Talk:Christadelphians/Archive 2

Major edit

I have completely rewritten the Beliefs section, tinkered a fair bit with the Organisation and History sections, and removed the duplicated posts from the Talk page. RJB

Well well well

1. I've just deleted some antique stuff from this talk page... when you chaps have finished with your extensive conversation about the numbers of Christadelphians in Australia etc, could you please delete it?
2. It looks like the "History" section is rather disorganised and also blown out of proportion. The beliefs and organisation are more important, and should be longer. If the tiny splinters are so important, they should maybe get separate sub-sections, maybe separate articles. DJP 12:03, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. Alright, I had a go at it myself. If anyone is miffed that I chopped their finely crafted prose, please get it out of the "history". I really do think it was much too long.
4. The conscientious objection thing is now a bit odd. But I can't think what to do with it. DJP 12:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another major edit

Good to see things moving forward. I don't know what others think, but I reckon we're making progress. Still a lot of work to do, though.

I've done another major edit to try to accomodate some of DJP's suggestions, and a few other things that were bugging me. Here's an extensive summary, so that people know the reasons, and don't simply revert or amend to previous versions:

1. Removed the opening sentence about Christadelphians believing in the literal return of Christ, etc, and included most of that information in subsequent paragraphs. This was to remove unnecessary repetition, and start at "the beginning" (i.e. faith in God and the Bible).

2. Restored the word "claim" to the sentence about Christadelphian beliefs being based solely on the Bible. As a Christadelphian, I believe that Christadelphian beliefs are based solely on the Bible, but if this article is to have credibility, it has to be written from an objective perspective. Many other Christian communities could write in articles about themselves, that "their beliefs are based solely on the Bible", a claim that we might disagree with. Let's make sure Christadelphians contributing this article don't make the same mistake of adding things which would be seen as subjective.

3. Restored the two paragraphs moved from History to Organisation. "After Roberts' death..." didn't make much sense when Roberts hadn't been mentioned.

4. Removed the italicised part of this sentence: "Hell is understood to refer to the grave, rather than a place of eternal torment, in this sense it is more in line with the Old Testament description of Hell as Sheol." Not the clearest English, and I'm not sure how we can say that hell is described as Sheol? However, the link to the Sheol article would be good. Perhaps someone would like to have another go and making a connection?

5. Transferred most of the information about John Thomas to the John Thomas page. Now he has his own page, he doesn't need a biography on the Christadelphian page!

6. As DJP suggested, I have significantly cut the History section. I'm largely responsible for its former length. In an effort to be conciliatory, I tried to include most of what had been written by others, but this required a lot of padding, in order to correct the impression that Christadelphian history consisted solely of divisions, and that nothing much has happened since the death of Robert Roberts. However, much of the Christadelphian history covered is of little relevance to the average Christadelphian today, or for an encyclopaedic summary.

7. Revised the section on factions/fellowships. Terminology such as "clean flesh", "resurrectional responsibility", "Birmingham Central" was removed. These mean next to nothing without further explanation, and a wiki article really isn't the place to discuss these details.

8. Removed several links - see Wikipedia:External_links for some useful advice. LJB, I removed the Bible reading links, as I felt they would be better suited to an article on Bible reading, than one on Christadelphians. I did include a link to "The Bible Companion" from a mention in the article itself, but then removed this in further edits. I also removed a) the Christadelphian magazine link - this doesn't really provide any information that the other links don't, and had less relevance once the mention of the magazine in the article had been removed. b) the Australian Old Paths site. Seeing the Old Paths fellowship is mentioned in the article, it is valuable to have a link to an Old Paths site. However, the Australian Old Paths did not appear to provide much information that wasn't already on the other linked sites, such as the UK Old Paths site. It appeared to be mainly for one ecclesia, whereas the UK Old Paths site already directs readers to Old Paths ecclesias worldwide.

9. Finally, I merged the History and Organisation sections, and substantially edited them. This has resulted in a long section, but several points such as the adoption of the name Christadelphian, and the position on conscientious objection fitted well under both sections, and would result in unnecessary overlap. I have done this as a separate edit, so if people don't agree they can reverse it without reversing most of the edits mentioned above.

