We have a lot of poor translation, really more just in the understanding and concept people get when you get things like αόρατος translated as "invisible" in many translations. Another discussion really though
@jacob9158 Yeah I use the parallel plus app myself. Really though, it's a bigger problem then that, in that you have to become familiar with the culture and background for the passages you read to not miss out on meaning. One example I would give is the misunderstanding people have of the relationship between χάρις and πίστις (commonly translated as grace and faith respectively) because we don't understand the patron system context which in the greco-roman world was described with those terms
@@jimjim292 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” - John 20:29 Who is like the Lord our God, the One who sits enthroned on high, who stoops down to look on the heavens and the earth? - Psalm 113:5-6
Imagine meeting someone and they say they belong to the “unamended Christadelphians”. All of these 1800’s restoration movements are difficult to keep up with
Hi, I was until about 4 years ago. I was listening to a talk by John Lennox and God used him to crack open the door to my mind and let some light in. Thank the Lord for delivering me from this belief system. If the Spirit moves you, pray for some of my family still held captive by these false doctrines.
Hard mode: The Unitarian Church of Transylvania, one of the oldest unitarian churches that was founded shortly after the Reformation, so little is written about them in English.
I'm having serious JW/Bible Students flashbacks with this video 🤯 Interesting how restorationism influenced all these groups and how they spun off of each other.
Speaking as someone who goes to a Restorationist church, the ideas at the core of the movement, that we need to not be divided by things that aren't clear in scripture and get back to what is there is an idea that can easily abused.
You are assuming groups which have some beliefs in common must be related. If an idea is Biblical then it is not surprising it may come to be understood independently from Bible reading alone. Thus many have independently come to understand from scripture that the dead are not conscious, souls are not immortal, Christians should be neutral politically and not bear arms, that there shouldn’t be paid clergy or tithing, that God is not a Trinity, etc. The very fact that unrelated groups can come the same understanding independently is an endorsement of the idea possibly having merit in and of itself. That said only Jehovah God can truly remove the veil Satan uses to keep people from understanding and accepting the truth. They must be drawn by the Father. 2 Cor 4:3-4; 3:16. John 6:44. It is a shame the Christedelphians have picked up such unscriptural beliefs as God being flesh when the Bible says he is spirit. John 4:4. 1 Cor 15:50 That Jesus didn’t have a prehuman existence. John 8:23, 58. Phil 2:5-6 That Jesus was imperfect Heb 4:15 That Satan and the demons are not real when the Bible explains they are disobedient angels. Jude 6; Rev 12:7-9 If you would like an official list of the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses and supporting scriptures here is a link. www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/jehovah-witness-beliefs/
Will you ever plan to do videos about extinct Christian denominations? Like the Puritans or the Diggers or the Oneida Community? Even something on Christian Deism would be interesting.
@@fighterofthenightman1057 needless for whom? are you speaking on behalf of humanity or just sharing your preference for a non-conventional use of the English language?
Diggers were more of a political movement with religious flavor, not really a denomination. It was movement of peasant and people who lost everything, and their actions was protesting against robbery that was done by enclose of the commons.
Ive learnt more about Christadelphians in this vid than I have from anywhere else. I went to an SDA Church that was around the corner of a Christadelphian eclessia here in Australia. Every week that had the subject of their service on a giant sign. Would often notice that they would mention other churches by name and tease doctorines they said they got wrong. They were always much more tactful about the SDA Church because that eclessia happened to send several of their children to the SDA schools as they didnt have their own school system. That eclessia doesnr meet at that location anymore and it's been taken over by St Gregorios Indian Orthodox Church
There's and Indian orthodox church? It's like spreading non-denominationalism at the speed of tectonic plates. Which will be first, the return of Christ or every house having 2.5 patriarchs and an ongoing theological rift.
For anyone that is curious about the Indian Orthodox Church. One simple Google search says: "The Indian Orthodox Church is in communion with the other Oriental Orthodox Churches namely, Antiochene, Coptic, Armenian, Eritrean and Ethiopian Orthodox Churches and maintains cordial ecumenical relationships with the Eastern Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant Churches."
Excellent video.... as usual. We have come to expect superior content from @Ready to Harvest.... and we are never disappointed!!! HC-JAIPUR (14/07/2024) .
Thank you for your service to people with an interest in knowing, understanding various groups gathering under the umbrella of christian church. Every video viewed has been enriching, and at times convicting. Please continue. May be blessed through Jesus Christ.
Thanks for this carefully researched and presented video - I’ve been looking out for you to make it for ages. I’m a Christadelphian who has travelled widely to ecclesias in Australia and NZ. A couple of points that were interesting to me: - While I have heard of Christadelphians that believe that God is essentially visible and physical, and that Jesus was crucified on a stake rather than a cross, both of those positions are rare in my experience and neither are part of my personal beliefs. - While I admire those who abstain from media such as TV, I myself do not and I would say this is a minority position amongst Christadelphians. - The explanation of Christadelphian conscientious objection to military/police service and voting had some strange emphases that aren’t widely taught in my experience. My personal beliefs, in line with those I was taught, are that followers of Christ are to abstain from these things because our allegiance is to God’s kingdom, not to worldly powers, and the priority of the Gospel is personal transformation, not social change. - I have never heard of a Christadelphian pastor (or other clerical role). - One interesting aspect of our beliefs that was not covered is that we reject substitutionary atonement, believing that Christ died as our representative, and giving an example of willing surrender and sacrifice for us to follow. Thanks again!
Hi bro Matt, sent you a FB message :) You must have been paying closer attention than me (I did skim a bit), I'll look at those sections again. But generally the video was fair wasn't it.
Thomas said to the resurrected Jesus "the Lord of me the God of me." Jesus didn't correct him but rather took that as a statement of faith showing that he believed the right thing about Jesus
Thomas' statement can also be understood as him referring to two referents, My Lord, and in addition, My God. Jesus acknowledged that he didn't do or say things on his own authority, or by his own power, but because his father was working in him. So, I think Thomas could have been recognising this aspect. That is, My Lord (Jesus), and My God (the Father who was working in Jesus).
“Cult” used to actually mean something to sociologists and anthropologists. Then it became a derogatory slur against every group or sect people happen to disagree with.
@@jakejerrison5181 Yes, that's how languages work, they endlessly change over time. The conventional use of that term in today's world refers to a group that has deviated from an accepted standard of orthodoxy. The 19th century gave us all sort of this nonesense.
@marcodesalud7034 the conventional use of the word cult is a group that's controlling of it's members to enslavement basically. Morons use the term cult to label other groups as other so they don't even have to take them seriously
@@marcodesalud7034in the theological world, yes. but the more prominent definition in the public sphere is the sociological one. if you want to use the word, it may be best to preface that by stating which definition you’re using.
> reject the trinity and Christ’s divinity, practically rejecting half the creed > reject the cross > The term Satan might refer to God Most Christians would have a thing or two to say
You've done a reasonable job of covering Christadelphian positions on creation. The oldest view is Old Earth Creationism, although Young Earth Creationism became dominant when Christadelphians adopted fundamentalism during the 40s and 50s. The two positions have co-existed harmoniously (mainly because the Christadelphian creed does not specify the age of the earth or the duration of creation). Bottom line: special creation is the orthodox view, but over the past few decades it's been challenged by the rise of Evolutionary Creationism, which now has a substantial toehold in the community, and is quietly (and not so quietly) accepted in many congregations. I think Christadelphians watching this video will be delighted that you've taken care to emphasise the freedom of thought that thrives within their community, which is arguably the result of its non-hierarchical ecclesiology.
Just a note about the offshoots of Christadelphianism, the Berean Fellowship should not be confused with the Berean Fellowship of Churches which was founded in 1923 in North Platte, NE. If you look Berean Fellowship up online it mostly shows the latter.
In high school, I attended an interdenominational Christian school in Nebraska. A substantial number of the students there went to "Berean Churches" of the variety that is NOT Christadelphian. They are fairly common in Nebraska and relatively rare elsewhere. Doctrinally, they are moderate Calvinists.
Not mainstream Christian, no, but Christian as much as the apostles were. After all, we should judge a Christian, not on whether they believe mainstream Christian doctrines, but on whether their beliefs are in line with Jesus and his apostles.
@@eddieyoung2104Thankfully, it agrees entirely with him. They are NOT Christian. The Bible is explicit that God is spiritual, not physical. In many places, both old and new testament.
@@DrakonPhD You're right, about God being spiritual because Jesus says that God is a spirit (John 4:24). However, God is also portrayed as a physical being, in the sense of that he can see, hear, smell, speak etc. Also when God passed before Moses, he wasn't allowed to see his face, but only his back. That suggests something physical, but it doesn't tell us what God's form was. I think you're getting the impression we believe God is like a human being, which is not the intention of the writers quoted in the video. One of the definitions of the word 'physical' is: Having substance or material existence; perceptible to the senses. So, if God passed by before Moses, and Moses had to be shielded from him, then we would assume God had some substance, and something which could be perceived. We also have Genesis 1 telling us we're made in God's image, which could suggest he has some form which we are a copy of. But again 'image' could refer to character rather than actual form. In my years as a Christadelphian, I haven't heard anyone trying to define it anymore than this.
You really do a great scholastic job of bringing the doctrines of others. Thank you... thank you... thank you. God's Spirit is with you. If I encounter a believer from other faiths I can now discern and pray Jesus' light into their life. I'm not perfect but that which is perfect comes then that which is imperfect will pass away.
