Talk:Christadelphians/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Christadelphian origins

The following comment was recently inserted into the body of the article, under History.

• "Prior to 1861 and the American Civil War, Christadelphians were known simply as the "Brothers or sisters in Christ". However, with the outbreak of War in North America, believers had to register as Conscientious Objectors. The American authorities would not accept the term "Brothers or sisters in Christ" as it was too general, thus the word "Christadelphian" was coined by John Thomas, encapsulating the two Greek words which mean "Brothers and sisters in Christ"."

I would be interested in knowing if there is any substantiating evidence for these statements:

(a) Prior to 1861 and the American Civil War, Christadelphians were known simply as the "Brothers or sisters in Christ".

(b) However, with the outbreak of War in North America, believers had to register as Conscientious Objectors

(c) The American authorities would not accept the term "Brothers or sisters in Christ" as it was too general ...

The information I have on the above is this:

(a) The churches/gatherings which were later to be called Christadelphian initially resisted a denominational name. Throughout the USA and Britain these churches/gatherings generally went by the names of Believers, Baptised Believers, the Royal Association of Believers, Baptised Believers in the Kingdom of God, and other similar names. They generally referred to each other simply as "believers". Is there any documentary evidence that they regularly called themselves "Brothers or sisters in Christ"?

(b) It was at the home of Jacob Coffman in Illinois that Dr. Thomas, Jacob and Samuel Coffman met to form the new denomination, Christadelphians, during the final years of the Civil War. This was done, apparently, to protect the members from military duty.

There are no records in Ogle county which bear witness to the outcome of this meeting. Nothing is recorded at the county courthouse, although there are dozens of transactions by the Coffmans regarding their real estate transactions, and dozens more recordings by other denominations to register their trustees and board members in order to conduct church business.

If John Thomas did not register Christadelphians as a new denomination within the county, he may have registered it through the war department. If this is so, the records have not been located to document it, although historical researchers have searched for them.

What benefit was there to Dr. Thomas to register Christadelphians as a denomination during the Civil War? There was no exemption given to clergy in the Union states. The Union’s Militia Act of 1862 did not provide exemption for clergy or conscientious objectors. The only way a man could avoid the military was to pay $300 and hire a substitute.

In an interview with the great great grandson of Sam Coffman, Mr. Ralph Coffman confirmed that Samuel W. Coffman did not serve in the Civil War. There are no family records available to determine if he hired a substitute, nor could this be determined via a search of Civil War records.

Presumably, denominations had to register with the federal government and be recognized as pacifists, and to receive tax-free status. An Income Tax was imposed during the Civil War. Those commonly recognized included Shakers, Quakers, and Mennonites. The historical record does not mention the Christadelphians as a recognized pacifistic denomination.

Robert Roberts, in Dr thomas: His Life and Work provides details of a "certificate" written by John Thomas. He writes: "the applicants went before a notary public to affirm the genuineness of his signature, and the truth of the certificate in substance and in fact. The County seal was affixed and the document handed to Brother Coffman for safe keeping until such time as it should be required". However, this was not registration as a denomination.

The Civil War involved two governments. Did John Thomas also register his new denomination in the south? He traveled in the south during the Civil War. It would seem that there would be impetus to register it in the south more than in the Union. However, there is no evidence that he registered the Christadelphians with the Confederate government. The Confederate exemption laws were quite lenient to clergy and conscientious objectors, however, even though they desperately needed the manpower. Due to this, he wouldn’t have needed to register his denomination. In fact, Robert Roberts give details in Dr Thomas: His Life and Work of an incident where ten brethren were granted exemption from military service in the South on the basis that they were "ministers of religion" (chapter 50).

So, where is the evidence that Christadelphians were registered anywhere as conscientious objectors?

(c) As there is no evidence that Christadelphians were registered as a denomination or as conscientious objectors, there is also no evidence that 'The American authorities would not accept the term "Brothers or sisters in Christ" as it was too general'. In fact, there is a denomination in the United States called "Brethren in Christ" and they have been in existence longer than Christadelphians (the Brethren in Christ Church in North America began sometime between 1775 and 1788, near the present town of Marietta in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania). Of Anabaptist origins they are also conscientious objectors. Their website says: "At the time of the Civil War in the United States, the Brethren decided to record themselves under the present name of “Brethren in Christ." So, it appears to be simply untrue that 'The American authorities would not accept the term "Brothers or sisters in Christ" as it was too general'.

