Tracks，倫敦，1933 - Ruins of Desert Catay，卷1－2，倫敦，1912 Stenstrom, Arvid, Mission blir kyrka（宣教事工變成一個教會），Falkoping，1977（瑞典語） Stockholms-tidningen, Stockholms-dagblad（1931年合併的兩份報紙。1944年後一個名字未包括在名稱。該報紙1966年停刊）（瑞典語） Subhan, J A, Sufin finner Kristus（一個蘇非派教徒找到了基督），Mariestad，1946（瑞典語） Sundkler, Bengt, Missionens varld（差傳世界），第二版，斯德哥爾摩，1970（瑞典語） Svenska Dagbladet（瑞典日報），斯德哥爾摩出版的一份報紙 Svenska Journalen（瑞典雜誌），11號，1975和20號，1977 Svenska Morgonbladet（瑞典早報），（1957年更名為Morgonbladet，早報，1958年停刊） Svensk Missionstidskrift（瑞典差會雜誌）（SMT）在烏普薩拉出版 Svensk Veckotidning（瑞典週刊）（見上：Missionsforbundet） Svard, Lydia, Forbundskyrkan i Indien（印度聖約教會），Falkoping，1979（瑞典語） Sykes, Ella和Sykes, Sir Percy，穿越中亞沙漠和綠洲（3 – 231頁），作者Ella，Sir Percy完稿，倫敦，1920 Sykes, Sir Percy, The Quest for Cathay，倫敦，1936 Soderberg, Ellen, Nagra bilder fran Jarkend under inbordeskriget i Ostturkestan（東土耳其斯坦內戰期間葉爾羌的一些圖片），I – III，Sunnetidningen和Fryksdals-posten（瑞典兩報紙），1934（瑞典語） Teichman, Sir Eric, Journey to Turkestan，倫敦，1937 Tidskrift for predikanter（傳教士雜誌），在斯德哥爾摩出版，1939（瑞典語） The Mission work by the MCCS, with illustrations，斯德哥爾摩，1909，Sm. Thomander, Adolf, Fredrik Fransson，斯德哥爾摩，1924（瑞典語） Thomson, Glover, Colonel J, “Present-Day Kashgaria”在JRCAS卷XXIV，倫敦，1937 Till gemensam bon for den muhammedanska varlden（我們一起為穆斯林世界禱告），A summons from the Teachers’ Mission Organisation，斯德哥爾摩，1922（瑞典語） Tomson, Ragnar，（編輯），Wilhelm Sjoholm，斯德哥爾摩，1919（瑞典語） Torvik, Otto, Abdulla Jan, En muhammedaners omvendelse（一個穆斯林的改信），卑爾根，1942（挪威語） - Bak Himalaja（喜馬拉雅山背後），卑爾根，1945（挪威語） - Blant muhammedanereiI India（在印度的穆斯林當中），斯塔萬格，1967（挪威語） Tro och liv（信仰和生命），關於基督教信仰和傳教的雜誌，1974，斯德哥爾摩出版（瑞典語） Tornquist, Johan, Genom vildmarker och sagolander（穿過曠野和仙境），斯德哥爾摩，1928（瑞典語） - Kashgar，斯德哥爾摩，1926 - Missionen i Ostturkestan（在東土耳其斯坦的差傳事工），Andersson, the Department for Mission Abroad of the MCCS，斯德哥爾摩，1928（瑞典語） Ungdomsvannen（青年之友），MCCS出版的一本青年雜誌，斯德哥爾摩（1940年與Svensk Veckotidning併刊）（瑞典語） Ussing, H和Brunius, ff., Kortfattad missionshistoria（差傳小故事），斯德哥爾摩，1933（瑞典語） Vakar, N, "The Annexation of Chinese Turkestan"在Slavonic Review，卷14，40號，倫敦，1936 Walan, Bror-Axelson, Sigbert et al. Varmlands Ansgariiforenings jubileumsskrift（一青年組織Varmlands Ansgariiforening製作的週年紀念刊物），奧雷布洛，1965（瑞典語） Wameck, G和Kolmodin, A, De protestantiska missionernas historia（新教徒差傳歷史），斯德哥爾摩，1903（瑞典語） Vasel, Ostturkestan, Osteuropa（東土耳其斯坦，東歐），卷11，1935年10月，W Berlin（德語） Wennerholm, Eric, Sven