The problems with Christidelphians

while seemingly being devout, God fearing and ardent students of the Bible, there are various shortcomings which manifest themselves after further inquiry. i provide a very basic summation of these and would appreciate any comments on the points.

1. Christadelphianism first of all comes short in that it knows nothing of the issue of universal sovereignty, as espoused by many of Gods ancient servants. The very name Jesus Christ means “Jehovah Is Salvation.”

2. A second vital and basic shortcoming of Christadelphianism is its lack of that unity for which Jesus prayed: “That they may all be one, . . . that they may be perfected into one.” However within Christadelphianism there has been a spirit of divisiveness almost from the beginning.

3.A third basic shortcoming of Christadelphianism is in regard to its accepting the witnessing responsibility that Jesus Christ placed upon his followers. It does not at all recognize the obligation to preach “this good news of the kingdom . . . to all the nations” and to “make disciples of people of all the nations,” as mentioned at Matthew 24:14; 28:19, 20. Rather, it holds that its “province is to make known the true Gospel to the people of so-called Christendom who have been led astray from the simplicity of the truth preached by Christ and his apostles.”

4. The fourth basic shortcoming of Christadelphianism is its lack of hope for mankind’s dead. It holds that only those who have become acquainted with what it considers to be the truth become responsible and only such will be resurrected, either to life or to death. It would have us believe that, except for this minute number, all the rest of mankind will remain dead forever, including all children—even those of Christadelphian parents—who died before reaching the age of responsibility.

5.A fifth basic failure is the denial and arguments against Jesus prehuman existence, a Christadelphian publication states that when God said, “Let us make man in our image,” he was using the plural pronouns, not to include his Son the Logos but solely to refer to himself, since his title in the Hebrew, Elohim, is in the plural form. (Gen. 1:26) But if this is the case here, then there should be other instances to show that God (Elohim) was accustomed to speak of himself in this way. Is there other instances? Not at all.

6.A sixth basic failure is to truly identify the nature of Gods adversary Satan and his demonic hordes, for all Christadelphians hold that Satan the Devil is merely sin in the flesh, although they widely disagree on the identity of the serpent that tempted Eve and on who or what tempted Jesus in the wilderness.

7.Christadelphian writers deny that Jesus Christ became a “corresponding ransom” or substitute, but say that Jesus died merely in a representative capacity and for himself as well as for the rest of the believers.

8.In support of their position that no one of earth will ever go to heaven and that God’s kingdom will be wholly an earthly one Christadelphian writers cite such texts as: “The Lord of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem.” “The Lord shall be king over all the earth.” “And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.”—Isa. 24:23; Zech. 14:9; Rev. 5:10, AV.

Because of such prophecies Christadelphians pin great hopes on the Jews establishing Gods Kingdom in Palestine, overlooking the fact that the entire tenor of the Christian Greek Scriptures is that what counts is not being a Jew according to the flesh but according to the spirit.—Rom. 2:25-29; Gal. 3:28.

9. Finally some good things, No trinity, No War, No tithes, No eternal torment. 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
while seemingly being devout, God fearing and ardent students of the Bible, there are various shortcomings which manifest themselves after further inquiry. i provide a very basic summation of these and would appreciate any comments on the points.

1. Christadelphianism first of all comes short in that it knows nothing of the issue of universal sov ...[text shortened]... al. 3:28.

9. Finally some good things, No trinity, No War, No tithes, No eternal torment. 🙂

To all of those, add:

10. Their esoteric ramblings will leave many who suffer through their needlessly numbered essays scratching their collective heads while heaving a consensual, "Huh?"

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
while seemingly being devout, God fearing and ardent students of the Bible, there are various shortcomings which manifest themselves after further inquiry. i provide a very basic summation of these and would appreciate any comments on the points.

1. Christadelphianism first of all comes short in that it knows nothing of the issue of universal sov ...[text shortened]... al. 3:28.

9. Finally some good things, No trinity, No War, No tithes, No eternal torment. 🙂

I am more in agreement with the Christadelphians than with mainline Christianity.

1. "Universal sovereignty" is to be rejected.

2. The lack of a central authority is to their credit.

3. Anyone who does not witness is a friend of mine.

4. Their position on the non-existence of the dead until the return of Christ is obviously flawed, but still preferable to the position of most Christian sects on the matter.