Unless substantiating evidence can be provided for these statements I suggest they be removed from the article. Ekklesiastic 04:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Permit me to quote the US Government document 'Religious Bodies: 1926' (Volume II, 'Separate Denominations: Statistics, History, Doctrine, Organization, and Work'), United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1929), article 'Christadelphians (GF Ane), page 305:

• "No name was adopted for the societies until the breaking out of the Civil War, when the members applied to the Government to be relieved from military duty in consequence of religious and conscientious scruples. It then appeared that they must have a distinctive name, and accordingly that of "Christadelphians," or "Brothers of Christ," was adopted. They have consistently maintained that their faith prohibited participation in the army or navy of any country, whether in times of peace or times of war, until the return of the Lord Jesus Christ to the earth again."

Bold emphasis mine.

You note that a denomination already existed which was registered as 'Brethren in Christ'. That is a formal term used to identify all members of a particular Christian denomination. This is not germane to the issue, which was whether or not individual 'Christadephians' could be identified simply as 'Brothers or sisters in Christ'. From my reading of the relevant history (including the interpretation you have posted), the phrase 'Brothers or sisters in Christ' was not offered as a formal name under which the denomination was to be registered, but simply a description which was used by individuals, and was therefore considered insufficiently distinctive.

The government document from which I have quoted makes it clear that the key issue was that a distinctive name was required, and that members of the denomination could not simply refer to themselves as 'Brothers or sisters in Christ'. Taiwan boi 16:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan boi, that article was written by G. F. Ane, editor of Bible Truth Rutherford N. J. It's not a primary source document, and it doesn't t refer to any primary sources. It's not authoritative and adds nothing new. My point stands. But thanks for your contribution.Ekklesiastic 23:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed the fact that this article was in a government publication. As far as I'm concerned, its inclusion in an official government publication, verifies its account. If you can think of a reason why the US government would include in one of its official publications an inaccurate account of its own actions, please let me know. I have seen no evidence that this account is inaccurate, and its endorsement by the US government encourages me to accept it. Taiwan boi 10:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan boi, to accept the mere appearance of information in a government publicity as evidence of its veracity would be naive in the extreme. The author, G.F. Ane, is referred to as the editor of Bible Truth which is further referred to as a Christadelphian magazine. If the Census Bureau was compiling an information document on religious groups the logical thing would be to seek contributions from members of the said groups, and, in this case, they apparently used an article written by the editor of a Christadelphian magazine. Being for information purposes only, supplementary to a Census, they may have seen no need to verify or substantiate the information which was provided. There would be nothing unusual or irregular about that. However, in the absence of any primary sources, and with no evidence that primary sources were used either in the writing or verification of the article, this article has no authority. Incidentally, I didn't say the article was inaccurate; I said it wasn't a primary source and isn't authoritative. In any case, there is no point in arguing this point because Cdelph has edited this paragraph nicely and removed the inaccuracies.Ekklesiastic 12:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not accepting the mere appearance of information in a government publication as evidence of its veracity. I am saying that I regard this information, in this particular context, as valid until proved otherwise.

I see no evidence that this document is included in the publication for 'information purposes only', and especially no evidence that the government body responsible for this publication would be as unconcerned about the accuracy of the information in it as you believe them to have been (especially given that it makes claims regarding government action). Your use of the words 'apparently', and 'may have', demonstrate that you are in fact simply speculating about their motives, which renders your entire argument invalid.

I didn't say that you claimed the article was inaccurate, I said you contested the accuracy of this account of the history. You have confirmed this by referring to them yet again as 'inaccuracies'. Clearly you believe you have access to the true history (though you have yet to display this evidence), and you contest anything which differs from this 'true history' as you believe it (it is common for subgroups of sects to claim secret knowledge of the 'true history' of the group, and even more common for them to find reasons why they are unable to provide evidence of this 'true history').