Hedin，斯德哥爾摩，1978（瑞典語） Wemer, N, Pa hedningarnas vag（在異教徒之路上），Koping，1898（瑞典語） Westin, Gunnar et al. Svenska folkrorelser（瑞典民眾運動），II，斯德哥爾摩，1937（瑞典語） Westling, Martin, Dar Svenska missionarer arbeta（瑞典宣教士工作之處），斯德哥爾摩，1925（瑞典語） Westman, K B, Den kinesiska odlingens huvudepoker（中國農業的主要週期），烏普薩拉，1929（瑞典語） - Ostasien（東亞）9號「世界的文化歷史」系列，斯德哥爾摩，1934（瑞典語） Westman, K B et al, Nordisk missionshistoria（北歐差傳歷史），斯德哥爾摩，1949（瑞典語） Westman, K B和von Sicard, H, Den kristna missionens historia（基督教差傳歷史），斯德哥爾摩，1960（瑞典語） Whiting, Allen S, Soviet Politics in China 1917-1924, East Lansing，1954 Whiting, Allen S和盛世才，Sinkiang: Pawn or Pivot? East Lansing，1958 Vicedom, G F, Varldsreligionerna marscherar upp（世界宗教在前進），Falkoping，1959（瑞典語）（原本：Die Mission der Weltreligionen，慕尼黑，1959） Wickbom, T G, Konflikten Peking-Moskva（北京和莫斯科衝突），「今日世界政治問題」系列6號，斯德哥爾摩，1963（瑞典語） Wingate, Rachel, "A mission of friendship to the Muslims of Turkestan"在The Muslim World，1951年1月 - "Education in Chinese Turkestan"在JRCAS卷XVI (ii)，倫敦，1929 Vinterny，MCCS出版的一基督教雜誌，斯德哥爾摩（瑞典語） World Dominion，卷VI，倫敦，1928 Wu, Aitchen, K, China and Soviet Union，倫敦，1950 - The Turkestan Tumult，倫敦，1940 - "Will China save its Far West?"在Asia卷XXXIX 12號，1939年12月，紐約 Yang, Richard, Sinkiang under the administration of Governor Yang Tseng-hsin, 1911-1928, Central Asiatic, Journal，卷VI，4號，1961，海牙 Younghusband, Frank E, The Heart of a Continent，倫敦，1896 Zetterholm, Tore, De frammande djavlarna（外來的魔鬼），奧斯陸，1977（瑞典語） Zwemer, Samuel M., Across the World of Islam，紐約，1929 - Islams nya varld. Gemensam garning（伊斯蘭新世界在一起行動），斯德哥爾摩，1925（瑞典語） - It is hard to be a Christian，倫敦，1937 - Korsets harlighet. Mariestad，1933（瑞典語）（英文原名：十字架的榮耀） - Kristendomens kraft och var tidn（瑞典語翻譯，斯德哥爾摩，1939）（瑞典語）（英文原作：生氣勃勃的基督教和今日世界，倫敦，1939） - Muhammed or Christ，倫敦，1916 - The present attitude of educated Moslems towards Jesus Christ and the Scriptures，在International Review of Missions，卷III，1914，紐約和Genua - Upp till helig bonekamp，斯德哥爾摩，1925（瑞典語）（英文原作：禱告呼喚） Aventyr jorden runt（世界冒險）（Ed Roland Hentzel），斯德哥爾摩，1962（瑞典語） 18 ： Go Go Go Go