Because they don't start with the Bible. Instead they start with accepting all sorts of extra biblical ideas. One being the idea that beings are necessarily material. That a description of a person isn't their name etc. The Bible, from the get go, names things as to who and what they are. Adam, Eve, Seth, Satan, Abraham, Isaac, Israel, Moses etc etc. Not that they don't deny Moses etc were actual creatures just Satan. 😂😂😂
@@KingoftheJuice18In standard Christian theology Satan is not truly independent though. He is fulfilling his role in God's plan whether he realizes it or not
@@KingoftheJuice18 There's no contradiction. You could always read the chapter and context to see that it refers to God having ultimate control. A supernatural evil power does refute that. The entire book of Job re-affirms this very point.
@@juffjim4437 Unfortunately, if you believe that Jesus Christ is Yahweh God, then you are not my brother in Christ. Please read your Bible in all its context. Then you will understand who Jesus Christ really is.
@@kirjian To answer this question satisfactorily, I would have to see the whole film. On the other hand, I have only seen a fragment of it. Give me some time and I will answer your question.
@@kirjian description is generally ok, but I think that oversimplified a bit, focused only on two or three authors. Especially Duncan Heater who is not in full connection with Christadelphian. Today the thought of Christadelphians is more broad than only one opinion or one credo even BASF. But, as an introduction, that material is ok.
Oh man, those "We reject the doctrine that - " statements have me yelling at my screen. "YOU MISUNDERSTAND DIVINE NATURE!" "IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD" "IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD" "HOW CAN GOD BOTH BE A PERSON AND NOT A PERSON?" "...we reject the doctrine that the devil is a supernatural being" "OF COURSE, BECAUSE YOUR DOCTRINES COME FROM HIM"
1 Timothy 1:20 Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme Here the adversary is teaching people not to blaspheme but according to your theology Satan should have the opposite effect
@@TheUnorthodoxEcclesia Have you ever burned your hand on a hot iron? You learned not to touch the hot iron because of your error - it didn't teach you anything itself but only hurt you. In the same way, being handed over to Satan "teaches" them the power of God. And who has the authority to turn someone over to Satan? Paul, acting as Bishop of the Church!
@Dagfari Hebrews 2:14 states: > "Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil." In interpreting this verse, along with Luke 20:36, Christadelphians focus on the following points: 1. **Human Nature of Jesus**: Hebrews 2:14 emphasizes that Jesus shared in "flesh and blood" to be fully human. This is central to Christadelphian theology, which asserts that Jesus had the same nature as all humans to fully overcome sin. 2. **Destruction of the Devil**: Christadelphians interpret "the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil" as a personification of sin and human nature rather than a literal supernatural being. Jesus' death and resurrection are seen as the means by which he overcame sin and its power. 3. **Wages of Sin is Death**: According to Romans 6:23, "the wages of sin is death." If the devil were a real supernatural being who sinned, he would have died, since sin results in death. This reinforces the Christadelphian view that the devil symbolizes the sin and human nature within us. 4. **Immortality of Angels**: Luke 20:36 states: > "For they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection." This verse highlights that angels are immortal and do not die, supporting the idea that the devil, if an angel, would not fit the description of being subject to death through sin. Combining these points, Christadelphians interpret Hebrews 2:14 as follows: - **Jesus Destroying the Devil**: By partaking in human nature and overcoming sin through his death, Jesus destroyed the devil. Here, "the devil" represents the power of sin and death inherent in human nature, which Jesus conquered. - **Physical Element of Animal Nature**: The devil, in this context, is understood as the physical, animalistic nature within humans that leads to sin, disease, and death. By taking on this nature and living a sinless life, Jesus showed that it is possible to overcome sin. - **Conquest of Sin and Death**: Jesus' victory over the devil is seen as a triumph over the sin that leads to death, thus offering redemption and the hope of eternal life to humanity. In summary, Christadelphians view Hebrews 2:14 as a key text illustrating that Jesus overcame the devil by conquering human sin and mortality, rather than defeating a literal supernatural being. This aligns with their belief that the devil represents the sinful human nature and its consequences.
God gave mankind the power to reason. In all my time of speaking to other religions, no one has been able to explain to me, how, if Hebrews 2:14 is to be taken absolutely literally, when Jesus died, so did the ‘devil’. Therefore, the belief in an evil angel trying to influence man against God, has not been happening since AD 30. So where do all the wars, crimes, evil etc. come from? As the Bible says- ‘out of the heart of man’ Mark 7:23- All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
How can you have an "orthodoxy" in a non-denominational movement? If you reject creeds and doctrinal statements, insisting on a "Bible-only" perspective (which, it must be noted, is more extreme than the traditional Protestant understanding of sola scriptura), how can you definitively condemn anyone who is coming to different conclusions about the Bible. And how can you say that you're not a denomination if you can enact disfellowship? I try to sympathize with Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell for the good intentions of their Restoration Movement, but the rise of heretics within their ranks was seemingly inevitable. It's the unavoidable tradeoff that comes with refusing to define your positions clearly or to affirm the most ancient and notable definitions of the Christian faith.
@Robert-rw5lm the first mention of the word trinity is in the early 200s, so you're incorrect. Regardless, there is no way to read the Bible and not come away with something like the Trinity.
They actually take the time to read everything. Every word, over and over again. They don't add, they don't subtract. It makes even more sense. I have no questions about anything anymore after reading it for myself
I’ve connected with the Christadelphians on a few occasions, and have sympathy with some of their views. It’s largely in matters of eschatology that I significantly diverge. In many ways, their structure and worship are similar to the “Plymouth” brethren, which is where I began my Christian walk.
I was thinking the same thing for the first quarter of the video; I'm one of the so-called "Plymouth" brethren, and could see the similarities, particularly in terms of the simplicity of worship, opposition to denominations, etc. But, when it comes to doctrine... well... there are some fundamental issues there, to put it mildly!
@Mick116 Philippians 2:5-11 King James Version 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus Question how can we have the same mind as Jesus if he pre-existed? 1 Corinthians 2:16 King James Bible For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ
Eschatology meaning study of the last days the end times so you're saying you don't believe that Jesus will physically return to the Earth and restore the kingdom of God the restoration of all things spoken by the mouth of his prophets Book of Acts Chapter 3 Verse 19
Very interesting, we have a Christadephian church in Venice, Florida, I live near Port Charlotte. First heard about this church in Melton's "The Encyclopedia of American Religions". They are similar to the JW's in some doctrines.
I live across the road to a Christadelphian church in Australia. I've always been curious what they are about but after watching your video I'm glad I didn't walk in.
There was a little country church in Clark County Illinois that says it was a Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith. The County history page also declares it to be as such. However, the church was built in 1902, prior to this denominations start. My Great Grandfather and other family members are buried in the cemetery next to the church. I believe it was a different denomination in the first few decades of it's existence...and did not become COGGC till about the 1970's. As I am getting close to 70 myself, I don't know if anyone out there alive knows what it was originally. The church was torn down about 3 or 4 years ago, but they put a plaque denoting it's location on the church/cemetery grounds. p.s. My grandfather, who died pretty young at 32 yr old, believed in the United Brethren's doctrine. In the 1800s, same family was Methodist Episcopal in Indiana. THANKS for this video Joshua!! 😇
@@gjhartist3685 Most of us thought JWs were the closest. I would describe it to people as like JW, but not as rigid or dogmatic. They don't shun and you can celebrate your birthday or Christmas if you want to. Although there are a few fanatics who agree with those ideas.
What a fascinating little group. A completely physical world is incredibly interesting to pitch. They seem to have either come to the same end point as many ancient Jews or Peter I wonder if they did this all on their own or if they maybe knew some Jews. I wonder how their numbers are doing over time. Seems pretty good with the African numbers
I used to be a christadelphian; I think much of the thinking stemmed from the founders (John Thomas) background as a medical doctor. I believe he approached scripture largely from a naturalists point of view. At the time darwinism was in it’s infancy and Dr. Thomas adopted some of the theories he held such as the earth being eons old. An unholy mixture of the current darwinism and theology. This led to complete speculation that there may have been prior epochs of salvation (the angels) prior to mans creation. Some truly bizarre ideas that are spun whole cloth from this mans imagination. With exception to the clear miracles recorded in scripture, Christadelphian’s tend only to believe in what they can easily categorize, define & reference. (Kinda like the character Scully from the X-files TV show) I believe this is what led John Thomas to accept the physical aspects of Christ and believe that he indeed was born and walked the earth, but largely ignored the deity of Christ and categorized him as a “glorified” man post resurrection. In a similar thought process Christadelphian’s view Satan as either personified sin, or in some cases an adversary to God’s will (when Peter was called a satan) Borrowing and adapting some of Ronald Reagans verbiage: It’s not that Christadelphian’s are ignorant, it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so. I can’t say with certainty the numbers of the other fellowships, but the unamended community is roughly 25-35% of what it was 40 years ago. They are pleasant enough people, generally quite likable, but theologically arrogant and dangerous for your spiritual well being.
The numbers are dying off in North America. I am in Ontario and it was exciting in the 1980's when ecclesias were expanding, but then a few of them folded and now lots are filled with mainly old people, so that does not bode well for the future.
Bunch of these beliefs are very similar to those of the JWs. One that struck me as quite different is that of who gets resurrected. Specifically because I was at the JW hall on Sunday and they discussed the resurrection article in Watchtower. At the 23:10 point this video says that "There will be many who have lived their lives oblivious of the purposeful power of God and unaware of the promised gift of life made possible through the work of the Lord Jesus Christ. We should not expect such to be raised." The thought is that such people would not be raised because they would not know how to provide an answer in the future Judgement. The JW belief on another hand is that the future resurrection ("judgement") is actually an "evaluation" on how the person responds during the 1000 year kingdom. Their Watchtower (May 2024) says that "the Bible tells us that Jehovah will bring back to life “unrighteous” people who have not had the opportunity to respond to the good news and change their ways". So the "Judgment Day" for JWs is the Thousand Year Kingdom, during which all kinds of people who did not have an opportunity to respond (if they died young, did not have full mental capability, lived in countries were preaching work is restricted, etc.) will be resurrected.