On a general note, it's helpful if users sign in and put a note about reasons for major edits on the Talk page, rather than just amending to previous versions - it makes it easier to incorport. As DJP says, it would also be good to see more work on the Beliefs section. As most of the contributors to the article seem to be Christadelphians, I'm sure we'd agree that the most important thing we want to communicate (though objectively please!) is our distinctive beliefs. Rather than tinkering with the sections about fellowships or external links (or in my case, arguing about how many Christadelphians there are in Australia!), I'm sure the article would benefit from a concerted focus on the Beliefs section. RJB 195.184.168.227 18:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jolly good work. You're a good talker aren't you. :) Teasing. I think it's pretty good as is. Still pretty peculiar, but if I died now I would not be unhappy that the Christadelphian Wikipedia article was incomplete. DJP 02:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The last revert

No offence to whoever added the old paths info, but it seems to me that this article should deal primarily with mainstream christadelphianism, and if additional details are needed for differing 'flavours' they should break out to other articles and then link to them. It seems to me that if we started including a history of every group of ecclesias that split and/or rejoined and the reasons why, and where they are, etc, etc it will dilute the point of the article. If a separate article is created and linked to, then there is ample room for as much detail as is desired.

Some more editing

I've been editing some recent edits :D 1. New para about the acceptance of Christadelphians in Church of the Blessed Hope congregrations seemed more relevant to the CBH article, to which I moved it. 2. The Carelinks publications link seemed more suited to the Christadelphian Books section. 3. A contributor made one americanization (or americanisation), to I consistificated the whole article to Americanese (I'm not a native speaker so please correct if necessary). 4. I restored the 'claim to' in the first paragraph. Please see the reasons I gave above. I don't like the sceptical connotations of 'claim to' either, but I can't think of a reasonable alternative. Perhaps the whole sentence needs rephrasing. RJB

Previous discussion about external links

I have removed a number of external links. Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an advertising site. While there may be relevant and interesting links, these should usually be confined to the External Links section, not appended to words or phrases in the article. For more information, please see the Wiki style guidelines relating to links. RJB

I have also edited the External Link section, leaving only one link per site, and removing links to sites that were predominantly for Christadelphians, or where the information contained was largely similar to that on larger sites already linked. RJB

I have added some external links to Bible reading companions, etc. Please feel free to remove them if they are unsuitable for an encyclopedia entry. LJB

It would nice if people actually contributed to the article rather than just adding further external links. I've tried to edit links as I saw fit, but there seems to be some disagreement about what links are suitable. If you disagree, please discuss here, rather than simply repeatedly adding links that have already been deleted. RJB

• I removed a couple of external links a week or two ago. The reason, the links contained advertising for funding from the general public, which is not in keeping with the usual practice of Christadelphians. To repeat a previous comment "Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an advertising site" KEM

• I have updated the article page. The update was to stop the "game" of which fellowship goes "first" and have therefore placed the main fellowships who have linked their sites thus far in alphabetical order so if "Berean" link, then they would go first, if "Amended" link, then they would go first, the "links", in each category, have been ordered from the "smallest" to "largest" link. This edit was done 17 August 2005. KEM

• Added Christadelphian Schools links over the past several days - 20 - 24 August 2005. KEM

Neutrality

Sorry to point out the obvious, but this is an encyclopaedia not a free opportunity to promote our particular opinions. I have put a neutrality dispute box on this article, because of a number of recent changes that are either non-neutral, or factually incorrect. Some of these have been addressed in the past, but unfortunately people have not bothered to explain or discuss their changes in the Talk/discussion section, and simply reverse those edits that have been explained. (It's RJB, by the way - forgot to sign in) 213.178.100.64

Revert

Sorry had to revert back to original information because RJB unilaterally keeps ammending back to a previous version of the page that existed prior to several changes made by other Christadelphians. RJB by all means ammend this page which is more recent than yours, but do not be so rude as to delete it all. The edits that as far as I can tell at least 3-4 people (I know 2 at least who colloborated on it and have added/ammended one bit myself) have contributed too are for equally valid reasons as you presumably feel yours are. The history fo Christadelphian fellowships is quite valid to have in Wikipedia and is not information that cannot be found elsewhere on the web.

