Christadelphians...

[Guest]

Hi Steve!

Just wondering if you've heard of Christadelphians. They are NOT Trinitarians and strongly deny deity of Jesus Christ. However, their love for God the Father and the Son of God Jesus do seem genuine... and the scriptural knowledge is also unbelievably well. They don't have modified versions of the Bible such as Mormons or the JWs. I've debated with them on their forum for a while, but since I'm a relatively young Christians and my scriptural knowledge is limited, I have been unsuccessful at winning any debates against them. However, the more I debated, the more I'm convinced of deity of Christ though. Unlike most other Trinitarians Christians, I do see them as brothers and sisters... just that they have totally opposite interpretation of the Word. So somebody's gotta be wrong, it's possible that Trinitarians are wrong I guess...

Anyway, back to my original question, just wondering what are you views of the Christadelphians...

[_STEVE7150]

Billi, Hi i'm little Steve but i know something about Christadelphians. I think they were founded by John Thomas around 1840 in Philadelphia. They are scattered around the world now in different congregations. I think they believe Jesus was a perfect man and the Son of God but as you said not divine but more for an example for us to follow. But the problem i think is that if you believe he was not divine then he would not have the authority to die for the sins of mankind. In other words you could'nt really believe in the atonement if you don't believe Jesus is divine. JWs are a little different because they believe he was exalted to divinity by his death on the cross if i understand their doctrine correctly.

[Guest]

From Some Partial-Pret guy (too lazy to log in)

JW's "jesus" is the created being known as the archangel Micheal.
Micheal was sent to earth as the man Jesus,
who in their worldview,
didn't raise bodily from the grave,
thus not really defeating death.

The true biblical Jesus, being the one true God, was never created, and has always existed without beginning, the great "I AM" of the burning bush, and therefore can not be the same fellow the JW's promote.

just to add some more detail to post above.

HAPPY LABOR DAY, EVERYONE!! WHOOP-WHOOP. NO WORK TODAY!!!

[Guest]

One thing I have a lot of respect for the Christadelphians are their biblical knowledge. They sorta have to in order to believe something that's quite a bit against the popular Christian view of Christ.

Anyway, I just find Steve's understanding of the Bible to be somewhere in between the Christadelphians and the typical Trinitarian Christians... that's why I was interested in hearing what he has to say...

As Steve himself would readily admit that the Trinity Doctrine is a man-made doctrine and only 'implied' in the bible. Were all the apostles Trinitarians? I guess we'd never really know for sure. One thing we know for sure is that they must be saved by God. That salvation isn't depended on a human council's decision. Christadelphians claimed that council made a wrong decision and led people astray... They believe in Son of God, just not God the Son. To us, Trinity Doctrine is clearly implied in the Bible, but Christadelphians clearly see that the Trinity Doctrine is not directly taught in scripture... therefore, unacceptable.

Another thing interesting is that Christadelphians don't believe in Satan. They believe Satan is just basically our flesh. Even the serpent in Garden of Eden was basically something within our hearts... They simply don't believe that Satan was an fallen angel as most Christians tend to believe because that fallen event was simply not recorded in the Bible. Satan clearly isn't king of Babylon. In fact, they don't believe in any sort of spiritual beings. Not even for humans. When you die, you just go poof... until resurrection. They believe that Jesus said to the thief, 'I tell you the truth today, you will be with me in paradise'. (They believe this based on their interpretation of the scripture. Plus, original greek has no punctuations... so whether that comma is before the word 'today' or after can certainly make a huge impact.) My only complain is that Jesus has never said "I tell you the truth today, ..." Jesus quite often used "I tell you the truth,...' but never did he ever tag along a 'today' after that...

Anyway, I simply don't believe the Christadelphians according to my conscience, but I have to admit some of their interpretations do sound 'biblical' because they are very bible based. Regarding atonement of Jesus, well, I think they simply believe Christ as an obedient Lamb of God. Like Son of God, being a lamb of God doesn't necessarily mean that he's God. They firmly believe that there is only One God, who is the Father, and one mediator, the man, Jesus Christ. Their belief is scriptural. I'm having difficulties winning debates against them..., that's why I'm interested in Steve's help.

[Guest]

Jesus actually said:

And he said to him, "Truly I am telling you today you will be with me in Paradise." Luke 23:43

True, there was no punctuation in the early manuscripts of the New Testament that are extant. Indeed there are no spaces between the words either, and there are ONLY upper-case letters.

The expression "I am telling you today" is not an unusual way of speaking. Even today, we hear people say, "I'm telling you right now".

[Guest]

Yeah, that's the Christadelphian's claim that it's common usage at that time. Still, I don't think there's another incident where Jesus spoke that way recorded in the New Testament else where. What makes this even tougher is that this particular verse can only be found in Luke and no other Gospels.

I guess we'll have to wait and ask Lord Jesus exact what he meant when he comes back. If it's indeed 'I tell you the truth today,...' then I think Christadelphians are more in the right than Trinitarians.

If it's indeed 'I tell you the truth, TODAY you will be with me in paradise', then for sure Christadelphians are totally wrong about their doctrine.

