Talk:Christadelphians/Archive 5

Links

I have done another big edit of links. About a third of the article was links, and some of them had little relevance to the article. Please, please, please... this is an encyclopaedia, not a link directory. I know that if people have a good site, they will want to publicise it, but please resist the temptation. If you are a Christadelphian, and really want to draw people to look at the Christadelphian understanding of the Bible, you'd be far better contributing to the article itself. A huge long list of links is likely to result in most of them being ignored - if people want a whole list of Christadelphian sites they can go to google.

If you are trying to increase the traffic to your own site, wikipedia isn't the place, and you are breaking wikipedia policy. This is hardly a good example to set, if we claim to be God-fearing people. There are plenty of legitimate ways to publicise your site - among the links that I have left are some sites that will often provide links to other Christadelphian sites, so if people are interested they can access your site that way.

I have left a small selection of links, including to Dawn and Old Paths fellowships, so I hope I have been even-handed. I have removed the multiple links (i.e. different links to different sections of the same website); ecclesial sites (these are often relatively small sites, and we cannot start a precedent leading to all 1500 (?) ecclesias linking to their own sites); Christadelphian schools (not mentioned in the article and of little relevance to the general public); and a whole host of other sites that are either covered by the existing links, or are easily accessible from other sites.

Please do not add any more links unless:

1. They conform to wikipedia policy 2. They contain something significant that the existing sites do not contain or do not link to 3. They maintain a balance in the link section If you think this is unreasonable please discuss here. It's very rude to anonymously just do your own thing, and not engage with other users.RJB

I have replaced much of what was removed it is rude to abitarily delete another peoples hard work! Mine was only a small portion butI know somebody else worked hard on the links and you have undone all their hard work! [anonymous user]

Please refrain from deleting my comments on the talk page. Yes, lots of people have worked hard on the links, myself included. However, wikipedia is not simply about my work or your work. It's about creating an article that has a broad consensus and provides relevant, accurate information to the general public. The edits I made to the article incorporated some of your (and others) material. If you would like to expand/amend them, please go ahead - but we're not going to get anywhere if you just restore them to the version you'd written that I'd thought needed some editing.RJB 18:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Tonight I restored a recently deleted link then thought better of it. The target site is a good one but it doesn't belong here - as a moment's reflection would have shown. I had better apologise for the reference to vandalism too!Aquatarkus 15:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I have referred users to the wikipedia External Links policy before, but it would seem that it has not been read in a number of cases. Here it is in full:

Wikipedia is not a web directory. However, adding a certain number of external links is of valuable service to our readers. No page should consist solely of a collection of external links. Wikipedia always prefers internal links, even to non-existent articles, over external links. See also m:When should I link externally.

What to link to

Wikipedia, it is possible to link to external websites. Such links are referred to as "external links". Many articles have a small section containing a few external links. There are a few things which should be considered when adding an external link.

1. Is it accessible?
2. Is it proper? (useful, tasteful, etc?)
3. Is it entered correctly?

In general, external links should be accessible by the widest audience possible. That is, try to avoid sites requiring payment, registration, or extra applications (Flash, Java, etc.) to see the relevant content, at least if there is a simpler site available. If the best/only site does have such requirements, it is best to include a note to that effect. For people with a slow connection, also mention the size if that is large. Examples: "(requires Java)", "(1 MB PDF file)", "(requires registration)". The same applies to any sites with ads that spawn new windows.

1. Official sites should be added to the page of any organization, person, or other entity that has an official site.
2. Sites that have been cited or used as references in the creation of a text. Intellectual honesty requires that any site actually used as a reference be cited. To fail to do so is plagiarism.
3. If a book or other text that is the subject of an article exists somewhere on the Internet it should be linked to.
4. On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of what their POV is.
5. High content pages that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article at which point the link would remain as a reference.

1. For albums, movies, books: one or two links to professional reviews which express some sort of general sentiment. For films, Movie Review Query Engine, Internet Movie DataBase, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic offer especially large collections of reviews. To access the list of other collections of movie reviews available online, please use this link.
2. Web directories: When deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article on Wikipedia, a link to one web directory listing can be added, with preference to open directories (if two are comparable and only one is open). If deemed unnecessary, or if no good directory listing exists, one should not be included.
3. Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link.

