基督日報事件獨立調查團公佈與日韓教會聯繫進展（7月30日消息）

基督日報事件獨立調查團
公佈與日韓教會聯繫進展
（7月30日消息）

時代論壇 / 2008年7月30日

《基督日報》事件獨立調查團公佈最新的工作彙報，內容是調查團與日本及韓國的教會組織聯繫後的進展。彙報全文如下：

《基督日報》事件獨立調查團已於2008年6月20日公佈，獨立調查團將跟進及調查與《基督日報》、耶穌青年會、張大衛（或張在亨）牧師有關組織的關係、教義及發展。所有發現均會基於可核實的證據，並向公眾彙報。

目前，獨立調查團的成員包括余達心牧師、楊慶球牧師、陸輝牧師、郭文池牧師、張慕皚牧師、陳如炳牧師、梁廷益牧師、林以諾牧師、陳恩明牧師、羅錫為牧師、司徒永富博士、麥裕沛博士、召集人柯廣輝律師及程序顧問曾繁凱先生。范建強博士因健康理由，已經辭任獨立調查團成員的職務。

在獨立調查團成立以前，韓國基督教總聯合會曾就張大衛的信仰背景展開調查。在發表調查結果後，獨立調查團曾經與韓國基督教總聯合會，瞭解他們的調查所得。此外，獨立調查團亦曾聯絡日本異端防治及康復聯會的平岡正幸牧師，深入瞭解“k-notes”事件。

韓國基督教總聯合會對張大衛牧師展開的調查

韓國基督教總聯合會（Christian Council of Korea，簡稱CCK或韓基總）曾於2004年至2005年成立調查委員會，調查張大衛（或張在亨）牧師與統一教的關係，並於2006年作出議決。

韓基總調查委員會的成員，包括主席Hyung Taek PARK牧師、Sam Kyung CHAE牧師及Young Sik JIN牧師於2008年7月9日與獨立調查團會面，並表示韓基總調查委員會當時的結論是指張大衛在1997年以前與統一教有關連，卻未有證據顯示他在 1997年後與統一教有關連。然而他們澄清，這結論並非說明張大衛沒有異端思想。他們進一步強調，韓基總調查委員會的議決不應該用來證明張大衛與異端教義沒有關連。

日本異端防治及康復聯會平岡正幸牧師提供的資料

獨立調查團亦曾聯絡日本異端防治及康復聯會（Japan Society of Cult Prevention and Recovery）的平岡正幸牧師（Rev. Masayuki Hiraoka）。平岡牧師亦是JELC Koufu Church的牧師，曾從事統一教教義研究及調查工作一段長時間。

據平岡牧師所述，他曾輔導日本青年M. K.的父母。M. K.在2003年開始在Christian Today相關機構Belecom（即Verecom）工作。根據《基督日報》在2007年11月20日的聲明中引述的Christian Today報導，Christian Today是由張大衛創立的。

M. K.的父母曾因兒子的精神狀況有異，及有拖欠租金的行為，在2005至2006年間請平岡牧師為他們輔導。2006年10月，M. K.的父母在他居住的單位中發現M. K.的手寫筆記（k-notes）。平岡牧師分析k-notes中關於末世論及再來主的教導後，确定有關的教導為異端，帶有統一教的特徵。

獨立調查團已更新官方網站

獨立調查團已經更新其官方網站（www.enquirycommittee-ghi.org）。公眾可在上述網站參閱進一步的資料，包括韓基總調查委員會給獨立調查團的信件，與k-notes的手稿及中英文譯本。

（按：《基督日報》事件獨立調查團於2007年底成立後，隨即就《基督日報》、耶穌青年會（耶青）及張大衛（或張在亨）牧師的信仰背景展開調查。在本年4月發表的調查結果中，獨立調查團一致認為他們不能排除以下的高度可能性：耶青在中國內地的主要大學建立據點，有系統地提倡再來主等類似統一教的教義，並為此表示高度關注及深切憂慮。調查報告亦指耶青是由張大衛創立的，此外，《基督日報》的主要同工是耶青的會員。）

相關資訊：【《基督日報》事件專輯】

（www.christiantimes.org.hk，時代論壇每日快拍，2008.7.30）

舊回應21則

Hin / 2008-08-07 23:18:17

A question for James

對於從來沒有信仰基礎的國內信徒而言，被自稱「異端專家」的羅牧師從老遠跑到國內走訪幾個大城市，又拿著似是而非的「秘密檔」試探；在不同城市出現互相吻合的證供的原由明顯就是這種誘導行為的產物。」（證據就是羅牧師故意刪除的北上內地數個城市的網誌，假若他是堂堂正正的話，為什麼要刪除網誌呢？）

James, based on the above paragraph, are you saying that Rev. Lo brought along some 「秘密檔」to China and show them to the believers in China (former YD or YD members and other campus workers) and then the IEC went to these people to interview them AND that is the reason for the IEC to be able to come up with the table of evidences(在不同城市出現互相吻合的證供的原由明顯就是這種誘導行為的產物). Is it really that obvious?

You or YD is implying that Rev. Lo laid down the evidences in different cities in China and then the IEC went there to pick up those evidences. Is that what you or the YD are driving at?

I think that is a pretty big jump from the observation (Rev. Lo went to China and the deletion or disappearance of some websites) to the conclusion. I also don't think the deletion of certain websites can be any evidence at all(證據就是羅牧師故意刪除的北上內地數個城市的網誌). We can't fabricate an intention for someone's action.