It may be that 'CDelph' shares your belief in this 'true history', which is why he has removed it, but until he actually provides his reasons for contesting this account I cannot be certain. What I can be certain of is that until evidence is provided that this account is inaccurate, I see no reason for the information to be removed. Taiwan boi 13:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I have made the following edit to the history section:

• "From the mid-19th century, there were groups in many parts of Britain and North America which held to the beliefs outlined above, and who were loosely associated with one another. Of particular significance was the publication in 1849 of John Thomas work, Elpis Israel in which he laid out his understanding of the main doctrines of the Bible. Groups associated with him met under various names, including Believers, Baptised Believers, the Royal Association of Believers, Baptised Believers in the Kingdom of God, until the time of the American Civil War. At that time, church affiliation was required to register for conscientious objector status and in 1865 Thomas chose for registration purposes the word Christadelphian, which was already in use by some members of congregations holding these beliefs. It is derived from the Greek for "Brothers and sisters in Christ"."

Please provide a primary source of historical evidence for your statement that "the word Christadelphian, was already in use by some members of congregations holding these beliefs". Ekklesiastic 04:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Certainly - from your own blog:

• "In the "certificate" which John Thomas wrote for Samuel Coffman and "the brethren of Ogle County" (ten males in all) he refers to the Antipas Association of Christadelphians in New York as the publishers of a pamphlet called 'Yahweh Elohim'. He cites this as evidence that a denomination with the name "Christadelphian" was already in existence."

Emphasis mine. Conveniently, you even quote the relevant text:

• "In confirmation of this, he appeals to the definition in respect to war on page 13 of a pamphlet entitled ‘Yahweh Elohim’ issued by the Antipas Association of Christadelphians assembling at 24 Cooper Institute, New York, and with which he ordinarily convenes. Advocates of war and desolation are not in fellowship with them, or with the undersigned, John Thomas." Taiwan boi 08:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Taiwan boi. I thought as much - you don't have any primary sources apart from the one I've already quoted, and you read that wrong. You said the name Christadelphian "was already in use by some members of congregations holding these beliefs" but you have quoted a source which says one congregation used this designation. You should amend your addition to say that there is evidence that one congregation (in New York) used the name Christadelphian prior to the incident in Ogle County. Ekklesiastic 09:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This from Thomas - 'This is also to certify, that the Denomination constituted of the associations or ecclesias of this Name'. Taiwan boi 15:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The information given by 'Ekklesiastic' in the first part of this discussion here is of course largely inaccurate, and mostly misrepresentative. Taiwan boi 03:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please be specific. What information is inaccurate? Ekklesiastic 04:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

First, it must be recognised that the text you pasted here comes directly from your own blog (did you think people wouldn't check your version of history?), and is therefore a clear attempt to insert your own POV into this discussion.

I'd be delighted if people checked my blog. They would get a more accurate account of events than you are portraying. Ekklesiastic 09:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I have identified your blog as your POV. If people read your blog, they will see it is your POV. I have identified the fact that you have copy/pasted part of that blog/POV here. If people read your blog and compare it with this discussion here, they will see that what I have said is perfectly true. Taiwan boi 15:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

A list of inaccuracies follows:

• You claim there is no evidence that 'with the outbreak of War in North America, believers had to register as Conscientious Objectors', but there is in fact such evidence, and you quote it - the very fact that Thomas records that denominations recognised by the government as conscientious objectors didn't have to either pay a fine or furnish a substitute (he uses the Quakers as an example), demosntrates that registered denominations were exempt (this is in fact his entire argument, the very reason why he had to write a certificate corroborating the existence of a body of believers who were conscientious objectors, to which the Coffmans belonged)