What should not be linked to:

1. Wikipedia disapproves strongly of links that are added for advertising purposes. Adding links to one's own page is strongly discouraged. The mass adding of links to any website is also strongly discouraged, and any such operation should be raised at the Village Pump or other such page and approved by the community before going ahead. Persistently linking to one's own site is considered Vandalism and can result in sanctions. See also External link spamming.
2. Links to a site that is selling products, unless it applies via a "do" above.

RJB 13:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Discussion on links to forums

Some General Notes before Discussion:

• Please of course continue to follow avoiding personal attacks, stay on topic and sign in but the the general comments about these have been moved to RAW's user talk page. If desired they can be reviewed and continued there. This will help pare down a very long discussion. And will help to keep us focused on the topic, which generally seems to have reached consensus. RAW 14:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• The comments of mine have been edited such that there is no need to take this off topic. Continue to discuss this off page if desired. This page is getting too long. RAW 02:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Generally everyone commenting so far but Ekklesiastic believes policy dictates the removal of the links to forums. RAW 06:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The links are removed. If Ekklesiastic wishes to discuss and try and show otherwise we can continue to do so below. RAW 14:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments on the links to forums:

Thanks for these comments. Good summary. And upon reflection linking to "forums" is not really about providing information. RAW 12:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Having read through above discussion agree regarding external links to Forums, they do not appear to be in line with above Wiki policy. --Elpis 08:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Forums agreed, but why keep ripping out the interlanguage links? ISTM they should stay. Aquatarkus 10:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That might have been in error by Elpis. They have been restored. 58.107.151.115 would you please sign in. RAW 11:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, yes it was my error I probably deleted too much --Elpis 15:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Information on the Wikipedia policy on External Links is here. Some of the comments made with respect to the links to Forums also apply to the links to Christadelphian websites, so this is a good opportunity to review the whole area. Ekklesiastic 00:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