OK, I'll leave it. I did not delete it all. I'm happy to amend - which is what I did the first time. I actually included the main points of what you and others had said about Christadelphian fellowships in that edit, but with some of the detail/repeated bits/inaccuracies removed. Unfortunately, you just overtyped that with what you'd written before, and then later deleted the whole section on Christadelphian organisation, etc (which I think is now restored).195.92.67.74 20:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to revert to my previous edit, because the edits since had lost some of the page formatting. If people wish to expand/amend the current edit, please do, but please don't just revert again to what had already been edited. My edits were for a reason - see discussion below - if you don't agree, by all means edit/discuss further.RJB 18:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I had to revert yet again, because the whole section on organisation, the name "Christadelphian", and the formation of Unamended had been deleted in the previous edit. 195.92.67.74 20:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Behaviour

Looking at these threads, it might be a good thing if all the "factions" cared to deliberate privately to come to a conclusion of the best way to seek to reconcile and to preach God so that HE is honoured.

What was the argument on Wikimedia? If you prefer, contact me privately - RJB (sorry, forgot to sign in) 81.183.79.122 19:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Kingdom of God

I have changed the words "centered on the land of Israel" to "in the land of Israel".

The Kingdom of God will be in Israel and nowhere else.

That's not what the Bible teaches. I've changed this to "which will be centred around the promised land of Israel but fill the whole Earth". This is what Christadelphians believe.

I have put this back to the future kingdom of God being in Israel - what you have written is first principle error. The Bible clearly teaches that the kingdom will be restored to Israel.

Future Kingdom of God in Israel, and nowhere else

Nice to see that you do agree with the statement of faith after all. The way you have been wording this section it made it sound as if Jesus would only reign over Israel and not over the whole earth as scripture teaches He will.

The point under question is not whether Jesus rules other the whole earth, as he does, but where the future Kingdom of God will be - in Israel or over the whole earth. The scriptures teach that the future KOG is only in Israel.

The contributor who modified my wording regarding the future kingdom of God being restored to Israel, and commenting that this is an error, obviously doesn't know what is in his own Statement of Faith! It is a condition of a valid baptism that the gospel of the kingdom of God is believed - if you don't even know where the future kingdom will be you have to question whether the gospel is believed at all. The scriptures clearly teach that the future kingdom of God will be in Israel ONLY. Yes the law will go forth for the nations to obey and be blessed in accordance with their obedience.

benaiah_12@hotmail.com

This view is not mainstream Christadelphain belief. Most Christadelphians believe that the Kingdom of God will be worldwide, the law as we read going forth from Jerusalem. God's purpose is with the whole earth not just restricted to Israel. I have therefore corrected this error 12th October 05.

As below I am not a Christadelphian (so if Christadelphians object to my changes then ok) but I do believe that the Kingdom of God will be on earth and understand that this is what Christadelphians also believe. The Kingdom will not be just the land of Israel, but Jesus will be King over all the earth.

I have replaced:

"He will return in person to establish the kingdom of God on earth, which will be centred around the promised land of Israel but fill the whole Earth."

with

"He will return in person to establish the kingdom of God on earth, in the land of Israel."

I have done this as the previous statement was teaching first principle error. The kingdom will be restored to the land of Israel promised to Abraham and will not cover the whole earth.

The prophecy in Daniel Chapter 2 speaks of the Kingdom being centred in Israel but filling the whole earth. This is what Christadelphians believe. See point 9 at http://www.christadelphian.org.uk/wcb/. You should also read Psalm 72 which clearly states that Jesus will rule over the whole earth. So you may like to reconsider the changes you've made...

Hi.

The Kingdom of God itself will not be worldwide but will be in the promised land of Israel for a thousand years during which all the nations of the world will be subject to it. Central fellowship literature usually says that the kingdom gradually spreads until it covers the whole world. However, it is a first principle of our faith that the kingdom of God will be re-established in Israel and its constitution will remain the same for the duration of the millennium.

Acts 1 - "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?"

Regarding Daniel 2 the stone certainly represents Christ and it is his rule that extends over all the earth, with his kingdom in Israel and his empire worldwide. God's message to Nebuchadnezzar, who was the golden head of the image, will apply to Christ: "Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all", except Christ's kingdom "never be destroyed" but "will stand for ever". Daniel 2:44. Thus Daniel saw in vision: "There was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed" 7:14.

Regarding Psalm 72:8: "He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth", but this confirms the extent of the kingdom in the land, as described to Moses in the past: "And I will set thy bounds from the Red sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert unto the river" Exodus 23:31. Thus, the territory of the kingdom in future, as in the past, is the land promised to Abraham and his seed, i.e. Canaan from the river Euphrates to the end of the land.