One more puzzle for me is how do you know these believers are those without any foundation in their faith(從來沒有信仰基礎). If the IEC has kept them being anonymous, how do you or YD knows who they are and how they are in their faith. That is also very interesting to me!

Please help me to understand, it seems to me that the approach that you are using is very similar to the YDs or may be as the IEC from Frank's perspective.

Hin / 2008-08-07 21:09:39

A little response to James

I will not argue for the argument sake, here is just a little response.

一．中國20人證人對比

I think definitely it will help if IEC let us know how many are actually YD members or former members.

我在耶青那個網站中找到一些線索，「對於從來沒有信仰基礎的國內信徒而言，被自稱「異端專家」的羅牧師從老遠跑到國內走訪幾個大城市，又拿著似是而非的「秘密檔」試探；在不同城市出現互相吻合的證供的原由明顯就是這種誘導行為的產物。」（證據就是羅牧師故意刪除的北上內地數個城市的網誌，假若他是堂堂正正的話，為什麼要刪除網誌呢？）

I don't quite understand this point, why did Rev. Lo delete the websites? Does the deletion can draw the conclusion that Rev. Lo is misleading these young believers? How do you know they are young believers?

二．K-Notes

對於調查團拿出來的證據日本K-Notes，耶青委員會網站指出：「日本異端防治及康復協會( Japan Society of Cult Prevention and Recovery )的平岡正幸牧師對於山谷真先生利用自己的發表當作證據來斷定 CT 是異端一事表示不快。對於山谷真的說法，他認為只是他個人的說法而已。日本 Christian Today 也已作出明確的答覆及信仰告白。( 中文翻譯： http://solagratia01cn.blogspot.com/2008/05/christian-today.html ) 」平岡正幸牧師就是調查團長時間研究統一教的教義的牧師。

Yes, it is his own judgement and it is there for our reference only.

三．你說YD及GH的顧問沒有回來，不過，據我所知，在這段日子之中，不斷有人有打電話或者用不同的方式，請給GH做了廣告的人取消他們的訂單，可以想像，就在流言滿天的情況下，即使沒有足夠證據指控GH及YD有問題，很多人為了明哲保身不會冒這個險，不是嗎？

If that is the case, I felt sorry for those pastors who are unwilling to stand up for truth.

四．就算調查團繼續公佈證人，耶青已經指明：「就算把偽証做公証發過去, 仍然有 10 倍、 100 倍的証據可以完全推翻它。」那麼，公開所有證人反而是好事啊，到時就能真相大白了！

This is not a point at all!

我相信真理是愈辯愈明的，即使耶青寫出了某些人的問題，但是事實就是事實，真相是不能隱藏的。I

Yes, I hope so too!

It is very nice of you to have concern for the YD and GH people and the desire to discern and present the truth, keep going!

James / 2008-08-07 11:56:12

在耶青委員會網站中的發現

HIN，看完你的感想之後，我認為你還沒有比較開放的聽見耶青委員會的見解，我在耶青那個網頁中仔細看看，可以找到各國的資料，當中不乏比調查團更準確、更深入對事件的洞悉：

對於調查團提出的20位證人，如果單聽取調查團一方見解時，就會認為一個耶青有20人走出來說耶青有問題，那就真的很有問題。不過，事實上，調查團的報告中指“證人當中有前耶穌青年會成員，部分更曾是核心成員。其餘是耶青成員有接觸的校園工作同工。”意思即是20當中並不是20人均是耶青的，可能是一半？當作是10人，那麼，10人是不是都是耶青的資深成員呢？又不是，原來是當中的幾個人是核心成員。當中的核心成員又是誰呢？我在耶青那個網站中找到一些線索，「對於從來沒有信仰基礎的國內信徒而言，被自稱「異端專家」的羅牧師從老遠跑到國內走訪幾個大城市，又拿著似是而非的「秘密檔」試探；在不同城市出現互相吻合的證供的原由明顯就是這種誘導行為的產物。」（證據就是羅牧師故意刪除的北上內地數個城市的網誌，假若他是堂堂正正的話，為什麼要刪除網誌呢？）

我相信真理是愈辯愈明的，即使耶青寫出了某些人的問題，但是事實就是事實，真相是不能隱藏的。

Hin / 2008-08-06 19:37:41

Both sides

Thank you Frank for your comment, to be fair and neutral indeed is not easy but something that we should aim for.

I have been reading both sides' materials and I think we all should. IEC originated from the request of GH and then became what they are now.

I think each one of us should read what is presented in the IEC report and also the YD-IEC report and then make our own judgement.

For IEC, they have presented 20 witnesses' testimonies disregard the fact that they didn't expose their identity. I don't think they are making up these testimonies but how reliable are they, we make the judgement. I think IEC is quite honest in the sense they stated the facts even though it might cause some questions and challenges from the reader. If one witness said that he or she has heard a certain kind of teaching and another witness said has not, they presented the findings as they are. That is something that I appreciated amd respected.

Also, they have presented the k-note for our reference, no matter how Mune explained the content, that is a reference for us.

There are problems with the IEC (such as not stating their conclusion clear enough for the reader to know whether YD is a cult or not, not exposing the identity of the witnesses so that there cana be more credibility). On the other hand, there are also different kind of problems with the YD and GH (such as twisting some of the statements from others, not able to get any of the former advisors back to the board of advisors after four months' time, misleading information and improper way of promotion or fund raising). Both sides have their story and reasons. We as the readers, we decide or we can just put this aside and don't border with it, it won't hurt us at all.