See below for that discussion. RAW 14:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ekklesiastic admits he is one of the owners of one of the forums in question. RAW 14:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Whether or not a website includes a discussion board is a mute point. If you object to links to forums then you should delete the link to The Christadelphians.org because a large part of the site is a forum, and users are required to register in order to use it. That is a definite violation of Wikipedia policies on external links. Ekklesiastic 00:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Please if you wish to discuss external links do so in the area set aside and focus on the links to forums here. These links to forums are to sites who purpose is a forum for discussion. RAW 02:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• RAW has justified deleting all the links to Forums on the basis that one link was posted by its owner. That would also apply to some of the links to Christadelphian Websites, and to at least one other Forum. For consistency then, if links to all Forums are to be deleted for the reason given by RAW then all the links to Christadelphian Websites should be deleted for the same reason. Ekklesiastic 00:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, please read carefully. I did not justify it on that basis. I must also chuckle to think that if everyone else is anonymous how would you know if it applies to at least one other forum and some of the links? :-) RAW 02:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• If the comments are read carefully the reason for removing the links is that they violate the policies outlined above. And the person who is objecting to their removal happens to be an owner. Which is also questionable in relation to policies above. RAW 06:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• If increasing traffic to a site is a violation of Wkipedia policies then no site could be linked. I expect that the links to the Christadelphian Websites have generated some traffic to these sites. Are you suggesting that they should therefore be removed? Ekklesiastic 13:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Again you need to read carefully. increasing site to a traffic for a discussion (as the forum links do). Not all links. RAW 14:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• The links to Christadelphian Websites are all to the various fellowships and reflect the deeply divided state of the Christadelphian community. None of these links are 'neutral' or provide information which would add to the substance of the article. It appears that the main purpose of the links, therefore, is to generate traffic to these sites and to the various causes of the schismatists. Ekklesiastic 00:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Links like these would qualify as pseudo-'official' sites. There is one for each significant fellowship grouping (and, to avoid an edit war, some of lesser significance have been included). Discussion forums are not by any stretch of the imagination official. I think a neutral observer would recognise the distinction. Aquatarkus 01:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your contribution to the discussion Aquatarkus (at last we have a discussion). Do I understand you correctly - are you saying that linking to a website on Wikipedia makes it pseudo-'official', or is there another (unstated) reason why these private websites should be regarded as pseudo-'official'? The only way a Christadelphian website could be 'official' would be if it was owned by an ecclesia or an organisation constituted by an ecclesia or group of ecclesias, or an organisation or association legally recognised as such and with objectives specifically 'Christadelphian' objectives. In other words, an ecclesia could have an official website, as could the Sunday School Union or the Christadelphian Magazine and Publishing Association. A website owned by an individual or group of individuals not directly governed by an ecclesia would be 'unofficial'. Are there any 'official' websites currently in the Christadelphians article? Ekklesiastic 02:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• There are no real 'official' sites to choose from, because the Christadelphians do not make up a corporate organisation. The CMPA site would be as official as one could get - in my opinion, but others might disagree. RJB took the option of including one site from each fellowship grouping, and these individual sites are - again in my opinion - very representative of the fellowships they represent. Aquatarkus 04:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for your clarification Aquatarkus. It appears then that all the links under 'Christadelphian websites' are therefore unofficial, while truly official sites are not listed. The purpose of external links should be to provide "neutral and accurate material not already in the article". Sites which are "representative of the fellowships" in a divided community cannot, by definition, be 'neutral' and should not be used. In line with Wikipedia policy they should all be removed. Ekklesiastic 06:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that none of the Forums listed in the article are 'official'. I recognise the distinction you are trying to make. A neutral observer would probably also recognise the distinction, and for many months Christadelphian websites and Forums Relevant to Christadelphians have been clearly distinguished in the article to avoid any confusion. However, I do not understand your distinction between non-official and pseudo-official. So what's your point? Forums do provide additional information not available on the websites and are a valuable resource. Ekklesiastic 02:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Forums relevant to Christadelphians are relevant to _Christadelphians_. But Wikipedia isn't targeted at Christadelphians in particular, and Christadelphians won't come to Wikipedia to discover what's relevant to them. The question is whether these forums are particularly relevant to neutral readers? And the answer is that they aren't. Aquatarkus 04:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• RAW, please don't remove contributions to this discussion which oppose your own views. 'Consensus' is not gained by deleting opposing views.Ekklesiastic 00:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

As for forums it would appear that even Ekklesiastic agrees with the removal of those links. That should settle the issue and stop the reversions by 58.107.151.115/Ekklesiatic. RAW 06:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• I don't agree with the removal of the links to Forums, unless the links to the other sites are removed as well. I believe there should be consistency in deciding whether or not to link to a site, and currently there is none. Ekklesiastic 06:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• So far others are not seeing it that way. I am not sure why if you seriously feel that the external links should be removed that you would object to the forum links being removed? Sorry but it sounds like a child's tactic that says if I can't play, no one else can either. Surely if you have posted (see discussion on External Links below) that the external links should be removed, therefore you belive the links to forums should certainly be removed? But it sounds like you really don't believe that and are just saying it to try and bully people to keep the links to forums by trying to remove both sets. RAW 13:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove the forum links, keep the external (webpage) links. Cdelph 14:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• The discussion seems to have run its course on the links to forums. Does anyone else have anything to add to the topic? RAW 02:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on External Links

Ekklesiastic has now raised the issue of other external links and that discussion is continued here. So far no one else is in agreement with him and Aquatarkus has distinguished well between the two. It would seem that the links to the websites of various "major" fellowships provide information about them. The forums on the other hand are places to discuss. The purpose outlined above and the policy is to provide information not discussions. RAW 06:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• It appears that the links to Christadelphian Websites generally fail to meet the Wikipedia criteria for providing external links and I therefore propose that section titled 'External Links' should be removed from this article. Ekklesiastic 23:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• The purpose of any link, anywhere, is to "increase traffic". Please remove the link to The Christadelphians.org because it increases traffic to a forum (and one which requires registration, which further violates Wikipedia policy). Ekklesiastic 00:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• It appears that the links to Christadelphian Websites generally fail to meet the Wikipedia criteria for providing external links and I therefore propose that section titled 'External Links' should be removed from this article. Ekklesiastic 23:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• The external links, as others have said provide further information and link to "major" fellowships. See RJB comments about links above. Thus they should stay. RAW 13:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove the forum links, keep the external (webpage) links. Cdelph 14:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Cdelph I'm wondering why you think forum links should be removed when you've added a link to a forum yourself in at least one other Wikipedia article. Ekklesiastic 23:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Links under the heading 'Christadelphian Websites'

Objections have been made about links to forums. The same objections appear to apply to the links under Christadelphian Websites. This is certainly a good opportunity to discuss the purpose and validity of these links.