Examples of Central fellowship wrong doctrine

Bible Basics by Duncan Heaster Used extensively by Central in missionary work 5.4 The Kingdom Of God In The Future

Sections 1 and 3 of this Study have yielded a fair amount of information concerning what this Kingdom will be like. We have seen that Abraham was promised that through his Seed people from all parts of the world will be blessed; Rom. 4:13 extends this to mean that the whole earth will be inherited by those people who are 'in' Abraham's Seed, i.e. Christ. The image prophecy of Dan. 2 explains how Christ will return as the little stone, and then the kingdom will gradually spread world-wide (cp. Ps. 72:8). This means that the Kingdom of God will not just be located in Jerusalem or the land of Israel, as some maintain, although these areas will certainly be its heartland.

A Declaration published by Central in 1958

"Salvation is of the Jews", Jesus said. The Kingdom to be established is so far rooted in God's dealings with the Jews in the past that it is described as the Kingdom of Israel restored, enlarged and perfected.

Studies in the Statement of Faith John Morris; Editor, Michael Ashton

As we so often say to our friends, a kingdom implies a king, a people and a land. We have seen how the kingship of Christ was foreshadowed. Other passages teach us how the nation of Israel was chosen to be "an holy people ... a special people ... above all people that are upon the face of the earth" (Deuteronomy 7:6). And with the choice of the people of Israel came also the choice of their land, "a good land ... a land which the LORD thy God careth for" (8:7; 11: 12). Yet, though of course the role of Christ has not changed, the people and the land have been redefined. Some of the branches of the Jewish olive tree have been pruned because of disobedience, and Gentile branches have been grafted in (Romans 11). The extent of the territory, moreover, becomes redefined. God promised Abraham "all the land which thou seest ... all the land of Canaan" (Genesis 13:15; 17:8); Paul, however, could write of "the promise that (Abraham) should be the heir of the world" (Romans 4:13).

Comment: Duncan Heaster's declaration that "the Kingdom of God will not just be located in the land of Israel, as some maintain" is a straightforward denial of the first principle that the territory of the Kingdom of God will be the same as in the past - the land promised to Abraham and Christ. He claims that Romans 4:13 ("the promise, that Abraham should be the heir of the world") "extends" the promise.

Similarly, John Morris and Michael Ashton claim that God's promise to Abraham and Christ concerning the land of Canaan was "redefined" by Paul. Thus they deny the first principle of the faith that the Kingdom of God will be in the same territory as in the past. The "extension" and "redefinition" they suggest is impossible because God's promise concerning the land is immutable so Paul, when specifically citing the promise concerning the land, declared that any change, even an addition, would cancel it: "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." Galatians 3:15-16.

Paul's statement in Romans 4 does not change the promise. Abraham is heir of "the cosmos", i.e. a new constitution in which he, Christ and the saints will inherit for: "The kingdom and dominion [Chaldean: empire], and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him."

The Central Declaration, produced the year after the Reunion, declares that the Kingdom of God will only be "described as the Kingdom of Israel restored" whereas it will in reality be the actual kingdom of Israel restored in the land of promise. They also says it will be "enlarged", which is false - in truth it will be "in the territory it formerly occupied", the land promised to Abraham and his seed which was the territory of the kingdom of God extending to the River Euphrates in the days of King David (2Sam.8:3).

The gospel of the kingdom of God preached by Jesus for our salvation concerns the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, with Christ as the King of Israel on David's throne - "the throne of the LORD over Israel" - in the promised land, a gospel by which we are invited to sit with Jesus in his throne and to live and reign with him for a thousand years. "Redefining" denies this vital doctrine.

benaiah_12@hotmail.com

---

As Rome was the capital of the Roman Empire, so shall Jerusalem be the capital of the Kingdom of God.  The Kingdom of