Neither denominations nor conscientious objectors were required to be registered. There is no evidence that Christadelphian was registered as a denomination, and it wasn't required. Thomas does not refer to registration.Ekklesiastic 09:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so you're objecting to the absence of the precise word 'registration'. I'm afraid your clutching at straws. It is a fact that members of recognised/registered denominations were exempt, and that the purpose of Thomas' certificate was to provide evidence which the Coffman's could use in order to have the government recognise/register their denomination. I don't care which word you use, the effect is the same. Taiwan boi 15:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan boi, I'm not clutching at straws. If you read back over the entire discusssion preceeding this you will see that my main point is that Christadelphians were not registered during the American Civil War, and in my original post I even put the word registered in bold to highlight that this was the inaccuracy in the article which I was correcting. You have now agreed that I was correct. The rest of what you've had to say is therefore irrelevant because it simply builds on the mistake you made by not reading my message correctly. There is no rewriting of history, and no 'secret history' here. There was, however, an error regarding whether Christadelphians were registered as a denomination and this has now been corrected. In future you could save yourself a lot of time by reading more carefully before you rush off and make accusations based on your misreading. Ekklesiastic 21:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've read the entire discussion and I still see no evidence that your claim is true. I believe primary source evidence has been provided that the denomination was registered with the relevant authorities. The only real issue, as I have pointed out, is that you are quibbling over the absence of the actual word 'registered' in the primary source material. The entire point of your argument doesn't really have anything to to with whether the denonimation was registered or not, but whether the name was in use before a certain time. That is the real issue here, since in order to justify your 'secret history' theory you require the name to have been in use prior to the registration of the denomination with the authorities, so that you can advance your argument firstly that Thomas was planning a new movement breaking away from the 'Believers', and secondly that you know what was in his mind at the time (you introduce this by saying 'and what may have been in John Thomas's mind when he was planning a new denomination', but as we have seen your tactic is to move quickly from advancing a theory to treating that theory as fact, so it's clear what's in store). The fact that you are prepared to waste pages on this apparently trivial point proves how critical it is in your 'secret history'. And that's what this is really all about. And that's why you should not be copy/pasting parts of your (POV), blog in this discussion, in an attempt to introduce your POV ('secret history'), into the article. Taiwan boi 23:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Furthermore, the 'Reader's Companion to American History' (article 'Conscientious Objectoin', Gretchen Lemke-Santangelo, published by Hugh/Mifflin), records that in 1864 Congress passed a law which 'exempted those whose beliefs forbade any form of service or commutation payment', and Thomas himself says that the Coffmans requested of him proof that they belonged to a body with such beliefs, since the exemption (as he says), applied to believers of all known demoninations (which the exemptions granted to such as the Quakers bears out), the relevant statement from Thomas being 'They wished therefore that I would write something that they could put into court as the ground of their claim to exemption according to the law. It would be necessary to give the Name a denominational appellative, that being so denominated, they might have wherewith to answer the Inquisitors'

Thank you for quoting that. It confirms what I have said, viz. that registration was neither required nor granted. Ekklesiastic 09:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't say that. It says exactly what I have said - that recognised denominations were granted exemption, and that belivers therefore had to demonstrate that their denomination was recognised. As I said, I don't care if you call it 'registration' or 'recognition', the effect is the same. Otherwise those certificates would have had absolutely no worth whatever, when clearly they did. Taiwan boi 15:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• As I pointed out previously, you misrepresent 'Brothers or sisters in Christ' as a denominational name claimed by Roberts to have been used by early believers (it wasn't, the whole point is that this is a generic description, that individual believers referred to themselves as 'brother' or 'sister', in Christ)

I did not say, as you allege, that it was Roberts who claimed that 'Brothers and sisters in Christ' was in use as a denominational name. It was a previous contributor to this article who made that mistake. I corrected his error. Ekklesiastic 09:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks, you didn't allege it was Roberts. You claimed that it was untrue that 'brother or sister in Christ' was insufficiently distinct a name to be used to distinguish a denomination, on the basis that a group already existed calling itself 'Brethren in Christ' (a completely different phrase). As I have already pointed out, you falsely equivocate between a term used by individuals (brother or sister in Christ), and a term used to identify all members of a particular denomination, whether male or female ('Brethren in Christ'). I made this point earlier, and you failed to address it (because you're wrong). It's worth repeating here. Taiwan boi 15:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• The result of this is that you give the impresssion that individuals belonging to these groups did not refer to themselves as 'brothers' and 'sisters', whereas they very obviously did (as the 'Constitution of the Royal Association of Believers' which you helpfully cite actually demonstrates)

There is nothing in what I wrote which would give this impression. You may have implied it, but I did not infer it. Ekklesiastic 09:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't you mean I may have inferred it but you did not imply it? Clearly there is something you wrote which would give this impression, since this is the impression I received. Taiwan boi 15:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• You claim it is wrong to say 'The American authorities would not accept the term "Brothers or sisters in Christ" as it was too general', but you give no evidence for this, the one argument you offered I have debunked already, and we have a primary source (Thomas), which says otherwise (I'll take a primary source over your opinion)