• Sorry but it seems that your new found objection to the links have more to do with the removal of the links to forums than with whether you believe it or not. Could you explain why you have so quickly changed your mind? RAW 14:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• It appears that one purpose of the links is to "evangelise" rather than to provide neutral information about Christadelphians. User Wikiadelphia has objected to linking to a site in order to gain traffic. It appears that these links serve that purpose and should therefore be removed.

• Upon reviewing the links there are many purposes, including the providing of further information not found in the article. RAW 14:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• An objection has been made to owners linking to their own sites, and as some links appear to have been done anonymously, there is a likelihood that they were done by their owners (and this especially seems to be the case with The Christadelphians.org whose owner has contributed to the Christadelphians page using a pseudonym). I believe these links should be removed unless it can be established that they have been made by people with no interest whatsoever in the sites or in increasing traffic to them. Ekklesiastic 03:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• These seem to be very inappropriate comments. Someone has chosen not to use a name so how can you be sure of your accusations? I own/manage none of the sites and have admitted earlier to adding one of the forum sites (which have now been remvoed) and would gladly add them if it is a concern to you. You appear to have attempted to set a policy because you are upset over the loss of the link to your forum. RAW 14:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• A large part of The Christadelphians.org website is a forum, and objections have been made by 3 or 4 people to links to forums. Users are required to register in order to participate in this forum or even to view parts of it, and therefore a link to this site would violate Wikipedia policy on linking to websites requiring registration. Ekklesiastic 03:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• I checked the link and saw it provided lots of information and various further links, only one of which was to a discussion forum. The main purpose would appear to be a web page. RAW 14:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• There are currently links to 7 different "fellowships" under "Christadelphian Websites". This appears to have been done in order to maintain some sort of "balance" between warring parties. While it is evident that the Christadelphian community has been deeply divided by several "fellowships", and some of the history of these conflicts has been outlined in the "History" section, the purpose of external links should be to provide "neutral and accurate material not already in the article". Sites which are "representative of the fellowships" in a divided community cannot, by definition, be "neutral" and should not be used. Frankly, it surprises me that Christadelphians want to draw attention to the divided state of the Christadelphian community, which is what these links do. In line with Wikipedia policy they should all be removed. Ekklesiastic 03:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry but again your new found objections seem strange. By your definition it would be close to impossible for anything to be "neutral". Even articles on the wikipedia are not "neutral". Each of these are outlined by RJB above provide information on the various "major" fellowships within Christadelphians. The purpose of the article is to provide information whether Christadelphians are divided or not. Christadelphians may not wish to draw attention to it but it is reality. And the wikipedia is to provide that information. Whether you are surprised or not. RAW 14:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• It appears that all the links under "Christadelphian websites" are unofficial (or what Aquatarkus called "pseudo-official"), while truly official sites are not listed. It appears that a purpose for linking to these "pseudo-official" sites on Wikipedia is to give the impression that they are indeed official Christadelphian websites, which would be dishonest. They should all be removed. Ekklesiastic 03:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Nothing requires them to be "official". They are sites that generally would provide information on that fellowship and as RJB outlined. See above for all his reasons. RAW 14:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Please refer to the Wikipedia policy on External links. "What should be linked to ... 2. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if there is one." Ekklesiastic 23:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC) (By the way, this comment was earlier deleted by RAW without explanation, and is now restored. It appears he's trying to suppress responses to his own posts. Ekklesiastic 04:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC))