I don't think the IEC will stop here as we can see and as we challenged them to expose more evidences (it might not due to our challenges at all), they have been doing that in the past. One thing that I like about the IEC is the diversity of their "evidences", they are connecting with Korea and China. This diversity of sources is very helpful.

The strength of GH and YD is their claim of not teaching those false doctrines. That is their strongest argument. The key to this is whether what they said is true or not. I think that is what the IEC is trying to expose.

Frank / 2008-08-06 14:45:18

Be Fair

當我看<柯廣輝捏造異端事件> 調查委員會的報告時，發現了事件的另一面。作為旁觀者，我認為需要兩面都看，不能只看一面就作出結論，我想這是我們作為基督徒，作為一個社會公民所應當具備的態度。著實，不同媒介對事件當然從不同角度去看問題，調查團一開始的動機是基於坊間對耶穌青年會、基督日報等等的疑團，想要作出一個解釋，在有限的時間盡力收集各地的資料，加以整理之後給大家報告，簡單來說就是一個“異端的疑惑”。

不過，當調查團的報告出來之後，耶穌青年會及基督日報又出來以另一種論調喊叫，不論大家覺得那個耶青的<捏造異端事件調查委員會>的報告水準怎樣，是不是人身攻擊，簡單來說就是“捏造異端的疑惑”。

事實上，大家看了之後有可能都會繼續傾向相信大牧組成的調查團，多於不明來歷的耶青人士組成的委員會。然而，你想像一下，如果　神在天上，有人在地上禱告，不論是好人壞人老人年輕人，祂一定都會聽我們的呼求的，不因為你是祂的大兒子，抑或是小兒子，不管你是在家中守候事奉的，還是剛從老遠跑回家的浪子，　神也都好像父親一樣，誰都會聽的。更何況，他是那位有公義、有憐憫的　神，又怎會好像一些人那樣掩耳不聽呢？

你可以質疑耶穌青年會的委員會，耶青也有權質疑調查團，然而，我們不能就因為好像多一些人站在調查團那邊，就完全覺得耶青說的都是錯，如果是這樣，這不是一種先入為主的偏見嗎？雖然有很多質疑耶青的聲音，但是耶青都有他們的道理。就好像他們的網站中指，他們雖然已經把要調查的題目8交給調查團「（《基督日報》及耶穌青年會要求加入）是否有人及/或機構故意中傷《基督日報》及耶穌青年會（討論範圍見附件）」，不過調查團就以對方證據不足否決了。我的確懷疑調查團有多注重及關心別人的訴求，如果他們真的是那麼獨立的話，不是應該兩面都聽，兩面都去調查嗎？

耶青做出來的委員會就是為了要去調查調查團沒有cover的題目，而就只有他們自己查這又是一種無可奈可的事實。為什麼呢？試問有沒有牧師願意加入去為他們調查一下第8項呢？

這種情況令我想起中學時代，有一位老師本來對某一位學生充滿了成見，所以當這個同學說什麼，他都會加以反對，甚至可以說是沒有聽進去，總是認為他在製造麻煩，諸事八掛。結果有一次這個同學因為班房空間太悶想要求開窗，老師條件反射就反對了，完全沒有聽進去他的要求，可是換了是另一位他喜歡的學生，那位學生一說，這位老師就馬上答應，讓他去開窗。這種情況令我們在旁的同學也看不過眼！

公義與否，獨立與否，不是看表面的，即使耶青那個網站被別人批評，但是我還是聽見某些牧師評論，“雖然這報告會得罪某一些人，但是事實就是事實，就算是牧師長者都需要審視自己的行為。”我認為這才是公道話。

無論如何，我認為兩面的聲音都需要聽的。

Hin / 2008-08-05 23:49:13

A small response

I think the table that was presented to us last time is not trying to confuse us. Regarding yes is yes and no is no, I think that is exactly what they are doing, I hope you get my point too.

They stated in the table for some witnesses they stated that they have received those teachings and for other witnesses, they said they haven't. As I explained that this is not a contradiction but only stating the fact that these teachings are being taught among the YDs. A teaching that is not being taught to a certain person in a certain place doesn't mean the other person in another place who sadi that he has been taught in that teaching is lieing at all. This is my point and I am not overreacting at all.

Bear in mind also that even though we don' t know the real identity of those witnesses but I am sure the IEC knows their identity for sure.

You said that it is not as clear as I think about what is being provided from the IEC, but I think it is very clear. If you ask anyone or even yourself, the reason IEC is doing all this is because they believed YD has a problem, YD is connected with GH, YD and GH is related to David Jiang and they are teaching false doctrines. If you think more, if they are not teaching false doctrines, why border to do all the investigation. There is no need to find out who is related to who, there is no point at all. Therefore, I think the IEC is sending out a very clear message even though they didn't spell it out in words. I am not trying to argue for the sake of argument but isn't it obvious that the IEC thinks that YD and GH and David Jiang will post a threat and be a danger to the Christians and that is why they carry out the investigation. I think that is very clear right from the beginning.

Once again, love to hear your suggestion as how to handle this.