A very interesting description of this group. They have some interesting ideas and arguments but many of them seem, to me, to assume that God must operate by human logic, which is not an approach to the divine that makes sense to me.
Can God make a square circle? Can God make a stone so heavy he cannot lift it? "God can do only what is logically possible" What about the Trinity though? "God is not bound by human logic"
An interesting tidbit about John Thomas was that he sent a copy of his book Anatolia to Czar Nicholas I and told him that the czar was the Gogian leader and an instrument of God. He invited him to invade Europe and Israel as he was untouchable and this would usher in the return of Jesus in accordance with Ezekiel 38-39.
i've never heard about this denomination before, so i'm curious as to why a lot of people are saying bad things. from the facts stated in the video alone i actually think this is one of the better denominations out there since they can accept theological differences within their own community. this also seems to be a good example of what a theologically liberal denomination would be.
Wait… you can’t be the child of God and the brother of God, but you can be the child of God, the servant of God, the wife of God (the church is the bride), and more? Some of these are also weird to put together, but I don’t see why multiple metaphors for that relationship can’t exist.
I'm super curious how Christadelphians square their belief that the Bible is wholly, inerrantly inspired and their anti-literalism, such as the belief that demons as spiritual beings are merely misunderstood mental illness, even though the Bible describes demons talking, possessing pigs, etc. Does anyone know? Am I misunderstanding the concept of "wholly, inerrantly inspired?"
Hey Joshua, I host a Christadelphian podcast called A Little Faith, I'd love to chat with you about this video but mostly about your channel and what you're accomplishing here, would you come on the pod?
It's mainly referring to mental capability to understand and believe the gospel. That's why we teach adult baptism, so that people can make an informed decision before making a commitment to Christ.
They do loosely teach that young children still accountable to their parents are likely sanctified by their parents faith, at least in the contexts of Christs return, that the children of believers would be taken along with their parents. According to the “doctrines to be rejected” if your an “idiot” you’re out of luck. This view of “idiots and very young children” is completely incompatible with the mercy we see extended to the city of Nineveh recorded in the book of Jonah. We learn here that God had compassion on the “idiots” that could not discern their right from the left hands and even mentions their cattle. I’m not saying that they were all saved eternally, but I’m making a point that God does take thought and care for these people and it’s not man’s place to make judgments on who the Lord will save. God is completely capable of working salvation for those with deficiencies of all kinds both mental and physical, it’s in line with what he has done at times in the old testament, what he did when he walked the earth and I’ve no reason to believe he will change in the future.
Really? You heard "If Jesus had not died on the cross, he would have died from old age" and think that they are reasonable? How would Jesus have even gotten sick if just touching his cloak was enough to cure the blind?
Jesus says that God is a spirit (John 4:24), but then he is portrayed as a physical being, in the sense of that he can see, hear, smell, speak etc. Also when God passed before Moses, he wasn't allowed to see his face, but only his back. That suggests something physical, but it doesn't tell us what God's form is. We also have Genesis 1 telling us we're made in God's image, but again that could refer to character rather than actual form. In my years as a Christadelphian, I haven't heard anyone trying to define it more than this.
@ReadyToHarvest I seem to have deleted my earlier comment of thanks by trying to edit it. Anyway, Joshua I'll say it again. Overall fair to us, I wasn't aware this channel existed and will now go and look at the video on Christadelphian's COGGC cousins. Just one thing - which others have mentioned, this "physical God" thing really is something peculiar to just 1 individual. I hope you will take up the invitations from either Levi at A Little Faith or Dan at BibleFeed. God bless. Steven Leicester UK.
Hello Steven, thanks for commenting! I should have given more clarity on that point, since not all Christadelphians believe that God is physical, but you are incorrect that it is a one-individual thing. This teaching has a long history in Christadelphianism and is taught by many still today. This is why it's not at all surprising that Bilello would be straightforward to publish it in Tidings magazine. Here's some other Christadelphian sources that teach it (compiled by me): *John Thomas, in the Christadelphian Advocate, 1887* "The material God of the Bible only hath it inherently and underived from any other source-1 Tim. vi: 16" p.88 (PDF page 101) literature.christadelphianresources.com/Williams/Advocate/Volume%203%20-%201887.pdf *John Thomas* "In this the resurrection-epoch and era of Israel's regeneration, the earthy bodies from the grave, to wit, the bodies of Christ's accepted brethren, together with the living of the same class who are contemporary with the crisis, are clothed with incorruption or spirit from heaven, which in the twinkling of an eye transforms them into spirit and makes them consubstantial with the corporeal nature of the Father and the Son" www.antipas.org/pdf_files/christadelphian_treasury.pdf *John Thomas* We learn from the Bible that the Deity it reveals has both body and parts. Paul teaches us this in declaring that the resurrected and anointed Jesus is the reflexion of the glory and peculiar nature of the substance of the Theos (Heb. i. 3). In other words, he partakes of the Divine Nature; so that what He is now is what the Deity hath always been. The substance of the Theos is essentially living substance. It could not exist and yet be dead substance, for " the Father hath life in Himself ", and that life is His inherent peculiarity. It is underived from any antecedent existence; nor can it forsake the Divine Substance, for in that event the Deity would be mortal. But Paul styles Him "the Incorruptible Theos", and says that " He is the only One having deathlessness ". Hence, the essential qualities of the substance, which underlies all that is predicable of Him, are incorruptibility and life. www.antipas.org/pdf_files/christadelphian_treasury.pdf *Christadelphian Teacher Ron Cowie:* “God is a personal, physical being God is the eternal, infinite Creator of all things-Isa 45v18 He has a bodily existence, dwelling in Heaven in unapproachable light 1Timothy 6v15-16; Psalm 123v1; Matt 6v9; 1 Kings 8v30,34,39; Gen 1v26 cp James 3v9” www.jimcowie.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/FIRST-PRINCIPLES-Ron-Cowie.pdf *Belgian Christadelphians:* “God is a real, physical being, as the following points prove: - It is a fundamental tenet of Christianity that Jesus is the Son of God. If God is not a real being, then it is impossible for Him to have a Son who was the "image of His person" (Heb. 1:3).” sites.google.com/view/belgianchristadelphians/sayings-around-god *Hebrews 1 exposition in the book “The Book of Hebrews Verse By Verse Exposition” by H.P. Mansfield* “Christ was to be the perfect reflection of the mental, moral and physical glory of the Father (cp. Hab. 3:3, mg., in which is described the "brightness" as "bright beams out of His side" (In. lO:25; 12:28; 14:9). "of His person" _ Gk. hupostaseos; R.V. "substance" or "essence". The Word has the idea of placing under, such as a foundation. It Speaks of divine nature as the physical being of the Deity, now seen also in His Son.” www.christadelphian-origin.org/hebrews-1/ Book found at christadelphianlibrary.com/products/thebookofhebrewschristadelphianexpositorseries-mansfield *Christadelphians in Whangarei New Zealand* “God is a real, physical being, that we must come to “know” as the following points prove… It is a fundamental tenet of Christianity that Jesus is the Son of God. If God is not a real being, then it is impossible for Him to have a Son who was the “image of His person” (Heb. 1:3). Further, it becomes difficult to develop a personal, living relationship with ‘God’, if ‘God’ is just a concept in our mind. It is tragic that the majority of religions have this unreal, intangible conception of God. As God is so infinitely greater than we are, it is understandable that many peoples’ faith has balked at the clear promises that ultimately we will see Him: “Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God” (Mt. 5:8). Jesus tells us that we should not swear, because “he who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it” (Mt. 23:22). To “sit” one must be a physical being.” truebibleteaching.com/index.php/god-does-exist/ *Christadelphia.net* “The nature of God 1.1 There is a personal being called God 1.2 who has a specific location in Heaven 1.3 having a real, corporeal existence 1.4 whose image we bear 1.5 The Angels are His messengers 1.6 who cannot sin 1.7 sharing God's nature. 1.8 There is only one form of existence taught in the Bible - existence in a bodily form. God and the Angels exist in a bodily form. 1.9 The Christian hope is to be given God's nature in a bodily form at Christ's return.” christadelphia.net/God.htm *the SPIRIT by Aleck Crawford (Christadelphian book) - whole chapter on this but here is a snippet.* “Since Jesus has flesh and bones it seems incongruous that his Father would not. The writer to the Hebrews says that Christ was "the express image of His person"8 The angels are "ministering spirits"9 but they were seen by men many times. Many passages in scripture show that God is corporeal and shares emotions that we do” www.christadelphia.org/books/spirit/index.html (book source) www.christadelphia.org/books/spirit/sectionB.php#corporeal (takes to this section) *“The Prominent Features of the Christadelphian Faith” Published in The Christadelphian Feb 1874:* “…They believe in one God, omniscient, omnipotent, substantial, and corporeal…” facebook.com/groups/2539624386048559/posts/25425045487079791/?__cft__[0]=AZXz3WXuTQQbpAiTK2CsFObfSiF4uLFNhaPqjl0KvHpKAH6RvdlZoLX47ZXJXjV2dF_91C7-H0kPHRlKCwiEAbW9am2yvjMzAOR1Up1kiXHv24nDPY30gt0QCoNBxnIUlj4p3I9EXFQihCYZadQn0-mJ2dr1MsT7iVIILNDsWM6_Ag&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R
@@ReadyToHarvest I stand corrected. I wasn't surprised to see some of those sources, but surprised by a couple. Well you've certainly done your research, better than me in fact because I've merely taken forty years exposure to what modern mainstream Christadelphians teach and believe rather than look into the dark recesses of "pioneer" teaching. We don't generally have the respect for church fathers and traditions as much as some churches do but there are - as you have dug up - individuals who view "founders" as having some kind of special status, as if they were Athanasius, Luther or Calvin, and it's not good. We are supposed not to do that. Nevertheless that physical God view is definitely not held by 99% of us, is resisted where it occurs and gets pushback and deletion. It is no part of the major publishing and preaching sources: CBM CALS CMPA. Maybe it is something if you accept Dan or Levi's invitations worth talking about. Okay. But thanks for your reply on this. I will see if we can get some of those sources flagged. Thank you.