65-78 耶穌出生後，有多少個博士來過？ 文章 65 78 作者 CARM 耶穌出生後，有多少個博士來過？ Luke Wayne（ https://carm.org/luke-wayne） 2016年9月11日 眾所周知，馬太福音2章記錄了一群博士（magi，或「智者」）在耶穌出生後來敬拜他。 「當希律王的時候，耶穌生在猶太的伯利恆。有幾個博士從東方來到耶路撒冷，說，那生下來作猶太人之王的在哪裡？我們在東方看見他的星，特來拜他。」（馬太福音2：1－2） 雖然流行的傳統中常以三位博士來表現，但聖經從來沒有告訴我們究竟來了多少位博士。三博士的概念非常久遠，並出現在許多不同的基督教傳統流派中（三位博士有著各種各樣不同的名字），但這一概念幾乎無法追溯到初期教會，也沒有直接的聖經支持。三博士傳統最有可能的解釋是，聖經中描述了博士帶來三種不同的禮物：黃金、乳香和沒藥。這容易讓人聯想到有三個人，每個人帶著一種禮物，盡管聖經並沒有這樣描述。 「進了房子，看見小孩子和他母親馬利亞，就俯伏拜那小孩子，揭開寶盒，拿黃金，乳香，沒藥為禮物獻給他。博士因為在夢中被主指示，不要回去見希律，就從別的路回本地去了。他們去後，有主的使者向約瑟夢中顯現，說，起來，帶著小孩子同他母親，逃往埃及，住在那裡，等我吩咐你。因為希律必尋找小孩子要除滅他。」（馬太福音2：11－13） 這段文字並未暗示三個人帶來三種不同的禮物。它只是簡單地提到這些智者帶來了三種珍貴的物品。 然而，從經文來看，博士團隊的規模可能相當小。他們所送的珍貴禮物看起來並非數量繁多、體積龐大，以至於妨礙馬利亞和約瑟突然逃到埃及（馬太福音2：13－15）。他們的禮物也非價值連城，以至於能給耶穌一家帶來財富和繁榮。這些禮物可能僅足以支持他們臨時逃難至埃及。並且，若博士的人數衆多，似乎也不可能悄然逃回到本地（馬太福音2：12）。考慮到博士幾乎一定會帶著貼身僕人前行，三位博士實際上代表了一個合理規模的團隊，與經文的敘述相符。然而，如果我們誠實，精確為三位博士的想法純粹是一個傳統傳說。我們無法確定事實上究竟有多少位博士。 這篇文章翻譯自Luke Wayne的在線文章「How many wise men came after Jesus was born?」 https://carm.org/how-many-wise-men-came-after-jesus-was-born

332-18 Allahu Akbar：幾乎意味著一切－除了正統媒體所聲稱的 文章 332 18 作者 Robert Spencer Allahu Akbar：幾乎意味著一切－除了正統媒體所聲稱的 ROBERT SPENCER （ http://www.breitbart.com/author/robert-spencer/） 2015年12月25日 媒體機構常常破壞「Allahu akbar」的真諦，這是伊斯蘭聖戰分子無論在何處進行大規模謀殺時之戰鬥的呐喊。 這個戰爭的呐喊被西方媒體誤譯為「神是偉大的」（God is great），但它的實際意義是「真主安拉更大」（Allah is greater），其意思是真主安拉比你的神或政府更大。 這是侵略性的宣言－真主和伊斯蘭在政府、宗教、法律或倫理的每種其他形式上均占主導地位，這就是爲什麽伊斯蘭聖戰者在殺害異教徒時常常喊出「真主安拉更大」。 喊的主要目的之一是「要把恐怖投在真主安拉的敵人心中」。 911事件主要的劫機者穆罕默德﹒阿塔（Mohammed Atta）執行聖戰任務之前，在 給自己的信 （ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/sep/30/terrorism.september113）中明確表示：「當交戰開始的時候，像不想回到這個世界的冠軍一樣去攻擊，喊出【Allahu akbar】，因為這種攻擊使非信徒的心中感到恐懼。」這就是爲什麽胡德堡（Fort Hood）聖戰殺手馬利克﹒哈桑（Nidal Malik Hasan）在2009年11月射殺13名美國人時喊出，也是爲什麽還有其他這麼多的聖戰者使用它，其本質上是一種宣告－非穆斯林即將死亡。 但在沒有異教徒能聽到的時候，這句也常常被使用。依據伊斯蘭，真主安拉至高無上、主宰一切、控制一切；依據古蘭經32：13，他的主權是絕對的，他決定不信者拒絕伊斯蘭。「假若我意欲，必以嚮導賦予每個人，但從我發出的判詞已確定了，我必以精靈和人類填滿火獄。」 這種對萬事絕對的主權導致這位真主的奴隸們在顯然有許多矛盾的情況下，大聲呼喊「Allahu akbar」： 「Allahu akbar」可以是對真主安拉的快樂和感激之聲，就像在 這個視頻 （ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3bdOoZn8x4）中一樣，當聖戰者在擊落直升機之後喊出它時，直升機爆炸起火時，這個呼聲帶出了種特有的活力。它也可以是表達一種悲傷和憤怒，比如這個視頻（https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKOAZfOtrgk）中，敘利亞人在一場空襲擊中了他們的村莊時所呼喊的。 這是一個火箭發射失敗的 視頻 （ http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cc1_1351188404）說明了多種用途。 ...隨著火箭開始點燃，然後發射，只飛行了幾英尺，在他們自己的場地爆炸了，觀看的聖戰者們反復地喊出「Allahu akbar」像奧韋爾（Orwell）的書「1984」中的人物，受到官方話語的限制只能通過一些允許的詞語來表達思想。 首先是熱烈的「求使它成功吧！」「Allahu akbar」，而後是「哇哦，它成功了！」，接著是火箭發射失敗，失望地「太糟糕了」「Allahu akbar」，道歉的話「很抱歉，請原諒我們」，並且安慰說「真主安拉仍然在我們當中」「Allahu akbar」。 相反，一群自由的基督徒或者後基督教西方人會呼籲勤奮、努力、運氣和科學－「小心！」「繼續！」「什麽...」，最後「從頭再來。」 在伊斯蘭中，實際上取決於人類的選擇、數學、概率、運氣和機械的結果全部都在真主安拉的控制之下，所以無論發生什麽事情，最恰當的說法是... Allahu akbar。 