Hin / 2008-08-05 23:43:18

To 教內人士: I hope you agree

I read your comments once again and I think that the IEC of YD is also as weak and unreliable as you think about the IEC led by Kwong, am I right? They didn't expose enough clear evidences to us as well, am I right?

I think a lot of people might have lost their interest in following this already. What the GH and YD are doing is to secure their own members or followers? They need to do that. What the IEC is doing is try to expose more to warn the churches (for they think they know something that we don't know and I think they are out of goodwill for doing that).

Hin / 2008-08-05 23:27:50

Thanks 教內人士

This time, I really means what I said, thank you for being so calm and after reading your comment this time, I got the impression (even a personal conclusion) that you are not speaking for YD nor GH.

Honestly speaking, I think the IEC can do better, the thing that border us most is that they can't expose as much as we wish. I try to think on their behalf and hope that they can respond more. Actually, they already did.

But, on the other hand, what if a witness come out and said what Mary has said, does that help? It seems not much. First, YD said that she is a false witness and then deny that she is a former YD. If Mary goes on and show evidences that she is a former YD, can we see those evidences and will YD once again deny those evidences? It is really hard even if the IEC is willing to expose more evidences.

And also I really doubted the way GH and YD are reporting and responding. You won't be happy if I twisted your words and meanings, they have been doing a lot of those in the past months. That is why I had a very bad impression and conclusion about them. I went to their website and I really don't like it at all.

Anyway, I will listen to your advice and I don't want to play any games with words or logic. I just hope that the IEC will continue to expose more helpful evidence to us.

After all these, even if GH is not associated with YD and even YD is not teaching false doctrines, I am not interested at all to have anything to do with them.

I had the feeling that you are a very experienced pastor or Christian worker, do you have any suggestion how we should handle this?

教內人士 / 2008-08-05 22:56:45

再次反思

HIN，我覺得你的回答經常有overracted 的情況，請饒恕我這樣說。你的反應給人的感覺是：你只會抓住別人說的某些字眼就攻擊別人。我從來未有從幫助耶青的出發點去討論這件事情，你常誤解我的意思，將我說的某些話歪曲來解釋，又沒有看到我整篇文章要表達的內容。另外，在討論耶青事件上，你也是玩文字邏輯，一味偏向幫助調查團，未有正視耶青所表達的重點，我希望你看到這些你所犯的盲點，我們的討論也可以比較有意思地進行，請不要一味將那套「耶青=不可靠」的觀點加諸別人。你讓人有吃不消的霸道感覺，弟兄，說話小心點，不要一味用血氣！

上次調查團登出來的那個表格，顯然也只是一個參考，並沒有給我們一個清晰的圖畫，有的地方說有、有的地方說無，即是什麽意思？有就是有，沒有就是沒有。這些證人是誰？無從考究！我不是說調查團故意做假證，這一舉動是需要有動機支持的；然而排除該可能性，我們仍然應該對不知道身份的證人（不是對調查團）存質疑態度。

調查團既然不是存心要扮演宗教警察或者宗教法庭，那麼他們的角色就是要將他們找到的證據，公開給大家去看清楚，自行判斷。調查團給我們的資料是似是而非的，叫我們怎樣判斷呢？我到現在為止，不是想要下結論說耶青有問題或者無問題，我的意思是調查團和耶青雙方各執一詞，都已經夠我們混亂，真相並不是如HIN說的那樣明明白白，反而是越來越模糊才對。

另一方面，若調查團斷然要做宗教法庭的角色，那麼他們快點告訴我們耶青是否異端、支持的理據是什麽？現在拖拖拉拉，事件是否能夠無疾而終呢？正如HIN說的，如果（我說如果）耶青是存在異端教義，那麼就該快點處決吧？調查團還找不夠料子嗎？HIN說他們需要防範耶青控告他們，所以一直小心翼翼，不敢下判斷，其實這也是無力的推測。說實話，在香港的法律上，控告別人誹謗並不是這麼容易的事情，一年才那麼兩三宗。而且涉及宗教信仰的範疇的話，是更加難的，因為這涉及到個人自由和信念。不知道多少教派被罵異端，也沒有真的上到法庭去。宗教事宜是否能夠用法律來處理，我想柯廣輝律師最清楚！

再值得思考的另外一個問題，究竟耶青事件本來是否應該這樣處理呢？對於嚴肅的教義問題，是否能夠用世俗法律和信仰角度混合來做公正呢？是否真有如此的一個交叉點？一位律師作為判斷異端的調查團代表人究竟是否恰當？為什麽今時今日，本來是一件純粹於主內一家有關信仰的事宜差點要弄上世俗的法庭呢？所謂家有家規，國有國法，基督徒應如何自處？正值末世之時，如今主內一家卻是亂紛紛，誰知道類似的事情哪一日再次發生在某教會、某機構？

Hin / 2008-08-05 18:48:59

To 教內人士: IEC of YD is unreliable as you said

HIN ，我認為一個人若要戴著有色眼睛去看這件事情的話，無論耶青怎麼解釋，都會換來像你一樣的反駁。

I think we are all wearing some kind of glasses, aren't we?

你指出1) 耶青對王永信牧師回覆柯廣輝律師的信有過分的猜測 2)耶青沒有拿出證據的全部，而只是節錄，說實話，過分的猜測和無證據，這兩點不也是調查團同樣所犯的嚴重毛病嗎？

If both parties are over speculating and without evidences (I am saying if only), then how can we know the truth? That is why I repeatedly emphasize that we need to look at other areas and from other perspectives, such as their approachs, their motives, their usual practises........I think even when we go to the court, in cases where there can't be any proven evidences, the judge will judge according to the character, the past history, the references from other people, the consistency of the testimonies... of the defendant and the accuser.