When I started an alternate YT channel that discussed the intersection of Christianity and Anarchism, I interacted a bit with a TH-camr I respected on an intellectual level who was a Christadelphian. It was the first time I actually interacted with the belief that Jesus is the Son of God but not God. It helped me solidify where I stood on that question.
@@AF-tv6uf He can be invisible, but He did walk around in the garden of Eden. Revelation 22:4 says that we will see His face and this would be when we are raised or made incorruptible.
Word Salad is defined as a jumble of incoherent speech. So, if you think this about Christadelphian beliefs, then you would at least have to apply it to all Christian denominations. We're just believing what we find the Bible teaches. And if that goes against mainstream long held doctrines, then that's just one of those things. As we all know, something isn't correct just because it's in the majority position, or been around for a long time.
I think Duncan Heaster is a bit fringe in CD circles and perhaps not the best source to use. His books are not sold by the Christadelphian office, for example. You quote him as saying that God has a physical body and a location. I am skeptical that many CDs would agree with that
On God being physical, you are right that it's definitely not the only view. I did compile a list of some other Christadelphian sources that teach it in response to another comment. Here they are. John Thomas, in the Christadelphian Advocate, 1887 "The material God of the Bible only hath it inherently and underived from any other source-1 Tim. vi: 16" p.88 (PDF page 101) literature.christadelphianresources.com/Williams/Advocate/Volume%203%20-%201887.pdf John Thomas "In this the resurrection-epoch and era of Israel's regeneration, the earthy bodies from the grave, to wit, the bodies of Christ's accepted brethren, together with the living of the same class who are contemporary with the crisis, are clothed with incorruption or spirit from heaven, which in the twinkling of an eye transforms them into spirit and makes them consubstantial with the corporeal nature of the Father and the Son" www.antipas.org/pdf_files/christadelphian_treasury.pdf John Thomas We learn from the Bible that the Deity it reveals has both body and parts. Paul teaches us this in declaring that the resurrected and anointed Jesus is the reflexion of the glory and peculiar nature of the substance of the Theos (Heb. i. 3). In other words, he partakes of the Divine Nature; so that what He is now is what the Deity hath always been. The substance of the Theos is essentially living substance. It could not exist and yet be dead substance, for " the Father hath life in Himself ", and that life is His inherent peculiarity. It is underived from any antecedent existence; nor can it forsake the Divine Substance, for in that event the Deity would be mortal. But Paul styles Him "the Incorruptible Theos", and says that " He is the only One having deathlessness ". Hence, the essential qualities of the substance, which underlies all that is predicable of Him, are incorruptibility and life. www.antipas.org/pdf_files/christadelphian_treasury.pdf Christadelphian Teacher Ron Cowie: “God is a personal, physical being God is the eternal, infinite Creator of all things-Isa 45v18 He has a bodily existence, dwelling in Heaven in unapproachable light 1Timothy 6v15-16; Psalm 123v1; Matt 6v9; 1 Kings 8v30,34,39; Gen 1v26 cp James 3v9” www.jimcowie.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/FIRST-PRINCIPLES-Ron-Cowie.pdf Belgian Christadelphians: “God is a real, physical being, as the following points prove: - It is a fundamental tenet of Christianity that Jesus is the Son of God. If God is not a real being, then it is impossible for Him to have a Son who was the "image of His person" (Heb. 1:3).” sites.google.com/view/belgianchristadelphians/sayings-around-god Hebrews 1 exposition in the book “The Book of Hebrews Verse By Verse Exposition” by H.P. Mansfield “Christ was to be the perfect reflection of the mental, moral and physical glory of the Father (cp. Hab. 3:3, mg., in which is described the "brightness" as "bright beams out of His side" (In. lO:25; 12:28; 14:9). "of His person" _ Gk. hupostaseos; R.V. "substance" or "essence". The Word has the idea of placing under, such as a foundation. It Speaks of divine nature as the physical being of the Deity, now seen also in His Son.” www.christadelphian-origin.org/hebrews-1/ Book found at christadelphianlibrary.com/products/thebookofhebrewschristadelphianexpositorseries-mansfield Christadelphians in Whangarei New Zealand “God is a real, physical being, that we must come to “know” as the following points prove… It is a fundamental tenet of Christianity that Jesus is the Son of God. If God is not a real being, then it is impossible for Him to have a Son who was the “image of His person” (Heb. 1:3). Further, it becomes difficult to develop a personal, living relationship with ‘God’, if ‘God’ is just a concept in our mind. It is tragic that the majority of religions have this unreal, intangible conception of God. As God is so infinitely greater than we are, it is understandable that many peoples’ faith has balked at the clear promises that ultimately we will see Him: “Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God” (Mt. 5:8). Jesus tells us that we should not swear, because “he who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it” (Mt. 23:22). To “sit” one must be a physical being.” truebibleteaching.com/index.php/god-does-exist/ Christadelphia.net “The nature of God 1.1 There is a personal being called God 1.2 who has a specific location in Heaven 1.3 having a real, corporeal existence 1.4 whose image we bear 1.5 The Angels are His messengers 1.6 who cannot sin 1.7 sharing God's nature. 1.8 There is only one form of existence taught in the Bible - existence in a bodily form. God and the Angels exist in a bodily form. 1.9 The Christian hope is to be given God's nature in a bodily form at Christ's return.” christadelphia.net/God.htm the SPIRIT by Aleck Crawford (Christadelphian book) - whole chapter on this but here is a snippet. “Since Jesus has flesh and bones it seems incongruous that his Father would not. The writer to the Hebrews says that Christ was "the express image of His person"8 The angels are "ministering spirits"9 but they were seen by men many times. Many passages in scripture show that God is corporeal and shares emotions that we do” www.christadelphia.org/books/spirit/index.html (book source) www.christadelphia.org/books/spirit/sectionB.php#corporeal (takes to this section) “The Prominent Features of the Christadelphian Faith” Published in The Christadelphian Feb 1874: “…They believe in one God, omniscient, omnipotent, substantial, and corporeal…” facebook.com/groups/2539624386048559/posts/25425045487079791/?__cft__[0]=AZXz3WXuTQQbpAiTK2CsFObfSiF4uLFNhaPqjl0KvHpKAH6RvdlZoLX47ZXJXjV2dF_91C7-H0kPHRlKCwiEAbW9am2yvjMzAOR1Up1kiXHv24nDPY30gt0QCoNBxnIUlj4p3I9EXFQihCYZadQn0-mJ2dr1MsT7iVIILNDsWM6_Ag&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R
@@ReadyToHarvest except that none of these are mainstream modern Christadelphian sources. Except for the Belgian one which when I saw this I contacted them and they said 'oops', they had copy-pasted a piece with a survey of views which had somehow had that get it into it. I mean there will always be individuals who are overly attached to 19th Century writers, just as many Trinitarians are overly attached to 4th Century writers. But it's the one bit of the video that has Christadelphians going "what?" :)
@masada2828 Of course, they all contradict each other. That's why they're different groups. And yes, that's what I found when I spoke to them. They are not united in any way. There must be about 20 different versions of the same original group all contradicting each other, I spoke with one called ecclesia of Christ , they don't believe the same thing as the Birmingham Christadelpians... I prepared a reply to the ecclesia guy Based on discussing it with my neighbour, It didn't apply because they believed different things.
The “Trinity “ is tricky for so many. Great Theological works have been penned over the past centuries. Yet, still remains a “mystery “. WE Humans tend to look at things carnally. This lead us to “take sides”. Either/Or, when the Bible is clear that it can be “understood “ even by a child. As an Adult, we Overthink things - complicate things. A Child simply takes what “knowledge “ is given, and believes. Has it not entered into [ man], that BOTH “sides “ may apply to many doctrines❓. Simply put, what does Scripture SAY❓ [ Not , how do I interpret- because we are not given the “right “ to interpret. It’s up to us to connect with the Holy Spirit to GIVE us the truth that is ALREADY there.]. There are 3, and these 3 are [ also ] 1. There is a “one-ness”, that we cannot comprehend now, but we , too will be “one” with Him, as He is with the Father. Jesus was both God and man, as God was in Him.
This is one of those features that is actually quite typical of the non-Nicene Restorationist groups: they'll tend to have a Nicene counterpart that they have at least historical connections to.
Thanks for this. I quit the JWs in 1997 and ran into these folks. Read Wrested Scriptures. Interesting arguments they have. Very old Jewish understanding of the NT and i could be sympathetic to that if the disciples really did write the gospels.