Caesar was not confined to Rome. And therefore the entire nation of Israel shall be holy, a nation of kings and priests, but that does not limit the boundaries of the Kingdom of God. The limits of the nation of Israel are limited, and defined with various scripture, but that also does not limit the boundaries of the Kingdom of God. The Daniel passage explains that the stone displaces the metals in the dream, and therefore the stone (which "filled the whole earth") and the metals reprisent the same symbolic types (ie. kingdoms). The kingdom of God shall be restored to Israel, meaning, it's center of rule (throne) will be in Israel, as it was in the days of old, only with more than the former glory. Israel will indeed rule the world, and the law will go forth from thence. The "Kingdom" is synonomous with the "Empire" in regards to it's boundaries, as was the case with the Roman (or any other) empire. Ps 72:8 "He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth." There will be other countries in the KOG, and they may possibly be called "Kingdoms" as being separate, but their Kings shall be subject to the King of the whole earth, the King of Kings, and therefore cannot be misconstrued as being separate, or independant, from the KOG. In fact they will pay tribute, as did the various countries in the Roman Empire, to the King of the whole earth.

Edit to Beliefs

Removed the phrase “death means just that” from the “Beliefs” section. It presupposes or, rather, asserts a meaning of “death” that many readers from various cultures and religions would find condescending as if the entry were to imply that their comprehension skills were lacking. To them, death “means just that”--it is what death entails that different religions/cultures disagree upon. Being this is a reference tool, it should remain free from more obvious bias. LAT

Edit to Links

Added a site with an opposing view for balance. Having read the Wikipedia rules regarding links, I felt the following edit was appropriate in helping those with research in mind to better understand the differing viewpoints on Christadelphianism. Much like the author of a research paper on padeobaptism would want to touch on credobaptism.

Update as of 09/18/05 - Removed the response to the CARM article. It seesm that the addition gives the idea that the wikipedia links section is a "discussion forum", which degrades the quality of the article. The CARM link was not meant to proselytize christadelphians. It was meant to give an evangelical perspective on the group. To link a response gives a "flaky" appearance.

Bias in article CARM

I removed the CARM link to the article page, as comments were already available from the Apologetics page, which were simple and brief, and the latter also gives "pro" and "con" website links, the same cannot be said for CARM.

This is an article about Christadelphians, and, if CARM is listed, with error in reasoning, then comments and link to the Bible Truth Discussion Forum Armoury should stay.

It is a matter of Wikipedia being accurate, and without bias, and CARM is bias, and inaccurate in it's reporting. KEM 10:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Reinstated CARM Link

Dear KEM,

I gave adequate reasoning as to why I linked to the CARM article. The CARM article was meant to give an _evangelical perspective_ on the Christadelphians and the fact that it has "bias" is precisely why it is useful in giving said perspective. Now, naturally, it is going to have a bias. Christadelphians have a bias, Catholics have a bias, everyone has a bias. I could just as well say that this Christadelphian article is "inaccurate in its reporting" in attributing mainstream evangelical beliefs to unbiblical origins. But you don't see me removing those portions. I notice that the Trinitarian entry has a link to the Bible Discussion Forum. Should I remove it? And again, if we link to "responses" and "responses to responses" the links section degenerates into a debate forum and not an aid to the researcher. That, to many who read this, betrays that you are insecure with your beliefs (or it at least gives that impression). I'm certain you don't want that. I hope this has helped you to understand the situation better. LAT

Removed the CARM Link

Dear LAT I really don't know what your problem is and whether you are associated with CARM, I have not gone over to CARM and placed a link there, should I, how quickly would it be removed? However, this is an article about Christadelphians with a link to the apologetics page, which also has error in understanding of what Christadelphians believe, but, it gives balance, the pro pages and the negative pages.

So, have you placed a link over at CARM linking to BTDF why CARM is incorrect? As you say or intimate to give balance, and if not, to use your expression, what are you afraid of, or that is what you implied.

You mention the article on the Trinity, it is an article on the Trinity which IS separate to discussing religions as individual groups.

I would also suggest you not decide and judge Christadelphians on their beliefs, because the same could be said for those you are associated with, if you are and to put as many links as possible, to ensure that people really don't search a matter out, but to immediately stop any further research into religious teaching.

I would further suggest, and if you care to remove the Christadelphian link from the Trinitarian pages as you suggested, then you will have to remove every other religious group who has linked there who have come to a realisation that, the trinity isn't scriptural, you will have to not only remove the Christadelphians, but also the Unitarians, then the pro, Catholics and every other religious group, to keep with your proposed consistency.

The apologetics link is enough here, to give access to various other sites, therefore I have removed the CARM link once again.