5. Their denial of Jesus' prehuman existence is correct.

6. Their position on Satan is preferable.

7. Their beliefs about the alleged resurrection are absurd, but no more so than any other Christian sect.

8. They are absolutely correct in that the kingdom will be wholly an earthly one, although their understanding of the nature of the kingdom is terribly flawed.

9. No trinity, no war, no tithes and no eternal torment are all obviously good things.

The result? The Christadelphians, while certainly flawed, are far better than most other Christian sects. At least according to my limited understanding of them.

Does anybody know where the exit is?

Luke 10:21
In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

Isn't it obvious to any of you how the sophisticated and intellectual types have shipwrecked the faith of so many? Squabbling and babbling. Congratulating and patting each other on the back.

Ephesians 5:14
...Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.

Originally posted by rwingett
I am more in agreement with the Christadelphians than with mainline Christianity.

1. "Universal sovereignty" is to be rejected.

2. The lack of a central authority is to their credit.

3. Anyone who does not witness is a friend of mine.

4. Their position on the non-existence of the dead until the return of Christ is obviously flawed, but still tter than most other Christian sects. At least according to my limited understanding of them.

why is universal sovereignty to be rejected, for it is the very basis of Christianity, the sanctification of Gods name and the upholding of his sovereignty. One cannot have a Kingdom without a king, can one? It was the great issue raised in the garden of Eden, it was to be settled by the coming of the messiah, to reject it, is to reject the very idea of a propitiatory sacrifice and to place the value of Christs sacrifice as of nothing.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why is universal sovereignty to be rejected, for it is the very basis of Christianity, the sanctification of Gods name and the upholding of his sovereignty. One cannot have a Kingdom without a king, can one? It was the great issue raised in the garden of Eden, it was to be settled by the coming of the messiah, to reject it, is to reject the very idea of a propitiatory sacrifice and to place the value of Christs sacrifice as of nothing.

I reject the very idea of a propitiatory sacrifice.

Originally posted by rwingett
I reject the very idea of a propitiatory sacrifice.

ok, if you reject the very idea, then you must explain why blood sacrifices were offered even before the patriarchal period, Abel being the first, right through that period with Abraham himself offering blood sacrifices, all the way through the very specific details given to Moses and enshrined in the Mosaic Law culminating in the sacrifice of Christ himself.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok, if you reject the very idea, then you must explain why blood sacrifices were offered even before the patriarchal period, Abel being the first, right through that period with Abraham himself offering blood sacrifices, all the way through the very specific details given to Moses and enshrined in the Mosaic Law culminating in the sacrifice of Christ himself.

The ancient Israelites viewed the world and god through a lens particular to their own time and place. That lens is no longer available to us. It would be futile to try to force our view of the world and of god to conform to that ancient perception. We must look at these things through the lens of the 21st century. Blood sacrifices harken back to pagan times and are no longer applicable to a modern understanding of things.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok, if you reject the very idea, then you must explain why blood sacrifices were offered even before the patriarchal period, Abel being the first, right through that period with Abraham himself offering blood sacrifices, all the way through the very specific details given to Moses and enshrined in the Mosaic Law culminating in the sacrifice of Christ himself.

"Blood" sacrifices pre-Christ are somewhere inexact. The body and the blood of Jesus has symbology that doesn't really apply to earlier sacrifices.

That is to say, it is very much secondary and wholly not germane that earlier sacrifices involved blood. Earlier sacrificing involved the taking of life; there was something magical and mysterious in the procreation of life such that God was evident in the ability of one's livestock and domesticated animals to reproduce. One's survival was dependent upon that procreation. That came from God. To sacrifice the best of what one depended on was giving back to God.

But the blood aspect is secondary because the sacrifices involved mammals. Interesting that no one cared to smack a fish to death and burn it at the altar or roast a jar of honeybees.

When Jesus declared that his body and blood be remembered, he placed the importance that others would later put upon a "blood sacrifice".

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
while seemingly being devout, God fearing and ardent students of the Bible, there are various shortcomings which manifest themselves after further inquiry. i provide a very basic summation of these and would appreciate any comments on the points.

1. Christadelphianism first of all comes short in that it knows nothing of the issue of universal sov ...[text shortened]... al. 3:28.

9. Finally some good things, No trinity, No War, No tithes, No eternal torment. 🙂

Seems likely that there continues to be a basic shortcoming of Carrobians which is plagiarism. Seems likely that this points to the original source material:
http://boards.history.com/topic/History-Of-Christianity/Have-You-Heard/993?messageID=18459

Unless you authored the above article, its evident that you plagiarized from this text. This seems unlikely since you've plagiarized so heavily in the past and seemed to have no conscience about doing so.