The length and attention to detail of this video imply that Christadelphianism is treated as a sect of Christianity. Whereas, other faiths whose teachings on the trinity depart from traditional Christianity less drastically than Christadelphianism are not considered sects of Christianity. Am I misreading the presentation or is there a real inconsistency here?
The length of this video is not unusual, and I hope that every video on this channel has the same high level of attention to detail. Here's the length of some of my other videos: Church of God Jerusalem Acres 37:50 Reformed Baptists 35:52 Christian Reformed Church 30:25 Moravian Church 37:54 Evangelical Covenant Church 34:34 Salvation Army 50:16 In other words, length of video is not a good way to determine how to categorize a denomination.
@@ReadyToHarvest My comment wasn't meant as a criticism, nor did I mean to imply that the length or attention to detail was unusual. I haven't seen every video on this channel. Among the many videos I have seen, I don't recall seeing any of this length and detail dedicated to denominations considered non-Christian. That unscientific observation is the origin of my hypothetical inference. So, is there a short answer to the question, "Is Christadelphianism considered Christian?" Or am I destined to watch 3 1/2 hours of videos tonight? And thank you for your very interesting and informative videos!
The answer to "are Unitarians considered Christian?" depends on who is answering the question. Christadelphian theology is Unitarian, and that tends to be the dividing line. If someone views other Unitarians as Christian, they will probably view Christadelphians as Christians too.
Well, clearly this is one of those occasions where the Bible calls for Church Discipline, as described in Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5, right? THE PROCESS The Unamended Christadelphians can accuse at least one Amended Christadelphian of heresy. Then, they can try to convince him of his error: First privately, then with the testimony of two or three witnesses. When that fails, they should take him "to the Church," and if he refuses to listen "even to the Church" he should be out of fellowship. This, naturally, is an outcome which he would dread, since Paul elsewhere describes such a disfellowshipping as equivalent to having one's body "turned over to the enemy." Paul also says that it's done in hopes that the offender's soul _might_ be saved: To Paul, _salvation is at risk_ for the person who is not listening "even to the Church," since Paul claims the Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth." WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN We can all forsee that this process _should_ work, if... (a.) the Person who gave us this process is either God, or inerrantly proclaiming a process intended _by_ God; and, (b.) the persons using the process have interpreted it correctly (i.e., have a correct ecclesiology). But, of course, if the two groups have a wrong ecclesiology, then the process will fail. And if the process Jesus gave us is just unworkable and kinda dumb, then Jesus neither _is_ God, nor even _speaks accurately for_ God. Right? WHAT WOULD ACTUALLY HAPPEN I ask, because I think it's clear that neither of the Christadelphian groups can _possibly_ make this process work meaningfully. Their ecclesiology doesn't allow it to function, even in principle. By making the word "church" mean nothing other than the local congregation, they render the entire church-discipline process a dead-letter. They also make the Person who gave it to us look like a moron who didn't know much about humans. CONCLUSION So, it seems to me that Christadelphians, examining this reality, find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. They should conclude that either their ecclesiology is incorrect; or else, that Jesus was not sent by God. In either case, I can't see why they'd remain Christadelphian (other than, y'know, to keep the parents happy).
Hey, I co-host a Christadelphian podcast (which you can find on our channel here or any podcast player, just search for Bible Feed). If you would like more info or more sources on Christadelphians, I'd be happy to help, feel free to contact us. Dan (co-host of the Bible Feed podcast)
I find it a mishmash with bits of Arianism, Unitarianism, Roman Catholicism (works works works!) and even Mormonism (physical body of YHWH). Could only make it through half...
They seem a strange mixture of very theologically conservative and very theologically liberal. Arguing the Bible is meaningfully inerrent, while saying demons don't exist. Like a specific point of corruption by theological liberalism was frozen in time.
Christadelphians on the unseen God: "it doesn't make sense." 💀
*Quotes the Scriptures that mention an unseen God anyways*
We have a lot of poor translation, really more just in the understanding and concept people get when you get things like αόρατος translated as "invisible" in many translations. Another discussion really though
@@ProbeScout This is why websites that let you cross-reference several translations at once are so useful.
@jacob9158 Yeah I use the parallel plus app myself. Really though, it's a bigger problem then that, in that you have to become familiar with the culture and background for the passages you read to not miss out on meaning. One example I would give is the misunderstanding people have of the relationship between χάρις and πίστις (commonly translated as grace and faith respectively) because we don't understand the patron system context which in the greco-roman world was described with those terms
The Scriptures don't mention an unseen God.
@@jimjim292 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” - John 20:29 Who is like the Lord our God, the One who sits enthroned on high, who stoops down to look on the heavens and the earth? - Psalm 113:5-6
Imagine meeting someone and they say they belong to the “unamended Christadelphians”. All of these 1800’s restoration movements are difficult to keep up with
Hi, I was until about 4 years ago. I was listening to a talk by John Lennox and God used him to crack open the door to my mind and let some light in. Thank the Lord for delivering me from this belief system. If the Spirit moves you, pray for some of my family still held captive by these false doctrines.
@@accordio321 wow that’s wonderful! God is good
@@accordio321 ~ 🙏s for your family.
"They went out from us, but they did not belong to us."
They are the 1800's equivalent of hippies
Hard mode: The Unitarian Church of Transylvania, one of the oldest unitarian churches that was founded shortly after the Reformation, so little is written about them in English.
extremely impressive that they've survived for almost 500 years
I would love if he did a video on them. I have been wanting to learn more about them.
Thank you so much for such high-quality and unbiased videos!
Excellent
Yay! This is the one i asked for. Thank you so much. I love your channel.
I'm having serious JW/Bible Students flashbacks with this video 🤯 Interesting how restorationism influenced all these groups and how they spun off of each other.
Speaking as someone who goes to a Restorationist church, the ideas at the core of the movement, that we need to not be divided by things that aren't clear in scripture and get back to what is there is an idea that can easily abused.
My thoughts exactly…some similarities amongst the groups including rejecting the trinity
@@HistoryNerd808 funny how the movements central idea of “not being divided” caused more division than the protestant rebellion
agree but I also think we have also abused the idea that what is not written is as doctrinal as what is written.
You are assuming groups which have some beliefs in common must be related. If an idea is Biblical then it is not surprising it may come to be understood independently from Bible reading alone. Thus many have independently come to understand from scripture that the dead are not conscious, souls are not immortal, Christians should be neutral politically and not bear arms, that there shouldn’t be paid clergy or tithing, that God is not a Trinity, etc. The very fact that unrelated groups can come the same understanding independently is an endorsement of the idea possibly having merit in and of itself.
That said only Jehovah God can truly remove the veil Satan uses to keep people from understanding and accepting the truth. They must be drawn by the Father. 2 Cor 4:3-4; 3:16. John 6:44.
It is a shame the Christedelphians have picked up such unscriptural beliefs as God being flesh when the Bible says he is spirit. John 4:4. 1 Cor 15:50
That Jesus didn’t have a prehuman existence. John 8:23, 58. Phil 2:5-6
That Jesus was imperfect Heb 4:15
That Satan and the demons are not real when the Bible explains they are disobedient angels. Jude 6; Rev 12:7-9
If you would like an official list of the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses and supporting scriptures here is a link.
www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/jehovah-witness-beliefs/
Will you ever plan to do videos about extinct Christian denominations? Like the Puritans or the Diggers or the Oneida Community? Even something on Christian Deism would be interesting.
The puritans were not a denomination.
@@marcodesalud7034Then Puritan denominations, movements, etc., whatever you want to call that historical entity.
@@marcodesalud7034 Thanks for the needless semantics. 😑
@@fighterofthenightman1057 needless for whom? are you speaking on behalf of humanity or just sharing your preference for a non-conventional use of the English language?
Diggers were more of a political movement with religious flavor, not really a denomination. It was movement of peasant and people who lost everything, and their actions was protesting against robbery that was done by enclose of the commons.
Ive learnt more about Christadelphians in this vid than I have from anywhere else. I went to an SDA Church that was around the corner of a Christadelphian eclessia here in Australia.
Every week that had the subject of their service on a giant sign. Would often notice that they would mention other churches by name and tease doctorines they said they got wrong. They were always much more tactful about the SDA Church because that eclessia happened to send several of their children to the SDA schools as they didnt have their own school system.
That eclessia doesnr meet at that location anymore and it's been taken over by St Gregorios Indian Orthodox Church
There's and Indian orthodox church? It's like spreading non-denominationalism at the speed of tectonic plates. Which will be first, the return of Christ or every house having 2.5 patriarchs and an ongoing theological rift.
Indian Orthodoxy is interesting.
For anyone that is curious about the Indian Orthodox Church. One simple Google search says:
"The Indian Orthodox Church is in communion with the other Oriental Orthodox Churches namely, Antiochene, Coptic, Armenian, Eritrean and Ethiopian Orthodox Churches and maintains cordial ecumenical relationships with the Eastern Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant Churches."
I also. Was it in Mt Gravatt?
I find it funny that all of these movements against denominations always lead to more denominations.
Judean People's Front/People's Front of Judea
Excellent video.... as usual.
We have come to expect superior content from @Ready to Harvest.... and we are never disappointed!!!
HC-JAIPUR (14/07/2024)
.
Thank you for your service to people with an interest in knowing, understanding various groups gathering under the umbrella of christian church. Every video viewed has been enriching, and at times convicting.
Please continue.
May be blessed through Jesus Christ.
I'm very thankful for all the hard work you put into these. It's does a great job informing me what pitfalls to avoid.
Absolutely fascinating. Thank you for these videos 🙏🏻🙏🏻
Thanks for this carefully researched and presented video - I’ve been looking out for you to make it for ages.