I asked for substantiating evidence for a statement made by someone else. I don't need to provide evidence - I was asking for evidence because it appears not to exist! It is up to them to provide substantiating data for their claim. However, if you look at Roberts' quotation of Thomas in his biography of Thomas you will see that it says "officials prefer words to phrases". This was Thomas's assessment merely and does not indicate that 'The American authorities would not accept the term "Brothers or sisters in Christ" as it was too general'. It tells us simply that Thomas believed this to be the case. He may have been right (although the existence of a denomination with the name "Brethren in Christ" in Lancaster County since at least 1788 indicates he may also have been wrong), but the previous contributor was wrong to conclude from this that the authorities would "would not accept the term". Ekklesiastic 09:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As I have already proved (twice), your appeal to the name 'Brethren in Christ' is a false equivocation, since it is the name of a denomination, not a name used by individuals, and in any case is certainly not the phrase 'brothers and sisters in Christ'. I'm happy to believe that Thomas knew what he was doing, and he is a primary source. If you don't agree that's your business, but until you provide evidence to support your 21st century revisionism, I would prefer the article to stay as it is (I will cast you a sop and include the phrase 'Thomas believed that', if you please). Taiwan boi 15:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• You say 'Either (a) the name was invented for this purpose, as Roberts implies in his biography of John Thomas, and which has formed part of the Christadelphian tradition ever since', but having said this is what you consider Roberts 'implies', you then go on to treat it as fact (I see no evidence of this in Roberts, and since this is only what you consider an 'implication', it is far from fact) Taiwan boi 08:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you're quoting here from by blog, not from the text above. You've only quoted it in part. I provide a second option to (a) which you quoted, viz. "or (b) it was already in use in New York as a denominational title." So I did not treat option (a) as fact, when I immediately gave an alternative (b). However, for evidence that Roberts believed this incident to be the origins of the name Christadelphian see , Dr. Thomas: His Life and Work chapter 50 where Roberts refers to this incident as the origins of the name Christadelphian and makes no reference to the name being in use prior to this. In fact, in this chapter he refers to the 'Believers' meeting in New York as "the Royal Association of Believers" and not as Christadelphians. It was Thomas who referred to the publication of a pamphlet by the Antipas Association of Christadelphians as evidence of the denominational use of the name. It would be interesting to see corroborating evidence. Ekklesiastic 09:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This is misleading, since although you provide two possible options, your entire argument following is predicated on the first of them being fact, and not the second (you advance on that basis).

You start by saying 'And if the name "Christadelphian" was already in use in New York before the need to register a denomination, then it appears that John Thomas was already planning a new denomination - perhaps to break away from the Believers Movement', and then your very next sentence accepts as fact the statement 'John Thomas was already planning a new denomination', based on your acceptance of 'the name "Christadelphian" was already in use before the need to register a denomination':

• 'In future messages, as I've already promised, I plan to look at some of the influences on the development of the Believers Movement up to this point in 1864, and what may have been in John Thomas's mind when he was planning a new denomination.'

In two sentences you go from 'If...was already in use... then it appears that John Thomas was already planning a new denomination', to 'I plan to look at some of the influences... what may have been in John Thomas's {sic} mind when he was planning a new denomination'. This last statement is presented as fact, and is based on the previous 'If' statement being fact.

Taiwan boi, you're contradicting yourself! You said that I was presenting my option (a) "as a fact" and then you go on to say that I was presenting my option (b) "as fact". You can't have it both ways. Of course, if you read what I had to say without preconceived ideas about what you want me to say you wouldn't have this difficulty and wouldn't contradict yourself. There's not much point discussing this with you when (a) you don't read carefully, (b) you form your own conclusions before you read and (c) you won't admit to making a mistake and instead you attempt to cover your errors by accusing me of "clutching at straws". Wordy you may be, but knowledgeable about Christadelphian history you are not. Ekklesiastic 21:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to quote option (b) as the one you assert as fact. With that correction, my argument stands. You first posit it as merely an option, one of two possibles, then say that they can't both be right, then advance on the assumption that option (b) is a fact. Then you want to claim here that you didn't assert it as a fact. Clearly you did assert it as a fact, and you did so out of necessity to justify your 'secret history' theory. Your repeated allegations in this entire discussion (allegations made to more than one of the users here), that others are ignorant of 'Christadelphian' history, and you are the one with the 'true knowledge' only reinforces this. It is clear, as I have pointed out more than once, that you are constructing your own revisionist history of the movement, and that you are blatantly copy/pasting this POV into this discussion in an attempt to influence the article. As I have said before, that is not what Wiki is for. My other arguments have gone completely unanswered by you, because they are right. Taiwan boi 23:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Earlier I wondered precisely why you were bothering to paste half a page from your blog on the trivial issue of whether or not the name 'Christadelphian' was 'registered' or 'recognised', or whatever, and why this was of such great importance to you. Having read the two relevant pages from your blog, it becomes apparent that this is an important part of your composition of a revisionist history of the denomination, a typical 'secret history' approach used by leaders of schisms from a religious community, typically written in order to justify the new approach, teaching, or behaviour of the schismatics. The 'secret history' has lain dormant, unknown even by historians such as Lippy, and sociologists such as Wilson, waiting to be uncovered by a member of the 'true believers', who claim to uphold the 'original faith' of the denomination. That you are apparently a moderator of the 'Truth Alive' subgroup contributes to this. It is equally apparent that you wish to have included in this article the POV you present on your blog. That is not what this article is for. That is what your blog is for. Taiwan boi 15:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments on links