Just look at the recent case of YD quoting the Korean pastors, that is how misleading and misinterpretation they can have. Just look at the title of GH Hong Kong about the report of IEC, that is how contradictory they can report facts in a totally opposite way. I can list a lot more cases, didn't you discover those contradictions, misleadings, misinterpretations.....? I am really surprise you couldn't see them.

請問到現在為止，我們誰有看過調查團提供的什麽證據嗎？調查團聲稱，他們有超過20個國內前耶穌青年會會員作證人，證人指證耶青有「十字架是失敗」、「張大衛牧師再來的基督」這一類的異端教義。然後調查團登出了一個內容幾乎是自相矛盾的、看了也不明白的綜合表格。

I think the table is very clear and might be not clear to you only. The contradiction that you refer to is some witnesses said that they have heard a certain teaching while some said they haven't. That is not contradiction at all. For example, when I first accept Christ, I haven't heard of the inerrancy of the Bible but some have, is that contradiction? Absolutely not! Some of the witnesses haven't heard of some teachings simply because they haven't.

試問證詞在哪裡？這些人是誰？調查團對眾教會所報道和交代的，不也是虛無縹緲的所謂「證據」嗎？在我看來，是比耶青現在拿出來的那些「無兩樣」。

Are you saying that YD's evidences are 虛無縹緲? Thank you for confirming that with me.

最令人奇怪的是，調查團同樣拿著這些虛無縹緲的東西，繼續向眾教會宣傳他們得到的結論——「不排除」中國耶青「有高度可能性」傳̀「類似」統一教教義。請留意那些「」部分，他們也是拿著不那麼實際的東西來猜測耶青是類似異端。這不算是無謂的、過分的猜測嗎？

Don't forget that the Yeungs and IEC both have received legal letters from YD and they have to be very careful in choosing of words. You should also know that in actual legal cases, if the witness is not careful or even the prosecutor make a wrong move, the guilty can become innocent easily or they can be in deep trouble themselves. If you have been to some legal cases, then you should know; if not, ask some legal friends and they can tell you.

耶青所做出來的網站，手法可圈可點，然而請留意調查團實在也是用一樣的手段來處理這件異端調查事件，你可以說耶青只不過在進行「以牙還牙，以眼還眼」的反擊。

I am totally against the idea of 「以牙還牙，以眼還眼」. Does that mean if the IEC brainwash (I am saying if) the YD members, then YD can brainwash the IEC members too? Does that mean if the IEC lies (I am saying if), then YD can lie too?

不同的是，耶青所做的最後不會傷害什麽人，因為明顯地到最後，充滿著崇拜大牧主義的華人教會仍然會站在這些大牧們和專業人士們這邊，仍然會接納和原諒他們的過犯。只是，若然調查團繼續用不公平、不恰當的手段來進行調查的話，引致錯誤判斷了耶青為異端，就是成為了迫害弟兄、阻擋神的國度的兇手。試問調查團豈可不慎？華人教會豈可視而不見？請大家三思！

If YD is spreading the false teaching, are you saying that they won't do much damage? Don't tell me that or may be you already wear the glasses saying "YD is clean"!

Look at it this way, YD and GH must defend themselves in order to survive, why are the IEC doing what they are doing? Is it just as you said that they want to persecute brothers in Christ? Is it just as some speculate that they do all these out of jealousy? Come on, these group of pastors and professionals are all very very busy people, they spend hours and hours in the last eight months for a very valid reason. If there are any wrong motive, I think someone must have withdraw from the group and even expose the problem (if they are there to gain reputation, that will give the person a very good opportunity, again, I am saying if).

Anyway, thanks for concluding that the IEC of YD is unreliable!

教內人士 / 2008-08-05 12:14:07

調查團豈可不慎

HIN ，我認為一個人若要戴著有色眼睛去看這件事情的話，無論耶青怎麼解釋，都會換來像你一樣的反駁。你指出1) 耶青對王永信牧師回覆柯廣輝律師的信有過分的猜測 2)耶青沒有拿出證據的全部，而只是節錄，說實話，過分的猜測和無證據，這兩點不也是調查團同樣所犯的嚴重毛病嗎？

請問到現在為止，我們誰有看過調查團提供的什麽證據嗎？調查團聲稱，他們有超過20個國內前耶穌青年會會員作證人，證人指證耶青有「十字架是失敗」、「張大衛牧師再來的基督」這一類的異端教義。然後調查團登出了一個內容幾乎是自相矛盾的、看了也不明白的綜合表格。試問證詞在哪裡？這些人是誰？調查團對眾教會所報道和交代的，不也是虛無縹緲的所謂「證據」嗎？在我看來，是比耶青現在拿出來的那些「無兩樣」。

Hin / 2008-08-04 20:47:05

It is not east at all

I tried to read the website from the YD IEC and I found that it is not easy for any reader to get the real picture at all.