I’m a Christadelphian who has travelled widely to ecclesias in Australia and NZ. A couple of points that were interesting to me:
- While I have heard of Christadelphians that believe that God is essentially visible and physical, and that Jesus was crucified on a stake rather than a cross, both of those positions are rare in my experience and neither are part of my personal beliefs.
- While I admire those who abstain from media such as TV, I myself do not and I would say this is a minority position amongst Christadelphians.
- The explanation of Christadelphian conscientious objection to military/police service and voting had some strange emphases that aren’t widely taught in my experience. My personal beliefs, in line with those I was taught, are that followers of Christ are to abstain from these things because our allegiance is to God’s kingdom, not to worldly powers, and the priority of the Gospel is personal transformation, not social change.
- I have never heard of a Christadelphian pastor (or other clerical role).
- One interesting aspect of our beliefs that was not covered is that we reject substitutionary atonement, believing that Christ died as our representative, and giving an example of willing surrender and sacrifice for us to follow.
Thanks again!
Hi bro Matt, sent you a FB message :) You must have been paying closer attention than me (I did skim a bit), I'll look at those sections again. But generally the video was fair wasn't it.
Another great content! I've encountered the Christadelfians for the first time during my research on Arianism.
Thomas said to the resurrected Jesus "the Lord of me the God of me." Jesus didn't correct him but rather took that as a statement of faith showing that he believed the right thing about Jesus
Thomas' statement can also be understood as him referring to two referents, My Lord, and in addition, My God. Jesus acknowledged that he didn't do or say things on his own authority, or by his own power, but because his father was working in him. So, I think Thomas could have been recognising this aspect. That is, My Lord (Jesus), and My God (the Father who was working in Jesus).
John 1:1 speaks volumes...ALL THINGS.
The 19th century gave us nearly every cult in existence it seems.
Sponsored by the 16th century Protestants
“Cult” used to actually mean something to sociologists and anthropologists. Then it became a derogatory slur against every group or sect people happen to disagree with.
@@jakejerrison5181 Yes, that's how languages work, they endlessly change over time. The conventional use of that term in today's world refers to a group that has deviated from an accepted standard of orthodoxy. The 19th century gave us all sort of this nonesense.
@marcodesalud7034 the conventional use of the word cult is a group that's controlling of it's members to enslavement basically. Morons use the term cult to label other groups as other so they don't even have to take them seriously
@@marcodesalud7034in the theological world, yes. but the more prominent definition in the public sphere is the sociological one. if you want to use the word, it may be best to preface that by stating which definition you’re using.
This is a completely new one to me.
> reject the trinity and Christ’s divinity, practically rejecting half the creed
> reject the cross
> The term Satan might refer to God
Most Christians would have a thing or two to say
You've done a reasonable job of covering Christadelphian positions on creation. The oldest view is Old Earth Creationism, although Young Earth Creationism became dominant when Christadelphians adopted fundamentalism during the 40s and 50s. The two positions have co-existed harmoniously (mainly because the Christadelphian creed does not specify the age of the earth or the duration of creation). Bottom line: special creation is the orthodox view, but over the past few decades it's been challenged by the rise of Evolutionary Creationism, which now has a substantial toehold in the community, and is quietly (and not so quietly) accepted in many congregations. I think Christadelphians watching this video will be delighted that you've taken care to emphasise the freedom of thought that thrives within their community, which is arguably the result of its non-hierarchical ecclesiology.
Thanks for sharing your insights. I appreciate it!
Just a note about the offshoots of Christadelphianism, the Berean Fellowship should not be confused with the Berean Fellowship of Churches which was founded in 1923 in North Platte, NE. If you look Berean Fellowship up online it mostly shows the latter.
In high school, I attended an interdenominational Christian school in Nebraska. A substantial number of the students there went to "Berean Churches" of the variety that is NOT Christadelphian. They are fairly common in Nebraska and relatively rare elsewhere. Doctrinally, they are moderate Calvinists.
It's incredible that they sound so Christian but are so totally not.
Not mainstream Christian, no, but Christian as much as the apostles were. After all, we should judge a Christian, not on whether they believe mainstream Christian doctrines, but on whether their beliefs are in line with Jesus and his apostles.
@@eddieyoung2104they are NOT Christian
@@Compulsive-Elk7103 Thankfully the Bible, God, Jesus, and the apostles all disagree with you.
@@eddieyoung2104Thankfully, it agrees entirely with him. They are NOT Christian. The Bible is explicit that God is spiritual, not physical. In many places, both old and new testament.
@@DrakonPhD You're right, about God being spiritual because Jesus says that God is a spirit (John 4:24). However, God is also portrayed as a physical being, in the sense of that he can see, hear, smell, speak etc. Also when God passed before Moses, he wasn't allowed to see his face, but only his back. That suggests something physical, but it doesn't tell us what God's form was. I think you're getting the impression we believe God is like a human being, which is not the intention of the writers quoted in the video.
One of the definitions of the word 'physical' is: Having substance or material existence; perceptible to the senses. So, if God passed by before Moses, and Moses had to be shielded from him, then we would assume God had some substance, and something which could be perceived. We also have Genesis 1 telling us we're made in God's image, which could suggest he has some form which we are a copy of. But again 'image' could refer to character rather than actual form. In my years as a Christadelphian, I haven't heard anyone trying to define it anymore than this.
You really do a great scholastic job of bringing the doctrines of others. Thank you... thank you... thank you. God's Spirit is with you. If I encounter a believer from other faiths I can now discern and pray Jesus' light into their life. I'm not perfect but that which is perfect comes then that which is imperfect will pass away.
First “Christian” denomination I’ve heard of that doesn’t believe in Satan or demons. How did they read the Bible and come away with that 🤔
They started with "non literalist view of the Bible."
I presume because the idea of a truly independent, supernatural evil power contradicts biblical monotheism (see Isaiah 45:7).
Because they don't start with the Bible. Instead they start with accepting all sorts of extra biblical ideas. One being the idea that beings are necessarily material. That a description of a person isn't their name etc. The Bible, from the get go, names things as to who and what they are. Adam, Eve, Seth, Satan, Abraham, Isaac, Israel, Moses etc etc. Not that they don't deny Moses etc were actual creatures just Satan. 😂😂😂
@@KingoftheJuice18In standard Christian theology Satan is not truly independent though. He is fulfilling his role in God's plan whether he realizes it or not
@@KingoftheJuice18 There's no contradiction. You could always read the chapter and context to see that it refers to God having ultimate control. A supernatural evil power does refute that. The entire book of Job re-affirms this very point.
I am a christadelphian. Thank you for the video
Would you say this is an accurate description?
Repent and accept Jesus is God. Easy example, in John 20:28, Thomas calls Jesus 'my lord and my God' and Jesus says he is blessed. Much love brother
@@juffjim4437 Unfortunately, if you believe that Jesus Christ is Yahweh God, then you are not my brother in Christ. Please read your Bible in all its context. Then you will understand who Jesus Christ really is.
@@kirjian To answer this question satisfactorily, I would have to see the whole film. On the other hand, I have only seen a fragment of it. Give me some time and I will answer your question.
@@kirjian description is generally ok, but I think that oversimplified a bit, focused only on two or three authors. Especially Duncan Heater who is not in full connection with Christadelphian. Today the thought of Christadelphians is more broad than only one opinion or one credo even BASF.
But, as an introduction, that material is ok.
Oh man, those "We reject the doctrine that - " statements have me yelling at my screen. "YOU MISUNDERSTAND DIVINE NATURE!" "IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD" "IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD" "HOW CAN GOD BOTH BE A PERSON AND NOT A PERSON?"
"...we reject the doctrine that the devil is a supernatural being" "OF COURSE, BECAUSE YOUR DOCTRINES COME FROM HIM"
1 Timothy 1:20 Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme
Here the adversary is teaching people not to blaspheme but according to your theology Satan should have the opposite effect
@@TheUnorthodoxEcclesia
Have you ever burned your hand on a hot iron? You learned not to touch the hot iron because of your error - it didn't teach you anything itself but only hurt you.
In the same way, being handed over to Satan "teaches" them the power of God.
And who has the authority to turn someone over to Satan? Paul, acting as Bishop of the Church!
@Dagfari Hebrews 2:14 states:
> "Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil."
In interpreting this verse, along with Luke 20:36, Christadelphians focus on the following points:
1. **Human Nature of Jesus**: Hebrews 2:14 emphasizes that Jesus shared in "flesh and blood" to be fully human. This is central to Christadelphian theology, which asserts that Jesus had the same nature as all humans to fully overcome sin.
2. **Destruction of the Devil**: Christadelphians interpret "the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil" as a personification of sin and human nature rather than a literal supernatural being. Jesus' death and resurrection are seen as the means by which he overcame sin and its power.
3. **Wages of Sin is Death**: According to Romans 6:23, "the wages of sin is death." If the devil were a real supernatural being who sinned, he would have died, since sin results in death. This reinforces the Christadelphian view that the devil symbolizes the sin and human nature within us.
4. **Immortality of Angels**: Luke 20:36 states:
> "For they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection."
This verse highlights that angels are immortal and do not die, supporting the idea that the devil, if an angel, would not fit the description of being subject to death through sin.
Combining these points, Christadelphians interpret Hebrews 2:14 as follows:
- **Jesus Destroying the Devil**: By partaking in human nature and overcoming sin through his death, Jesus destroyed the devil. Here, "the devil" represents the power of sin and death inherent in human nature, which Jesus conquered.
- **Physical Element of Animal Nature**: The devil, in this context, is understood as the physical, animalistic nature within humans that leads to sin, disease, and death. By taking on this nature and living a sinless life, Jesus showed that it is possible to overcome sin.