Anyway, this is just one incident that led our debate to nowhere. We both faithfully followed scripture, yet, we come to drastically different conclusions. I don't believe that they're right, but I cannot conclusively say that they are wrong too. Oh well...

[Guest]

hey everybody, i too have struggled with the christadelphians, mainly the "berean christadelphians" they broke away from the original christadelphians in 1923. i once was a berean christadelphian, and my father and stepmother are very "up there" in the berean christadelphian world. while i was in it, i had an enormous amount of pride for a few reasons, i was able to look at all these big churches all over my town and say "gosh all these people are decieved, i'm so happy i know the truth" those kind of things, now i am a Christian, and strongly attempt to defend the trinity, and other disputes they have with "mainstream Christian doctrine". the difference with the B.C.'s is that they do very exhaustive bible studies (of course studies from their own members), and they have memory verses, and since my dad has been one for the past 3 or 4 years maybe, he has a good chunk of the bible memorized, and every other sentence out of his mouth is a bible verse, but how i feel about that is the same way Jesus spoke to the pharisees "You search the scriptures all the day long thinking that in them you will find life, but enless you come to Me you have no life in you." the main things i see wrong with them isnt their view on Christ, it is their veiw of a works salvation, my dad once sent me an e-mail that on of the BC's in canada had sent out, and it was a dream she had (they dont believe in the "supernatural" gifts, but i guess they made an exception, and it was all about throwing a guilt trip on the BC's, it was that the ressurection had happened and she got denied at the judgement seat and she turned around and was walking away saying "i guess i could have spent more time with the ecclesia, and made it to more fellowship meetings..." luckily i read this after i had come to my senses on the BC doctrine, and other stuff is about the founder of the christadelphians john thomas, he prophesied many things falsely, and said when Jesus was coming back... and it didnt happen... so even if their doctrine was on point, just the fact that they take every word from john thomas as it might as well be scripture says enough to me to not follow them. a couple of good websites that address the christadelphians are

http://www.ondoctrine.com/10chdelp.htm

http://www.carm.org/christadelphian.htm

[Guest]

Denying Christ's divinity should be the only sign a Christian needs to know to walk away from their teaching; all of it. Christadelphians are being taught by false teachers.

[EJK]

Christadelphians; excel in bible knowledge, will run rings with this knowledge around most christians, refute trinity, they have a good point "the trinity " is not in the bible, it was Nicean councils decision, but trinity was discussed prior to that. I personally do not like the word "trinity"' I like to use unity- Godhead- but the founder of christadelphians- John Thomas, used "God Manifestation". He said in his book "phenerosis":- there are not three God's in the Godhead, nor are there three in manifestation, nevertheless the Father is God and Jesus is God, and we may add, so are all the brethren gods and multitude which no man can number. The Godhead is the homogeneous fountain of Diety, these other gods are the many streams which form this mountain flow. Also he said about Christ : for He (GOD) turned the body into spirit and made it one in nature with Himself, the spirit Son of the eternal spirit equal in power and glory-God-Christ-because born of the Spirit and therefore God, because spirit is God. So JT calls Jesus God and refutes trinity ???. Jesus said that God is Spirit. However CD's say that Jesus is only son of God. Somehow they claim that they have worked it all out from the bible, that all christianity , theologians then and now are wrong, that CD's alone hold the truth. As I read from the bible and may I add that christians I know have the same view as 1Tim.3:16 states-"and without controversy great is the mystery of Godliness, God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached onto gentiles, believed in the world, recieved up in Glory". I believe there is a mystery to God that we fully do not comprehend, but CD's think that they are clever enough to understand and explain. It is their view as JW or Mormons. CD's are stuck on Christ second coming and think that they will rule with Him in His kingdom on earth.

[Paidion]

I think the Christadelphians are clearly wrong in their assertion that Jesus didn't pre-exist (Jesus said, "Before Abraham was I am"). Jesus as the Son of God was truly divine.

However, I don't think 1Tim.3:16 can be used to prove that "God was manfest in the flesh."

The Greek ΘC (theos), with the letters theta and sigma overlined not underlined, occurs in most Alexandrian uncials, but the Greek letters "OC" (who, which) occurs in some Alexandrian uncials as well as the Ephraim Rescriptus uncials. Most Greek experts including Kurt Aland, Bruce Metzger, and others, consider "OC" as more likely to have been the word which was written in the original autograph. This reading is also supported by the early writers Epiphanius, Jerome, Theodore, Eutherius, Cyril, and Liberatus.

The word 'OC" has been rendered as "who" by Philips, Rotherham, and the translators of the WTNT.
It has been rendered as "He" by the translators of the ASV, BBE, ESV, RSV, HCSB, NASB, and Williams. There are others.
It has been rendered as "which" by Murdoch.

The following translations have understood the original to have used the Greek word ΘC (should be overlined, but I can't do this when posting). They have translated it as "God":
AV, NKJV, Calvin, Webster, YLT, JB2000, EMTV, and Darby. There are others.

Unfortunately, there are no extant papyri of the letter to Timothy among the early papyri prior to the year 300 A.D.

So since the early uncials don't agree, we cannot be certain as to which word Paul actually wrote in his letter to Timothy.