In their report, there are 7 items, I looked at the one about Rev. Wang on item 5 and I found these statements:

2007 年 12 月 31 日，柯廣輝律師致函王永信牧師指教，王牧師於 1 月 8 日回函柯律師及其他調查團成員。他稱贊調查團所訂「調查範圍」甚佳，但有關教義方面的關注似乎稍弱。他更提醒柯律師，一般異端幕後具有龐大組織，嚴格管治，及神祕的運作。《基督日報》及耶青也有類似情況，拿不到上層的真正「資料」或「證據」，難以觸摸。而一般法律所看重的正是資料或證據。他言下之意好像是指柯律師用公平的法律手法是無法查出真相的。( 備有 Email 查詢 )

Rev. Wang said that it is difficult to find evidence but he never implied that it is impossible to find out the truth using legal channels and methods. He only said that the court will only look at evidence. Read it again:一般法律所看重的正是資料或證據。

Their deduction is very misleading and injust, it is implying that Rev. Wang is suggesting to the IEC to use illegal channels and methods in order to get to the bottom of it which this will further to back up their other accusations against the IEC and the Yeungs. This is inappropriate and misleading. They shouldn't imply anything but just report the facts.

They also said: 另一疑點是，王牧師竟然將中神神學研究員院長兼世界福音派聯盟 ( World Evangelical Alliance) 神學委員之一的余達心牧師，寫成柯廣輝調查團的主席；未知王牧師是否有心借此將柯廣輝調查團之可信度增加。 (備有王牧師以大使命中心的正式信箋散播柯廣輝調查團報告查詢 )

What kind of implication is that again? Once again, they put intention into Rev. Wang's mind. Dr. Yu doesn't have to be the chair of IEC in order to increase the credibility of IEC at all. It is also interesting that they didn't attach the letter in this but they did attached a link about their letter to Rev. Wang. Interesting! I want to see the letter but couldn't. I want to see the letter myself in order to see if there could be any typo error.

I then went to the "evidence" but there is only two links about Rev. Wang. One is the letter with five names on it. Again, the content is not there but just the bottom part of the letter with the five names. Secondly, is the report from Rev. Wang to Christian Times regarding his meeting with GH. They only highlighted the paragraph where Rev. Wang warned about YD and not the whole letter. If we remember, we should know that the reason for this letter is becasue GH send a report to Christian Times and report the meeting with Rev. Wang and it is very misleading. It seems that Rev. Wang is supporting GH (at least this is what I got from the report). On the next day, Rev. Wang send this report to Christian Times to clarify.

Based on these two "evidences", I don't see how YD can conclude what they said about Rev. Wang at all.

Then, I went to "resources" and what I found is just a lot of articles and reports from the same group of people, echoing and repeating themselves. I am amazing to see one title in the GH link:

基督日報調查風波結束結果證日報毫無嫌疑

It is really amazing to me that they still have this title. If that is true, why am I reading what I am reading right now?

Then, I switch to item 4 about 有關中國國內年輕信徒遭遇精神控制毒害情況. I found that it mentioned about the Yeungs going to China and meeting with the YD members.

The only major evidence that they presented is about a Shanghai couple meeting with Yeung in a coffee shop and also the list of e-mails that Yeung send to them after the meeting.

上海一對曾參加耶青的夫婦就經馬俐介紹(這位姊妹並非耶青成員，後來隨楊子聰到香港做假證人)接觸過楊子聰。 1 月 20 日在復旦大學附近某咖啡室，聽了他講述「耶青是有毒信仰」、「耶青是操控性教派」、「張在亨牧師與統一教有關」等與事實不符的話，他們並沒有動搖。楊子聰只好離開，互相交換了聯絡方式(上海夫婦與楊子聰接觸經過實錄)。

另一方面，楊子聰亦繼續用電郵將更多所謂「證據」發給上海那對夫婦。他們觀察到收件群組上是一批為數不少的國內人士，心知楊子聰對中國耶青意圖不軌，感到十分不安，故立即通知耶青同工，表示願意出來指證楊子聰的所為(上海夫婦收到來自楊子聰的電郵)。

Based on the above two paragraphs, meeting once in a coffee shop and a list of e-mails, is that brainwashing and 精神控制毒害? Brainwashing can't be done in one encounter and in a coffee shop. The e-mail list is 14 e-mails in two months, meaning less than 2 e-mails a month.

This Shanghai couple also said that 以後陸續的在我的先生信箱裏收到了一些他發給我們的 EMAIL 。我們也沒大細看。If they didn't even read those e-mails, how can Yeung brainwashing nor 精神控制毒害 this couple?

GH has been sending a lot of e-mails to many people trying to accuse IEC and many other people. GH has been meeting with many people, some more than once trying to do the same. Can I conclude that they are brainwashing people and 精神控制毒害 believers and pastors?

Also, I found it interesting in the report about this couple, in the report, it stated:

接到了以前一起在教會的姐妹馬俐的電話 , 說是好久不見 , 想見見我 , 敘敍舊。

我還和我的先生一起去的 , 馬俐本來只約我 , 但 , 我想我的先生和我一起 , 我的先生也說 , 得跟我一起去 , 因為馬俐可能對教會有很多恨和誤解 , 怕她說這說那的 , 影響我。

It seems that they are together in the same church before. GH and YD have been denying that Mary was a YD member. What did these statement tell us? If this Shanghai couple are former YD members, then what about Mary?

It took me almost two hours to read and respond, I think it is also very difficult for other readers "not" to be confused by the reports from YD.

I hope YD and GH won't conclude that I am with the IEC nor I am working with Rev. Wang or Rev. Lo or Yeungs....please don't fabricate things for me and leave me alone.