- **Conquest of Sin and Death**: Jesus' victory over the devil is seen as a triumph over the sin that leads to death, thus offering redemption and the hope of eternal life to humanity.
In summary, Christadelphians view Hebrews 2:14 as a key text illustrating that Jesus overcame the devil by conquering human sin and mortality, rather than defeating a literal supernatural being. This aligns with their belief that the devil represents the sinful human nature and its consequences.
The fact that you honestly believe their doctrine literally comes from a literal devil...
God gave mankind the power to reason. In all my time of speaking to other religions, no one has been able to explain to me, how, if Hebrews 2:14 is to be taken absolutely literally, when Jesus died, so did the ‘devil’. Therefore, the belief in an evil angel trying to influence man against God, has not been happening since AD 30. So where do all the wars, crimes, evil etc. come from? As the Bible says- ‘out of the heart of man’ Mark 7:23- All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
How can you have an "orthodoxy" in a non-denominational movement? If you reject creeds and doctrinal statements, insisting on a "Bible-only" perspective (which, it must be noted, is more extreme than the traditional Protestant understanding of sola scriptura), how can you definitively condemn anyone who is coming to different conclusions about the Bible. And how can you say that you're not a denomination if you can enact disfellowship?
I try to sympathize with Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell for the good intentions of their Restoration Movement, but the rise of heretics within their ranks was seemingly inevitable. It's the unavoidable tradeoff that comes with refusing to define your positions clearly or to affirm the most ancient and notable definitions of the Christian faith.
Rejecting the Trinity is de facto not Christian.
So early Christians are in hell? Considering the trinity was only accepted around 400 AD
@Robert-rw5lm the first mention of the word trinity is in the early 200s, so you're incorrect.
Regardless, there is no way to read the Bible and not come away with something like the Trinity.
@@Robert-rw5lmLet’s completely ignore Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons and Tertullian
@@Sousabird its weird how Jesus never mentioned it and the jews didn't believe that the holy spirit was a separate person.
You're wrong.
They actually take the time to read everything. Every word, over and over again. They don't add, they don't subtract. It makes even more sense. I have no questions about anything anymore after reading it for myself
I’ve connected with the Christadelphians on a few occasions, and have sympathy with some of their views. It’s largely in matters of eschatology that I significantly diverge.
In many ways, their structure and worship are similar to the “Plymouth” brethren, which is where I began my Christian walk.
You just overlooked one minor difference: the P. Brethren R Trinitarians. 😂
I was thinking the same thing for the first quarter of the video; I'm one of the so-called "Plymouth" brethren, and could see the similarities, particularly in terms of the simplicity of worship, opposition to denominations, etc. But, when it comes to doctrine... well... there are some fundamental issues there, to put it mildly!
@@davidjanbaz7728 As if any of us knows what it means for a pre-existent divine being to be made human flesh.
@Mick116 Philippians 2:5-11
King James Version
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus
Question how can we have the same mind as Jesus if he pre-existed?
1 Corinthians 2:16 King James Bible
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ
Eschatology meaning study of the last days the end times so you're saying you don't believe that Jesus will physically return to the Earth and restore the kingdom of God the restoration of all things spoken by the mouth of his prophets Book of Acts Chapter 3 Verse 19
I am a christedelphian. Thanks
To be fair your brother can be your father... It's just not recommended.
Very interesting, we have a Christadephian church in Venice, Florida, I live near Port Charlotte. First heard about this church in Melton's "The Encyclopedia of American Religions". They are similar to the JW's in some doctrines.
I live across the road to a Christadelphian church in Australia.
I've always been curious what they are about but after watching your video I'm glad I didn't walk in.
Been waiting on this video. They have a camp near the town I live in.
There was a little country church in Clark County Illinois that says it was a Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith. The County history page also declares it to be as such. However, the church was built in 1902, prior to this denominations start. My Great Grandfather and other family members are buried in the cemetery next to the church. I believe it was a different denomination in the first few decades of it's existence...and did not become COGGC till about the 1970's. As I am getting close to 70 myself, I don't know if anyone out there alive knows what it was originally. The church was torn down about 3 or 4 years ago, but they put a plaque denoting it's location on the church/cemetery grounds. p.s. My grandfather, who died pretty young at 32 yr old, believed in the United Brethren's doctrine. In the 1800s, same family was Methodist Episcopal in Indiana. THANKS for this video Joshua!! 😇
Always interesting learning about non-Christians who base their religions around Jesus of Nazareth
"Wise above that which is written" - love that 😂😂😂 00:12:57
So that's what you get if you throw JW-ism and secular humanism in a blender.
Christianity.
It sounds a lot like the JWs. Thankfully doesn't sound as high control!
@@gjhartist3685 Most of us thought JWs were the closest. I would describe it to people as like JW, but not as rigid or dogmatic. They don't shun and you can celebrate your birthday or Christmas if you want to. Although there are a few fanatics who agree with those ideas.
Well-researched video.
The weirdest coincidence is like 5 hours before this video was uploaded I was looking up this group and trying to find info on them.
Amazing how people can read the same book and come to such a wide variety of conclusions about what it says.
Fascinating! Thank you!
What a fascinating little group. A completely physical world is incredibly interesting to pitch. They seem to have either come to the same end point as many ancient Jews or Peter I wonder if they did this all on their own or if they maybe knew some Jews. I wonder how their numbers are doing over time. Seems pretty good with the African numbers
I used to be a christadelphian; I think much of the thinking stemmed from the founders (John Thomas) background as a medical doctor. I believe he approached scripture largely from a naturalists point of view. At the time darwinism was in it’s infancy and Dr. Thomas adopted some of the theories he held such as the earth being eons old. An unholy mixture of the current darwinism and theology. This led to complete speculation that there may have been prior epochs of salvation (the angels) prior to mans creation. Some truly bizarre ideas that are spun whole cloth from this mans imagination.
With exception to the clear miracles recorded in scripture, Christadelphian’s tend only to believe in what they can easily categorize, define & reference. (Kinda like the character Scully from the X-files TV show)
I believe this is what led John Thomas to accept the physical aspects of Christ and believe that he indeed was born and walked the earth, but largely ignored the deity of Christ and categorized him as a “glorified” man post resurrection. In a similar thought process Christadelphian’s view Satan as either personified sin, or in some cases an adversary to God’s will (when Peter was called a satan)
Borrowing and adapting some of Ronald Reagans verbiage: It’s not that Christadelphian’s are ignorant, it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.
I can’t say with certainty the numbers of the other fellowships, but the unamended community is roughly 25-35% of what it was 40 years ago. They are pleasant enough people, generally quite likable, but theologically arrogant and dangerous for your spiritual well being.
The numbers are dying off in North America. I am in Ontario and it was exciting in the 1980's when ecclesias were expanding, but then a few of them folded and now lots are filled with mainly old people, so that does not bode well for the future.
Bunch of these beliefs are very similar to those of the JWs. One that struck me as quite different is that of who gets resurrected. Specifically because I was at the JW hall on Sunday and they discussed the resurrection article in Watchtower.
At the 23:10 point this video says that "There will be many who have lived their lives oblivious of the purposeful power of God and unaware of the promised gift of life made possible through the work of the Lord Jesus Christ. We should not expect such to be raised." The thought is that such people would not be raised because they would not know how to provide an answer in the future Judgement.
The JW belief on another hand is that the future resurrection ("judgement") is actually an "evaluation" on how the person responds during the 1000 year kingdom. Their Watchtower (May 2024) says that "the Bible tells us that Jehovah will bring back to life “unrighteous” people who have not had the opportunity to respond to the good news and change their ways". So the "Judgment Day" for JWs is the Thousand Year Kingdom, during which all kinds of people who did not have an opportunity to respond (if they died young, did not have full mental capability, lived in countries were preaching work is restricted, etc.) will be resurrected.
What Paul was saying was about returning to Judaism 🙏
If you have any questions about our believes please ask
Would you ever make a video about the Word of Faith denomination?
A very interesting description of this group. They have some interesting ideas and arguments but many of them seem, to me, to assume that God must operate by human logic, which is not an approach to the divine that makes sense to me.
Can God make a square circle? Can God make a stone so heavy he cannot lift it?
"God can do only what is logically possible"
What about the Trinity though?
"God is not bound by human logic"
Make a video about the Canadian Reformed Churches, please.
This explains why Alexander Campbell parted ways
THANK YOU FOR WAT YOU DO.
Dog, these people are coping so hard, they try with agony to fit the Bible into a materialist cosmology (they failed in that)
Dog.....coping....Why do Americans use such strange language?
If they people to be baptised again, to join one of their groups, would that mean they're somewhat Anabaptist?
Interesting. Many early Latter-day Saint leaders (primarily Sidney Rigdon) was tied up with Campbell's Church.
An interesting tidbit about John Thomas was that he sent a copy of his book Anatolia to Czar Nicholas I and told him that the czar was the Gogian leader and an instrument of God. He invited him to invade Europe and Israel as he was untouchable and this would usher in the return of Jesus in accordance with Ezekiel 38-39.
i've never heard about this denomination before, so i'm curious as to why a lot of people are saying bad things. from the facts stated in the video alone i actually think this is one of the better denominations out there since they can accept theological differences within their own community. this also seems to be a good example of what a theologically liberal denomination would be.
I have a question. Can your brother also be your father? I was just wondering because the Bible says you can
Could you do videos on the Southern Methodist Church, Congregational Methodist Church, and Bible Presbyterian Church?