However, interesting, so many have happened across Christadelphian sites, because they have come to their own conclusion through studying the Bible, that trinity isn't scriptural as well as other mainstream church beliefs, because, the logic is, that mainstream would call any who don't believe in trinity a cult, and that is why some have found our faith, because of the logic mainstream religions use, if any don’t believe in the devil or trinity or heaven going etcetera then you are a “cult”. So in ways there is benefit to us as a community, that is why the Apologetics link remains, it is brief, yet links elsewhere.

I also look forward to your placing a link on CARM, linking it to Christadelphian sites, if you want to link CARM here and we will see how quickly it is removed from CARM, though of course, I would trust you like you do here, would continue to re-submit it if it was removed, just so people who happen to happen on the site wouldn't think you were scared of anything, or insecure in your belief.

KEM

Regarding the CARM link

I really don't have a "problem" other than a case of mild frustration at the fact that certain persons deem themselves the "owner" of this open-source entry. You seem, in your defensiveness, to miss by basic point. Exampe, you essentially stated above that I have somehow given the idea that it is my intention to remove the christadelphian link from the "Trinity" article which is not the case. Said link does not bother me. I asked you how you would like it if I continuously removed it such as is the case with the CARM link here. You mention the many anti-Trinitarian links (i.e., opposing views) given at the "Trinity" article yet you heavily protest such action here (I should note that a distinction between religous doctrine and a relgious denomination does not mean such an action is appropriate in one case and not the other as you seem to imply above.) You essentially ask "how I would like it" if someone linked to a pro-christadelphian site on CARM. Well, I'm not affiliated with CARM, so I don't have that authority. But feel free to ask them. As I said before, you are treating the links section as more of a debate forum than for what it is. I have seen you post a reply to the CARM article but none to the Apologetics article. You have given erroneous portrayal of christadelphian beliefs as another reason for omitting the CARM link. Yet the apologetics resource contains alledged error and yet remains. So you are simply being inconsistent and I'm not quite sure why. Personally, I don't believe the CARM article is indepth enough to constitute a full rebuttal of Christadelphian links (one reason why I'm baffled by your offense). Hence, why I chose it as an example of the evangelical perspective--it is far less complicated than it could be and serves as a good "summary" of the viewpoint. However, as evidenced by your tenacity in removing the link, it possibly must make you feel insecure. I can't imagine any other reason why if it is truly non-threatening (i.e., "threatening" in any form. The goal of an opposing view in the context of this encyclopedia should be to aid the researcher; not fulfill a polemic itch). With that in mind, I'll simply leave your wishes fulfilled. LAT

History / Fellowships

Removed non existent link to 'Dawn fellowship' put in the word 'Christadelphian' as that is what we call ourselves i.e 'The dawn Christadelphian Fellowship'. Changed the wording to reflect the fact that we are found in several countries around the world.

86.129.197.221 modified my comment below and completed deleted my reference to the words of Jesus - is this how Jesus' words are considered? I have therefore reverted my comments back. 86.129.197.221 should add his own comments and not modify others. He said:

1. They state that divorce and remarriage is not allowable in the Bible which is of course correct, however:"

This statement is completely false - please read Matthew 19 - Jesus when talking to his disciples allowed divorce and remarriage where fornication had occured.

2. They state that they are probably the nearest to the original Christadelphians. This is not correct as they require their members to agree to a document called the "Berean Restatement". The only fellowship that I am aware of that has the BASF "without reservation" is the Old Paths, Lightstand and Dawn."

This statement is incorrect. The Lightstand and Dawn both will only fellowship those who agree that no divorce or remarriage is allowed for brethren and sisters.

I have modified two sections of the Bereans/Dawn section as they are stating their own POV.

1. They state that divorce and remarriage is not allowable in the Bible and therefore ignore the words of Jesus in Matthew 19.

2. They state that they are probably the nearest to the original Christadelphians. This is not correct as they require their members to agree to a document called the "Berean Restatement". The only fellowship that I am aware of that has the BASF "without reservation" is the Old Paths.

Have reverted back to my original ammendment on the section re Dawn Christadelphians that 'frapp' changed. FRAPP please note 1) It was me who wrote the original section some time ago and upon reflection because it was not 100% accurate I changed it. 2) the link to 'Dawn Fellowship' was put in by a friend of mine but goes nowhere. It is better removed until the page it needs to link too exists! FRAPP you are not a Christadelphian so please leave history to those who are.