It was inadvertant when deleted. I only intended to move what was off topic. My apologies. If my intention was to suppress responses I would not leave them verbatim on my opwn user page for others to read. I hope you can apologize for your comments. RAW 16:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Since Christadelphians are autonomous and have no central authority, all Christadelphian websites could be construed as "official" sites. Since several of them try to sell stuff (ie. CMPA, Testimony, Tidings [USA]) they can easily be removed from the list. Those sites which remain should list information either about Christadelphians (ie. Who they are and their history) or about their beliefs. A forum does not fall under this category as its purpose is to attract as many members as possible for the purpose of discussion (and/or debate), but does not clearly state Christadelphian history or doctrine. Cdelph 21:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

pacifist?

it says "conscientious objectors, but not pacifists." can someone who knows please elaborate on this. i dont understand. - Christadelphians are not pacifists - they just will not fight for Gentile Powers. Hence for most their WWI willingness to work in munitions factories, a position subject to much criticism.

I have edited the history section to remove the erroneous statement that the term "Christadelphian" was in use before 1864. If you care to consult "Yahweh Elohim" (and I have an original copy) you will find no such reference. I have also added the term actually used in the Northern US - "The Antipas". Note the Southern Brethren used "Nazarenes," and it was under this name they were granted exemption by the confederate congress. user:Chuckh: 4 March 2006

• Chuckh, thanks for the correction. I would be very interested in seeing a copy of the original edition of Yahweh Elohim. Is it available electronically? I am also interested in the use of the name 'Nazarenes' by the southern brethren. Can you provide any further details? You can email me at the address in my profile on my blog if you wish. Ekklesiastic 02:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

User 82.47.74.47 has vandalized a link in this article on three occasions. Whoever you are, please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ekklesiastic 21:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

The forum TA has been a link on here for awhile but if one peruses its posts it is generally an attack on Christadelphians and their beliefs. I am not seeing much practical application of faith other than to complain and denigrate. I would propose that it be moved to another part or notice to this effect be mentioned. Thoughts of others here (other than the owner of the site) before we decide? RAW 12:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• RAW, you posted this earlier:

(see above what RAW posted on 14 February)

It appears from your post of 12:14, 19 March 2006 that you won't be 'standing by' your agreement after all. Ekklesiastic 05:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sadly you are mistaken again. I am stood by the descriptor we agreed to and am not proposing its deletion or changing it. I am just questioning the antiChristadelphian focus on TA and whether a warning should be necessary or the link moved. Please read carefully what I wrote. RAW 16:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am a bit unsure how we post here, so dont be annoyed if I have done this wrong. Why does this forum allow people to edit the posts of others?

• JS, this isn't a 'forum' and it's contrary to wiki policies to change another person's post.Ekklesiastic 05:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Steve.

Anyway, I think people should be aware that there are different sites, some run by CDs with a positive character, some run with a negative character. I am sure people will pick up on this when they visit.

BTA is open to all CDs, and ex CDs who would like to communicate with us in a positive way.

Let those who want to be negative carry on, most people will work it out for themselves.

(JS.)

Opposing Views Links

Why was the opposing views section removed? Nearly every other religious group has the same section, this one should be no different.

Still waiting for a reply.

John Hutchinson's crtical attack in his "What They Said Would Happen!"-??

Removed this section. There was some discussion of a website about Christadelphians, but the discussion made no reference to the wikipedia page. This is a page for discussing the wikipedia article on Christadelphians. It is not a general discussion forum RJB 21:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The location of the future kingdom of God

Regarding the location of the future kingdom, I have replaced "centred in Jerusalem" with "in the land of Israel". The kingdom of God will be in the land of Israel and nowhere else, although it will rule over the rest of the earth. benaiah_12@hotmail.com

If it is to be nowhere else, why does Daniel 2 say that it will fill the whole earth? Cdelph 17:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Daniel 2 does not say that the kingdom will fill the whole earth. benaiah_12@hotmail.com

Someone has changed the wording "in the land of Israel" to "centred in Jerusalem". I have had to correct this as the statement regarding Jerusalem is unscriptural. benaiah_12@hotmail.com

I have changed this back again to "in the land of Israel". Would the person who is vandalising this please enter into discussion here. benaiah_12@hotmail.com

Actually you came along and vandalised a page that has been unchanged for a while. I merely reverted back. Then modified it in the light of your continued vandalism to try and pacify you because Jeruslem is the City of 'the Great King'. Please show scripturally that Jeruselem will NOT be where Christ will reign from!