In case you still don't understand the concept:
From Wiki:
"Plagiarism, as defined in the 1995 Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary, is the "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.""

It baffles me how some are so desperate to try to appear intelligent that they are willing to plagiarize to do so.

Originally posted by Badwater
"Blood" sacrifices pre-Christ are somewhere inexact. The body and the blood of Jesus has symbology that doesn't really apply to earlier sacrifices.

That is to say, it is very much secondary and wholly not germane that earlier sacrifices involved blood. Earlier sacrificing involved the taking of life; there was something magical and mysterious in the proc ...[text shortened]... emembered, he placed the importance that others would later put upon a "blood sacrifice".

Not so fast.

While there may have been all manner of other religious systems out there which incorporated sacrifice of animals with "inexact" practices, the system meted out by God was categorized, precise and detailed.

The Levitical Offerings encompassed the salvations offerings: burnt offerings, meat (or, better, food or gift) offerings, and peace offerings; and the rebound offerings: sin offering and trespass offering. Made known at the door of the Tabernacle, each of these ritual offerings were exact in their application and procedure.

The shedding of the the blood of the animal sacrifice was analogous to the death of Christ on the cross, in representative form, not necessarily a literal analogy. The physical death of the sacrificial animal represented the spiritual death of Christ. Our Lord Jesus Christ did not save us by bleeding to death, but for His symbolic/substitutionary receipt of our sins and the subsequent judgment from God the Father for the same.

When Christ died on the cross, it was a result of His willingness to give up His spirit--- decidedly not from bleeding to death. The OT witness of animal sacrifices (when blood was called for) was understood that it (the blood) represented the life of the one sacrificing... not that blood itself held any special properties.

Throughout the NT, the blood of Christ is constantly referred to, as the overwhelming majority of the intended audience--- steeped in Jewish ritualism-shadowing-coming-reality--- knew exactly what the blood of those innumerable animals meant: a perfect sacrifice was required--- and ultimately provided.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Seems likely that there continues to be a basic shortcoming of Carrobians which is plagiarism. Seems likely that this points to the original source material:
http://boards.history.com/topic/History-Of-Christianity/Have-You-Heard/993?messageID=18459

Unless you authored the above article, its evident that you plagiarized from this text. This seems unlik ...[text shortened]... e so desperate to try to appear intelligent that they are willing to plagiarize to do so.

Holy hot, steaming feces.
That's just too precious!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
... the system meted out by God was categorized, precise and detailed.

The Levitical Offerings encompassed the salvations offerings: burnt offerings, meat (or, better, food or gift) offerings, and peace offerings; and the rebound offerings: sin offering and trespass offering. Made known at the door of the Tabernacle, each of these ritual offerings were exact in their application and procedure.
....

I was talking about the reason behind the sacrifice, not the procedure involved.

Blood is not the underlying reason, the main component, and the do-all and end-all of the animal sacrifices of the ancient Jews. The blood sacrifice of Jesus is different; there is different reasoning and it's directly connected to written quotes attributed to Jesus.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Seems likely that there continues to be a basic shortcoming of Carrobians which is plagiarism. Seems likely that this points to the original source material:
http://boards.history.com/topic/History-Of-Christianity/Have-You-Heard/993?messageID=18459

Unless you authored the above article, its evident that you plagiarized from this text. This seems unlik e so desperate to try to appear intelligent that they are willing to plagiarize to do so.

actually you are quite wrong, we have our own work of reference, entitled the watchtower library, which as Jehovahs Witnesses we are at perfect liberty to use, for this is a data base of the literature which we author, distribute and print, which is not for the consumption of infidels like you. Do you feel stupid now? this was not an attempt to appear intelligent as once again you have erroneously assumed,(what a muppet), nor an attempt to impress reprobates like you as if you are worthy of passing judgemnt, in fact, it was a ruse, designed to provoke our friend Raj, who used to be associated with the Christidelphians, and was done tounge in cheek, concocted by Galvo and myself. So take your definitions and your insinuations and whatever else profanities that cloud your mind, for you did not know the motives were, nor the private correspondence that me and Glavo had prior to its posting, nor do you have access to our reference works, what an nin cow poop you purport to be!