Hin / 2008-08-04 18:46:49

I agreed with 教內人士

I agreed that even if a Christain lawyer, a respected pastor committed a mistake, we should not let go or deny the fact.

We also need to bear in mind that the issue with the seminary and GH are two different cases, there might be similarity but we can't deduced a conclusion from one case to another.

Also, the note about "especially pastors from the Baptist" is without ground at all. Drawing this kind of deduction and conclusion is inappropriate and ungrounded.

YD and IEC can both present what they want regarding their observations and conclusions but it is up to the churches and Christians to draw their own conclusion. Will there be someone who is able to give all the details 100% true and correct? I doubted and I think it is impossible at all. Will someone be able to verify all the statements that are presented in both reports? Again, it is not possible at all.

But, based on the process, reactions, methods, motivations, investigation committees, responses from others.....we can draw the conclusion. I think many churches are doing that already.

At the end, some might think that YD and GH has a big scheme and is master minded by David Jiang right from the beginning, that is fine, they can do that. Also, some might think that it is a pure business scheme from some Christians and it is the "senior" giving the "junior" or "older Christian leaders" giving the "younger Christians" a hard time, they can do that too.

But, I still encourage those who want to come to any conclusion to read as much as they could and to read with their mind and reasoning.

教內人士 / 2008-08-04 10:04:39

內幕故事

不知道大家有否仔細看了最近耶青做的網站呢？內容講述整件事件的發展過程，當我們詢問究竟是耶青有問題或者是調查團有問題，這些內幕故事為大家提供更多資料去判斷。

對於柯律師及這些大牧們與耶青之間的爭論，大部分人單單以調查團報告為準，選擇對耶青一方所表達的立場視而不見，充耳不聞。人們說這個網站一面倒也罷，但是內容確實揭發了調查團事件之案中有案，並不是一般人認為讀柯廣輝的報告就可以下結論的這麼簡單的一回事。

倘若有人要為耶青的事件負責，並不是耶青一方而已，為要高舉公義的華人教會也應審察是否有人處理不當，即使是一位律師、某些大牧犯了錯，也必須要正視。

華人教會內紛爭不斷，這次針對耶青的事件也只不過是其中一件罷了。不知道大家最近有否留意到有關浸神的報道，若然浸神內部也可以針對某位牧者的某些個人言論以內部調查團法庭式的方法來解決，那又難怪對於耶青，眾牧者（特別是浸信會牧者）又會搞出這樣的事件來。在我看來，這一切都是悲劇，讓上帝和人同樣憤恨的事情。

Hin / 2008-08-03 22:20:15

James: watch the title you chose

Did the IEC really bear false witnesses and fabricated false evidences? You need solid evidences for that but so far, I don't see any proven evidences for the accusation.

It is much easier to defend than to accuse in this case because if there is any wrong move, an overstatement, an inappropriate remark, a misused phrase, the defender can easily pick it up and drop it as a bomb onto the accuser.

When YD continue to deny that they are lieing about their faith, the IEC also deny that they are bearing false witnesses, we can't judge by this kind of claim but look at the evidences presented.

We need to look at the sources of those evidences, how diverse they are, an evidence is stronger when it is back up from different sources instead of just one. That is the case we need to use for comparing between YD and IEC.

I don't see why other parties are willing to put their name on the line for the IEC. Putting one's name on the line for something good is understandable, but for something that is so controversial, unless there is a valid and strong reason, I don't see why those people and parties would do that at all.

Up to this point, can we concluded that YD is found by David Jiang? I really don't know why YD is hiding this.

Can we also know that whether David Jiang or his network finance or support GH and other related media?

I also want to know and waiting to know where are those GH key people? Are they attending any Chinese churches? If so, why not ask their pastors to stand up for them and speak up for them? Why only the YD people are speaking for the YD and no one else?

Even for Mune, how do we know he is not lieing at all in his blog? How do we know he is not defending YD for YD's sake? It seems that he is still attending and actively involve with YD? Am I right? He is not an ex-YD at all. Then, what does that tell us about the k-notes?

For any newcomers, it is really hard to see the whole picture but going to both the IEC and YD's IEC websites will help. If they can also go to the link at Christian Times to see the past articles as the background, that will provide the context too.

Well, anyway, not too many people are reading this and it is just a ground for those who are concern to exchange some opinions.

Hin / 2008-08-03 20:06:19

To James: Can't you see the problems?

According to CT's report:

重復已經提出過的、沒有根據的疑惑而已。本報記者親赴現場採訪, 結果反而聽到提出疑惑的人捏造証據及企圖洗腦証人的証據和証詞。

How do they conclude that what the IEC presented has no ground? What about the ground for claiming that what IEC presented are all fabricated and the brainwashing of witnesses? Where are the grounds for these accusations?

The fabrication and brain washing accusations against the IEC must be presented by the YD members who were also presented there (we can see that in the report that YD members are there) but CT didn't mention who mentioned these accusations.

Why is it that what IEC presented has no ground and what YD presented has solid ground? Bear in mind the connection between YD and CT.

柯廣輝律師向以上三位牧師表示將會把証人們的証詞做公証發給韓國, 但是耶青方面反駁說：「就算把偽証做公証發過去, 仍然有 10 倍、 100 倍的証據可以完全推翻它。」

Why did YD conclude the evidences from IEC will be false and their 10 times or 100 times evidences will be true and genuine? In order to overturn the evidences from the IEC, YD must first proof their evidences are true first. They just kept making claims but I don't see any evidences to proof their claims are true.