就其內涵而言，「Allahu akbar」可以意味著一切－除了通常以英文形式表達的一句話：「神是偉大的」。 縱使「真主安拉」是指「神」，被大多數阿拉伯語基督徒用來指基督教之神，但是當聖戰者使用這個詞語時，他們的意思是強調伊斯蘭及其真主的優越性－因此不將這個詞語翻譯、不以英文「安拉至大」的詞語來表達它，會是更準確的。 並且用阿拉伯語說「真主安拉是偉大的」需要一個不同的詞語－真主卡比爾（Allahu kabir），因為akbar是kabir的從格或者比較級與最高級的形式。 因此，與「Allahu akbar」對等的一個基督教詞語不會是「耶穌是偉大的」，也不會是一個實際的基督教短語「耶穌是主」。在各種各樣的內涵和用途上，它大致對應於福音派／五旬節教派所使用的「讚美主」；然而，這個詞語不包含任何「Allahu akbar」所固有的優越觀念。 如果媒體神話的基督教恐怖分子成為現實，鑄造一個可以像穆斯林使用詞語「Allahu akbar」的形式，他們會喊出「 以此印記，爾將獲勝 」（In hoc signo vinces）（ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_hoc_signo_vinces）。這是羅馬皇帝君士坦丁在四世紀見到在十字架下的勝利之異象－以此印記征服－不久之後他贏得了改變帝國的米爾維安大橋戰役（https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Milvian_Bridge）的勝利。 但是在「Allahu akbar」中，伊斯蘭的征服同時被斷言和假設－而上述的拉丁詞語既沒有「Allahu akbar」這般的緊湊性也沒有其多重的含義。 任何基督教短語都不會帶有「Allahu akbar」所帶出的任何威脅及所具有的恐嚇的氣味。 2015年11月巴黎聖戰大屠殺幾周之後，「Allahu akbar」被 發現潦草地寫在一架客機的油箱上 （ http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/12/57-paris-airport-workers-on-terror-watch-list-allahu-akbar-scrawled-on-fuel-tank），這威脅是無可辯駁的。用阿塔（Atta）的話，無論是誰寫的是想「要把恐怖投在不信道者心中」。 正當聖戰者在世界上開始殺害異教徒尖叫「Allahu akbar」時，毫無疑問這句話確實經常把恐怖投在不信道者的心中：伊斯蘭的真主的優越性是在流血中宣稱。 Robert Spencer是聖戰觀察（ http://www.jihadwatch.org/）的負責人，也是紐約時報暢銷書「伊斯蘭政治不正確（和十字軍東征）指南」（The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) （ http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895260131/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=pjmedia-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0895260131））和「關於穆罕默德的真相」（The Truth About Muhammad （ http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1596985283/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=pjmedia-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1596985283））的作者。他的最新著作是「伊斯蘭國完整的異教徒指南」（The Complete Infidel’s Guide to ISIS （ http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Infidels-Guide-ISIS/dp/1621574539/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1435181949&sr=8-1&keywords=complete+infidels+guide+to+isis））。他的推特地址：https://twitter.com/jihadwatchRS，Facebook地址:https://www.facebook.com/robertspencerJW?ref=hl。 這篇文章翻譯自Robert Spencer的在線文章：「‘Allahu Akbar’: It Means Almost Everything – Except What The Establishment Media Says」 http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2015/12/25/allahu-akbar-means-almost-everything-except-establishment-media-says/