Would the anonymous person who constantly makes a comment about the Bible Truth Alive link ("a place as a mainstream alternative to Truth Alive where moderation is kept to a minimum") please take note that this comment has no relevance to the article and is probably of no interest to anyone reading it.

I have the courage of my convictions to sign my comments, and from my User page its clear who I am. You are a coward by constantly deleting a link and then adding your comment anonymously.

There is also no evidence that there is any truth to your comment. Bible Truth alive (aka 'Christadelphian Truth Alive) has a moderation policy and it appears to me that it is fairly heavily enforced. Truth Alive has minimal moderation. the forum with a link in this article which has the strictest censorship is probably BTDF. Ekklesiastic 09:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Steve: You know who the person is, I told you in a private e-mail which I cc'd to Julian. [...text relating to Ekklesiatic's user page moved to his user talk page by RJB...] BTW I did sign my comments earlier in this discussion. Kevin 10 February.

A request has been made to leave the link to CTA as it has been for the last couple of weeks and discuss the issue privately with a neutral third party. I have agreed to it and hope Ekklesiastic will do the same. Kevin

It is apparent from numerous comments on this Wiki and another Wiki that 'Truth Alive' has an extreme moderation policy, which has even resulted in members being banned from the forum without notice. I have never read on this Wiki any negative comments regarding the moderation of 'Bible Truth Alive', or 'BTDF', but I have seen a uniform objection to the extreme moderation practices on 'Truth Alive', both on this Wiki and another. I believe it is important that readers of this article be made aware of the moderation policy of the discussion forums which are linked to, and if a significant number of people have a certain experience and publicize it, then it is clear that no matter what the moderators of that forum may claim they are doing, the message their actions are sending is very different. Taiwan boi 09:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It's just possible that there are no critical comments here about 'Bible Truth Alive' or 'BTDF' because (a) this is not the place to criticise forums and (b) while the people criticising 'Truth Alive' don't seem to care that this is not the place, those with legitimate criticisms of the other forums deal with them more appropriately and maturely. Ekklesiastic 11:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't simply talking about this forum. I have seen criticism of 'Truth Alive' on other forums as well, public forums. The fact that these criticisms exist, and that they are so uniform, does indicate that the management of 'Truth Alive' have alienated members due to their policies and actions. This cannot be avoided, regardless of whether or not you believe those policies and actions are correct. In contrast, I have seen no such criticism of the other forums.Taiwan boi 02:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan boi wrote: "In contrast, I have seen no such criticism of the other forums." Of itself that proves nothing, except that either (a) people with criticisms of "the other forums" have not gone public with their criticisms, or (b) they have, but you haven't seen them. Ekklesiastic 04:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

What it means is that I cannot assert criticism of those forums, or warn people of any heavy handed moderation of those forums. I can, on the other hand, do this with 'Truth Alive'. 218.166.200.51 16:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The descriptions for TA and CTA/BTA have been edited jointly by Ekklesiatic and myself (Kevin) after private discussion. The may not be perfect to everyone - or even ourselves! - but we have agreed and will stand by them. RAW 11:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I am in agreement, and hope there is not further argument, it is not particularly useful to anyone, and creates gives the wrong impression about our community. (JS)