O and stop trying to lable people as being from one fellowship or another. This is a generic page about Christadelphians if you have a fellowship axe to grind go start your own fellowships page.

The future kingdom of God will be in Israel

We are not talking about where Jesus will reign from. Someone deleted the long standing wording describing that the future kingdom of God would be in Israel and replaced it with wording to say that the kingdom of God would be centred in Jerusalem, which is not a scriptural description of the kingdom - what does it actually mean? The wording you are deleting is describing where the kingdom of God will be. Do you agree or disagree that the kingdom will only be in the land of Israel? benaiah_12@hotmail.com

Disagree. It will start in the land of Israel and then spread to fill the whole earth (see Daniel 2). Cdelph 17:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you that is what I have been trying to put all along! despite continual vandalism.

Hello. It is not vandalism as this page said that the Kingdom of God was in the land of Israel for many months before you deleted it. Where does it say in Daniel 2 that the kingdom spreads to fill the whole earth? benaiah_12@hotmail.com

Having read the article I note having looked also back the mention is of the Kingdom centring upon the land of Israel which is indeed correct. However Jesus Christ will rule over all the earth as whoever put the quotes into the article emphasised the Law going forth from Jerusalem. . The Kingdom will indeed be the restored Kingdom of Israel however as 'the dream and interpretation of 'Neb's image' show the stone will grow to fill the whole earth for all will be brought into subjection to Christ. Thus the Kingdom will indeed be centred upon the restored Kingdom of Israel with Christ upon the throne of His father David, but benaiah_12@hotmail.com is wrong if they say it will not grow from that starting point to where Christ will rule over all other nations- to reapet "the Law shall go forth from Jerusaelem" and "The Isles will wait for His law". I think that benaiah_12@hotmail.com is really arguing about semantics both writers appear to be saying the same thing. However I d oagree with one writer in that to my mind benaiah_12@hotmail.com is vandalising the page because they keep going back to earlier edits which is (I think against the spirit of Wikipedia) O sorry I forgot to sign in as 'Elpis.

MY DISCUSSION ITEM HAS BEEN DELETED (is this allowed?), IS THIS BECAUSE THE PERSON DELETING IT CAN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION? HERE IS IT AGAIN - The kingdom of God will be restored to the land promised to Abraham, which was the land of Canaan, the land which today we call Israel including parts of modern day Lebanon and Syria. To deny this is to deny the promise God made to Abraham and therefore to deny the Gospel. benaiah_12@hotmail.com

---

No one is denying that the Kingdom is the land promised to Abraham... What we are saying is that the Kingdom starts there and eventually spreads through the whole earth.

Dan 2:34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. Dan 2:35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth. Dan 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.--63.253.146.34 21:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC) Cdelph

Hello Cdelph. Thank you for answering my questions. The stone is Jesus and his power will spread over the earth. Have you considered that the word "earth" is the Hebrew word "eretz" which is translated in many places "land" and could therefore refer to the land of promise only. Also, "consume" means "destory". I believe that the scriptures teach that the kingdom will be restored to Israel (Acts 1) and remain there. Are you saying that this is a worldwide kingdom and there is no difference between Israel and the rest of the world? benaiah_12@hotmail.com

Having looked at this 'ping pong' game going on with benaiah_12@hotmail.com vandalising the page then it being corrected, it does not give a good impression to 'outsiders' I had hoped we had got over this axe grinding of each fellowship trying to force its views upon others. For some time the page has been stable and hopefully reflecting view that ALL Christadephhians can agree upon. It had appeared to me that everybody had come to agree that this page is a generic one about Christadelphians and reflected views that virtually all fellowships can agree upon - which I might add was good to see.... till benaiah_12@hotmail.com started it all over again! In an effort to reach a compromise the person with an IP address does appear to have changed the wording on one or two occassions but benaiah_12@hotmail.com has rejected this. I have therefore changed the wording in a manner that I hope will satisfy all parties and ask benaiah_12@hotmail.com to accept this in a christ-like spirit without further constant changes. --Elpis 08:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Elpis. Thank you for your comments. I am not vandalising this page as for many months it stated that the kingdom of God was in Israel before this unidentified person changed it. I have given an explanation of my reverts but my questions not been answered. What would you, Cdelph, or the IP person say if I pointed out that it is actually a First Principle that the Kingdom of God is in the territory it formally occupied. See the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith Clause 21:

"BASF 21. That the Kingdom which he will establish will be the Kingdom of Israel restored, in the territory it formerly occupied, namely, the land bequeathed for an everlasting possession to Abraham and his Seed (the Christ) by covenant." benaiah_12@hotmail.com

The Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith Clause 21 may well state that persepctivem but the scriptures indicate that even in this particular viewpoint of this statement if take exactly as written is far too limited. Israel never possessed the full extent of the land as laid out in Ezekiel for the Kingdom age. Under the rule of Solomon the Kingdom expanded beyond the boundaries of Israel and Solomon ruled over the surrounding nations up as far as the Euphrates. BASF 21 is quite correct in its narrow interpretation, however it does not cover the full scope of the many many other scriptures that speak of Christ ruling over the whole earth. Are you trying to say that the BASF view is 100% correct and Christ's dominion in the Kingdom age will only be confined to the narrow strip of land defined as Israel in the time of David? Cdelf has already answered you in part and you have not yet satisfactorily refuted Dan 2 or for that matter Psalm 2:8 and many others. However it is not to my mind a fellowship issue and certainly not one to keep falling out over in the wording of this page. The compromise I hope will satisfy all views. --Elpis 08:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Elpis. I have very surprised to read that you think that the BASF is not 100% correct. In Acts 1 we are told that the kingdom will be restored to Israel. Israel is defined as the land promised to Abraham which is the same as the kingdom of David. It is clearly defined in the scriptures. See Numbers 34 which details the borders as the river (wadi - not the Nile) of Egypt up to the northern end of the Euphrates, with the eastern border including the river Jordan and Salt Sea. The borders of the future kingdom of God are the same - see Ezekiel 47. David ruled over all this land to the Euphrates (2 Samuel 8 v 3) as did Solomon, with both David and Solomon ruling over other nations (but these nations didn't become part of Israel). I have already answered the question on Daniel 2 and it would be unwise to base a first principle on the interpretation of a vision. Psalm 2 details exactly what the truth is, that Jesus will reign as king in mount Zion over Israel v 6 and then ask God for the nations v8. Only the land of Israel will be the future kingdom of God with the rest of the nations becoming the empire of Christ but outside the kingdom of God. I would suggest that this matter is a critial issue as it is the gospel that Jesus preached and belief is vital to salvation. benaiah_12@hotmail.com

---

I have reformatted this discussion for easy reading, though have not removed any comments.

Thanks to Elpis for devising a "middle way" for the purposes of the article; hopefully this will satisfy everyone for the time being, as a representation of what views are held in Christadelphia, regardless of which view has more Scriptural support. Wiki pages are good for making brief comments; they are not, however, a very suitable medium for meaningful discussion. Can I suggest that discussion about whether the prevailing view of Christadelphians is Scripturally founded or not is better suited to emails or personal conversations, not to a public wiki page specifically designed for discussing the wikipedia article? RJB 21:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ecclesias

I removed the following phrase: (a Greek word commonly mispronouced as "Eee-clee-see-as") and replaced it with a link to the wikipedia page on ecclesia; this would seem a more suitable place for mention of correct (or even incorrect) pronunciation. RJB 21:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleted discussions

Removed text: personal arguements are not really for public consumption and do not give a very good impression of Christadelphians.