本報記者在當地調查, 結果對耶青提出疑惑的人們捏造証據並洗腦証人等一系列的無恥行為一一被揭露了出來。曾主張說自己是耶青的成員, 並且主張帶有異端性教導的講義是耶青講義的 A 氏表示, 自己不是親耳聽到過講道, 而是通過 e-mail 收到的。根據調查証實, 發信人為楊子聰。還有一些人作証說：「楊子聰曾找過他們想要收買他們。」

How do they uncover the fabrication of evidences and brainwashing of witnesses? Again, they made the claim without ground. Why mention A only and not the K-notes? How did and what did A actually presented, who knows? They quoted "someone" said that Yeung try to 收買 them. Do they know the meaning of the word? How do they know the testimony of these people are true? I can say anything I want, I can say that CT is trying to brain wash me. I can say that YD try to 收買 me. I can say whatever I want but it doesn't mean what I said will be true at all.

韓國耶青的 Dae Gi KIM 總務（韓基總青年大學生委員會專門委員）表示：「即將對於柯廣輝等人進行法律訴訟, 雙方証詞的真實與否也即將被証實, 對於此事韓國或別的地區不應出於政治上的目的予以利用, 而且韓國介入在中國進行的事情於理不合。」

I am glad to see that so that the truth can be revealed. What is the political mandate from other countries? I couldn't understand why he mention this at all. Bear in mind, Kim is representing the YD in Korea.

Dae Gi KIM 總務說：「柯廣輝等人只是能夠出示那些証人曾屬於耶青的証據就可以了, 但是不知道為什麼到現在都拿不出來, 並且斷然表示『耶穌青年會不信耶穌, 否認十字架, 而相信大學教授張在亨牧師為再來的主』, 這是非常可笑的。」 Dae Gi KIM 總務補充, 現今耶青已經得到了柯廣輝等人的主張為偽証的決定性証據, 要求雙方成立共同調查團相互公証做出結論, 對此他們滿懷信心。

Again, bear in mind, this statement is made by Kim, the head of YD in Korea. They can made all the claims they want but let's wait to see the evidences.

There is a lot more we can say and talk about but I think the reader should be able to see the differences. Just look at the YD's IEC:

委員會的成員
國際耶穌青年會各地同工領袖

Isn't that amazing? They are the "IEC" investigating the problem between them and the IEC led by Kwong and his team. Can't you see the problem here?

Don't forget that after the Koreans visited IEC, they have issued a letter, a formal letter to IEC:

吾等，Hyung Taek PARK、Sam Kyung CHAE、Young Sik JIN是韓基總調查委員會的三名委員，調查委員會在2004年至2005年就張大衛牧師與統一教的關係展開調查。

調查委員會當時的結論是，“調查委員會沒有找到任何嫌疑，指張大衛1997年以後與統一教有關連。

我們現謹澄清上述結論的意思：

他在1997年以前與統一教有關連。
上述結論的意思不是張大衛沒有異端思想。

因此，他濫用調查委員會的議決來證明自己與異端教義沒有關連，是不正確的。

Read it and tell me what it is about. They are against David Jiang misusing their conclusion, as simple as that. Don't try to go further than that or add things to it.

James / 2008-08-02 23:52:41

調查團嚴重失實報導......

根據耶穌青年會新登出來的網站(http://www.danielorcommittee-investigation.org)，發現事實並非如上述報導所說的韓國及日本都出來指控。事實是此次來香港的三位韓國牧師只是以個人身份來的，並非調查團所說的是CCK派來的．可以查看Christian Today KR的報導：原文http://www.christiantoday.co.kr/view.htm?id=193545　Translation：http://www.danielorcommittee-investigation.org/supplementalmaterials/01_kr.htm。而日本的“日本異端防治及康復協會（ Japan Society of Cult Prevention and Recovery ）的平岡正幸牧師”本身也沒有斷定 CT 是異端．詳細內容可查看：http://www.danielorcommittee-investigation.org/investigationreports/article6.htm．

調查團的報導實在是.......失實!

Hin / 2008-08-01 19:16:01

James, stop confusing the case

Please look at the letter from Korea:

2008年7月9日

敬愛的柯律師：

願神的恩惠常與您同在。
吾等現謹回覆閣下有關韓基總調查委員會在2006年就張大衛牧師所作議決的查詢。

In the last paragraph, the word"他" in "他濫用調查委員會的議決" is referring to David Jiang.

And in Eric's comment about the rumor from a second source:

Pastor Tsui, "There is overwhelming evidence. The Korean churches should be alerted. If YD thinks there is defamation, go to sue IEC."

It is absolutely nothing close to"催牧師也認為Daniel調查團在捏造別人是異端" as you said.

Isn't this the exact way how cults came into existence? By misinterpreting the original meaning (of the scripture) and then add in their own. Be careful, James.

Eric / 2008-08-01 14:54:23

don't be stupid, James

Like you, I heard from seconrd source:

Then YD chose to believe that Tsuai thinks YD innocent, and wants YD to sue IEC.

YD, wake up please.

James / 2008-08-01 11:38:00

聽說韓國來的催牧師提議耶青趕快控告Daniel調查團

那是不是表示了催牧師也認為Daniel調查團在捏造別人是異端呢？

資料庫 > 專輯 > 《基督日報》事件專輯

報道