---

Amendments to links as follows: 1. CSSU link removed. This appears to be a site primarily for Christadelphians; in fact, it states on the front page that they cannot take only take orders from Christadelphians. It would seem to have little relevance to the average reader of an encyclopaedic article. 2. Antipas link removed. Antipas isn't a Christadelphian fellowship. It appears to be a private site run by members of a group known as the Maranatha Christadelphians. 3. Republic ecclesia (Unamended) link replaced with Christadelphian Advocate (Unamended) link. General sites are preferable to ecclesial sites. RJB 13:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The link to the site run by Duncan Heaster has been deleted as it solicits for funds and thus not appropriate for a link on the wikipedia. Whoever is adding it back please stop. RAW 02:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous edits

I have made some edits, largely removing information given elsewhere in the article, or in the John Thomas article. I have also standardised some of the formatting. RJB 14:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the history section which didn't flow very well. I think I have retained all the salient points. I have also made some small amendments to the organisation section. RJB 22:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have further edited the history section. Taiwan boi 10:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

For those wondering, I removed the reference to Alan Eyre's book 'The Protestors' because it is not considered a reliable historical source. The work is deeply biased in favour of the Christadelphian community, and Eyre frequently misrepresents or obscures critical historical facts. This article should not be used to direct readers towards Christadelphian works which are so obviously apologetic that they border on falsehood. Taiwan boi 02:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know who made this edit:

• "There have been small groups of believers down the centuries, and particularly since the Reformation, who held unorthodox views. Groups such as the Anabaptists, Waldenses, Socinians, Racovians and the Polish Brethren shared some or even many beliefs held by Christadelphians. Isaac Newton, John Locke, William Tyndale all appear to have held beliefs close to those of Christadelphians on the unity of God, the mortality of man and the role of the Jews in God's purpose."

The reference to Joseph Priestley has been removed. Why has this been done? In addition, the list of beliefs shared by Christadelphians and some of these unorthodox Christians should be expanded. Taiwan boi 02:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It was me. You can tell who has made edits by going to the article and clicking on history. I think I was signed in. Apologies for the knocking out the Joseph Priestley ref as I was editing. I have restored it. To briefly explain other changes: I corrected two spelling mistakes, removed the reference to Albigenses (the doctrinal overlap with Christadelphians seems small, and they are better known for associations with Cathar gnosticism), amended Eastern European 'Brethren' to 'Polish Brethren', because this is the largest and closest to Christadelphians of the EE Brethren groups. Alan Eyre's thesis that the various groups using the name 'Brethren' were some sort of contiguous community isn't supported by historians such as Williams and Wilbur, so I think its useful to treat them as separate communities. Information about Newton, Locke, Tyndale was replaced with wiki links for the purposes of concision. There has been a tendency to exaggerate the similarities between Christadelphians and some of the Radical Reformation groups. I thought it was preferable to indicate some of the similarities, rather than a vague general statement. Newton and Priestley are known chiefly for their Socinianism, Tyndale and Locke for their rejection of church teaching on the immortality of the soul and the meaning of hell. Stephen Snobelen's work has also demonstrated that Newton's beliefs about the Jews parallel those of Christadelphians. By all means expand on which other doctrines they held, either here or on their own pages, and correct any of my mistakes. Hungary and Transylvania is my area of interest; my knowledge of the Radical Reformation further afield is somewhat cursory.RJB 10:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you must not have been logged on, because I couldn't find your name under the edits. The Albigenses may have a small overlap with the Christadephians but so do others mentioned. I see no reason not to include them in the list of unorthodox groups. That some associate them (inaccurately), with the Cathars is irrelevant. Regarding 'Eastern European 'Brethren, I actually deliberately used the term 'various Eastern European 'Brethren to avoid giving the impression that they were a homogenous group (when certainly they were not, despite Eyre's inaccurate claims). But not to matter. I agree that the tendency of some has been to exaggerate the similarities between Christadelphians and some of the Radical Reformation groups, but I would also like to see a greater specificity in this article on that score, particularly to avoid needless speculation. There is no point in generalities, as you say. Taiwan boi 15:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You can find the history page here. The changes discussed above are included under my handle. Think we're on agreement over most of this. I still feel "various Eastern European Brethren groups" could be understood to refer to groups such as the Czech Brethren, who have little connection with Christadelphians. I agree we need more on this. RJB 22:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)