• It is is out of bounds to delete like that per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable. Besides, all anyone has to do is go and read the page's history to read the discussions. CyberAnth 04:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• The purpose of Wikipedia articles is to provide information, not to generate good PR. The purpose of this page is not to "give a very good impression of Christadelphians". Please don't remove material simply because you don't like the impression it leaves. Ekklesiastic 23:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• I am in agreement with both CyberAnth and Ecclesiastic on this. Do not delete any discussions. Note also, please sign in when you make edits and also sign your posts. Cdelph 22:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Continued Vandalism By 86.129.210.112

Please note that user 86.129.210.112 continues to vandalize this page and the one on the Dawn Christadelphians by making subjective statements in the body of the document. This must stop or you will be reported to Wikipedia. Cdelph 22:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear dear Cdelf you are quite happy to vandalise the page yourself and claim you are updating it. I have merely updated the Christadelphian page not simply reverted to previous edits as you keep doing. Anybody is entitled to make changes so please do stop your childish 'threats' which are pointless. You also were quite happy to wipe out somebody elses changes on this and vandalise Dawn pages. Pot calling the kettle black me thinks.

• The whole point is to make factual changes and not opinion based changes. Your changes show a continued bias against any group that is not Dawn, while changes made by myself (and Ecclesiastic, for example) are for the most part factual changes or spelling changes. Kindly stop.

• Rather than having a continuing 'edit war' it would be better to agree on some terminology which is mutually acceptable. I have added the following statement in the Beliefs section of the article:

"Within the Central fellowship there is some diversity (e.g. in worship styles, practices and on some relatively minor doctrinal points) and some sub-groups do not fellowship other sub-groups within the Central fellowships. To some people this is seen as a weakness and is regarded as 'dis-unity', while others view diversity as a strength or, at least as a benefit." This is an accurate statement and conveys the message that the anonymous user (86.129.210.112) has been endeavouring to make, but in a less provocative way. Ekklesiastic 05:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability

At the start of the page, a statement is made saying "There are approximately 50,000 Christadelphians in 130 countries." Under wikipedia's policy, statements like this really need to be verifiable. I'm not sure who worked out this statistic, but I've googled this statistic, and all I come up with is a list of wikipedia mirrors. If this is not verifiable, it should be deleted. Benpmorgan 09:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• I changed "approximately" to "an estimated". I don't know where the estimate comes from - I've heard several estimates at various times, all largely guesswork I think. Ekklesiastic 00:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Anecdotal information

What do you think about the use of anecdotes in this article? Personally I feel that comments like the following are unverifiable, easily challenged, and add nothing substantive to the article (and almost certainly would be contrary to Wiki guidelines).

• Christadelphians have had many public discussions with other religions, most commonly Jehovah's Witnesses, and have not yet to date been proven wrong in their belief of the scriptures. Many Jehovah's Witnesses turned to the Christadelphian Faith after these discussions, believing the leaders of the Jehovah's Witnesses to be misleading and ultimately wrong in their understanding of the scriptures. Catholics have also been unable to find a flaw in the Christadelphians, and one Priest was convinced by the Christadelphians that his religion was wrong, yet said that he could not change his 'faith' because he had a very comfortable lifestyle and was in a respected position in community .

Is there any evidence that Christadelphian discussions with other religions have been "most commonly with Jehovah's Witnesses"? They have "not yet to date been proven wrong" is a subjective opinion. "Many Jehovah's Witnesses turned to the Christadelphian Faith after these discussions". Can this be substantiated? What about the "many Christadelphians" who may have turned to other faiths? "Catholics have been unable to find a flaw in the Christadelphians". Is there an official Catholic source that can be cited? "One priest" is, well, "one priest". What about the thousands of priests who continue to be Catholics?

In my opinion this comment should be removed. Ekklesiastic 23:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree these additions are highly subjective and could easily be interpreted as Christadelphian propaganda. There is no evidence whatsoever to substantiate the claims.

Yawn

My goodness me, reading this page wouldn't exactly encourage me to find out about the truth. Come on Brethren and Sisters, let's concentrate on getting the word out there, not infighting! Cls14 00:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Christadelphian history

I have amended the following

became known as the Central fellowship, named after a meeting hall in Birmingham England near the Birmingham Central station.

There is no Birmingham Central fellowship; as far as I'm aware the fellowship is named after the ecclesia, not a hall, since the Central ecclesia has met in a number of different halls.

I have deleted the following

The "Central Fellowship" today are those who in fellowship with the CMPA (Christadelphian Magazine and Publishing Association's directors).

I have been a Christadelphian for 10 years and know several CMPA members and have never heard such a definition used; I suspect most would strongly disagree with it. RJB 14:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)