Last two I have videos already written. Hopefully live by the end of the year. Southern Methodists on the list to do someday...
@@ReadyToHarvest very awesome! Thank you so much! Your channel is amazing, such a great resource!
@@unit2394 Thanks!
I’m glad I never explored them earlier in life. I would have fallen into error for sure.
Wait… you can’t be the child of God and the brother of God, but you can be the child of God, the servant of God, the wife of God (the church is the bride), and more? Some of these are also weird to put together, but I don’t see why multiple metaphors for that relationship can’t exist.
I'm super curious how Christadelphians square their belief that the Bible is wholly, inerrantly inspired and their anti-literalism, such as the belief that demons as spiritual beings are merely misunderstood mental illness, even though the Bible describes demons talking, possessing pigs, etc. Does anyone know? Am I misunderstanding the concept of "wholly, inerrantly inspired?"
Do you believe Jesus is a literal lamb?
Or a door?
Or literal horned dragons in Revelation?
Okay so that's for the FB group again:
The Devil, Satan and demons in the Bible - parables or reality?
Hey Joshua,
I host a Christadelphian podcast called A Little Faith, I'd love to chat with you about this video but mostly about your channel and what you're accomplishing here, would you come on the pod?
23:38 "idiots and very young children" Wow! What a horrifying thing to believe in.
It's mainly referring to mental capability to understand and believe the gospel. That's why we teach adult baptism, so that people can make an informed decision before making a commitment to Christ.
They do loosely teach that young children still accountable to their parents are likely sanctified by their parents faith, at least in the contexts of Christs return, that the children of believers would be taken along with their parents.
According to the “doctrines to be rejected” if your an “idiot” you’re out of luck.
This view of “idiots and very young children” is completely incompatible with the mercy we see extended to the city of Nineveh recorded in the book of Jonah. We learn here that God had compassion on the “idiots” that could not discern their right from the left hands and even mentions their cattle. I’m not saying that they were all saved eternally, but I’m making a point that God does take thought and care for these people and it’s not man’s place to make judgments on who the Lord will save. God is completely capable of working salvation for those with deficiencies of all kinds both mental and physical, it’s in line with what he has done at times in the old testament, what he did when he walked the earth and I’ve no reason to believe he will change in the future.
They make a lot of sense!
Really? You heard "If Jesus had not died on the cross, he would have died from old age" and think that they are reasonable? How would Jesus have even gotten sick if just touching his cloak was enough to cure the blind?
So do they think God is physical or not? They seem to say contradictory things
Jesus says that God is a spirit (John 4:24), but then he is portrayed as a physical being, in the sense of that he can see, hear, smell, speak etc. Also when God passed before Moses, he wasn't allowed to see his face, but only his back. That suggests something physical, but it doesn't tell us what God's form is. We also have Genesis 1 telling us we're made in God's image, but again that could refer to character rather than actual form. In my years as a Christadelphian, I haven't heard anyone trying to define it more than this.
@ReadyToHarvest - just mentioned that. If the video can be edited that would be one of the oddball things in that source to be removed.
@ReadyToHarvest I seem to have deleted my earlier comment of thanks by trying to edit it. Anyway, Joshua I'll say it again. Overall fair to us, I wasn't aware this channel existed and will now go and look at the video on Christadelphian's COGGC cousins. Just one thing - which others have mentioned, this "physical God" thing really is something peculiar to just 1 individual. I hope you will take up the invitations from either Levi at A Little Faith or Dan at BibleFeed. God bless. Steven Leicester UK.
Hello Steven, thanks for commenting! I should have given more clarity on that point, since not all Christadelphians believe that God is physical, but you are incorrect that it is a one-individual thing. This teaching has a long history in Christadelphianism and is taught by many still today. This is why it's not at all surprising that Bilello would be straightforward to publish it in Tidings magazine. Here's some other Christadelphian sources that teach it (compiled by me):
*John Thomas, in the Christadelphian Advocate, 1887*
"The material God of the Bible only hath it inherently and underived from any other source-1 Tim. vi: 16"
p.88 (PDF page 101)
literature.christadelphianresources.com/Williams/Advocate/Volume%203%20-%201887.pdf
*John Thomas*
"In this the resurrection-epoch and era of Israel's regeneration, the earthy bodies from the grave, to wit, the bodies of Christ's accepted brethren, together with the living of the same class who are contemporary with the crisis, are clothed with incorruption or spirit from heaven, which in the twinkling of an eye transforms them into spirit and makes them consubstantial with the corporeal nature of the Father and the Son" www.antipas.org/pdf_files/christadelphian_treasury.pdf
*John Thomas*
We learn from the Bible that the Deity it reveals has both body and parts. Paul teaches us this in declaring that the resurrected and anointed Jesus is the reflexion of the glory and peculiar nature of the substance of the Theos (Heb. i. 3). In other words, he partakes of the Divine Nature; so that what He is now is what the Deity hath always been. The substance of the Theos is essentially living substance. It could not exist and yet be dead substance, for " the Father hath life in Himself ", and that life is His inherent peculiarity. It is underived from any antecedent existence; nor can it forsake the Divine Substance, for in that event the Deity would be mortal. But Paul styles Him "the Incorruptible Theos", and says that " He is the only One having deathlessness ". Hence, the essential qualities of the substance, which underlies all that is predicable of Him, are incorruptibility and life.
www.antipas.org/pdf_files/christadelphian_treasury.pdf
*Christadelphian Teacher Ron Cowie:*
“God is a personal, physical being
God is the eternal, infinite Creator of all things-Isa 45v18
He has a bodily existence, dwelling in Heaven in unapproachable light
1Timothy 6v15-16; Psalm 123v1; Matt 6v9; 1 Kings 8v30,34,39; Gen 1v26 cp
James 3v9”
www.jimcowie.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/FIRST-PRINCIPLES-Ron-Cowie.pdf
*Belgian Christadelphians:*
“God is a real, physical being, as the following points prove:
- It is a fundamental tenet of Christianity that Jesus is the Son of God. If God is not a real being, then it is impossible for Him to have a Son who was the "image of His person" (Heb. 1:3).”
sites.google.com/view/belgianchristadelphians/sayings-around-god
*Hebrews 1 exposition in the book “The Book of Hebrews Verse By Verse Exposition” by H.P. Mansfield*
“Christ was to be the perfect reflection of the mental, moral and physical glory of the Father (cp. Hab. 3:3, mg., in which is described the "brightness" as "bright beams out of His side" (In. lO:25; 12:28; 14:9). "of His person"
_ Gk. hupostaseos; R.V. "substance" or "essence". The Word has the idea of placing under, such as a foundation. It Speaks of divine nature as the physical being of the Deity, now seen also in His Son.”
www.christadelphian-origin.org/hebrews-1/
Book found at christadelphianlibrary.com/products/thebookofhebrewschristadelphianexpositorseries-mansfield
*Christadelphians in Whangarei New Zealand*
“God is a real, physical being, that we must come to “know” as the following points prove…
It is a fundamental tenet of Christianity that Jesus is the Son of God. If God is not a real being, then it is impossible for Him to have a Son who was the “image of His person” (Heb. 1:3).
Further, it becomes difficult to develop a personal, living relationship with ‘God’, if ‘God’ is just a concept in our mind. It is tragic that the majority of religions have this unreal, intangible conception of God.
As God is so infinitely greater than we are, it is understandable that many peoples’ faith has balked at the clear promises that ultimately we will see Him: “Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God” (Mt. 5:8).
Jesus tells us that we should not swear, because “he who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it” (Mt. 23:22). To “sit” one must be a physical being.”
truebibleteaching.com/index.php/god-does-exist/
*Christadelphia.net*
“The nature of God
1.1 There is a personal being called God
1.2 who has a specific location in Heaven
1.3 having a real, corporeal existence
1.4 whose image we bear
1.5 The Angels are His messengers
1.6 who cannot sin
1.7 sharing God's nature.
1.8 There is only one form of existence taught in the Bible - existence in a bodily form. God and the Angels exist in a bodily form.
1.9 The Christian hope is to be given God's nature in a bodily form at Christ's return.”
christadelphia.net/God.htm
*the SPIRIT by Aleck Crawford (Christadelphian book) - whole chapter on this but here is a snippet.*
“Since Jesus has flesh and bones it seems incongruous that his Father would not. The writer to the Hebrews says that Christ was "the express image of His person"8 The angels are "ministering spirits"9 but they were seen by men many times. Many passages in scripture show that God is corporeal and shares emotions that we do”
www.christadelphia.org/books/spirit/index.html (book source)
www.christadelphia.org/books/spirit/sectionB.php#corporeal (takes to this section)
*“The Prominent Features of the Christadelphian Faith” Published in The Christadelphian Feb 1874:*
“…They believe in one God, omniscient, omnipotent, substantial, and corporeal…”
facebook.com/groups/2539624386048559/posts/25425045487079791/?__cft__[0]=AZXz3WXuTQQbpAiTK2CsFObfSiF4uLFNhaPqjl0KvHpKAH6RvdlZoLX47ZXJXjV2dF_91C7-H0kPHRlKCwiEAbW9am2yvjMzAOR1Up1kiXHv24nDPY30gt0QCoNBxnIUlj4p3I9EXFQihCYZadQn0-mJ2dr1MsT7iVIILNDsWM6_Ag&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R
@@ReadyToHarvest I stand corrected. I wasn't surprised to see some of those sources, but surprised by a couple.
Well you've certainly done your research, better than me in fact because I've merely taken forty years exposure to what modern mainstream Christadelphians teach and believe rather than look into the dark recesses of "pioneer" teaching. We don't generally have the respect for church fathers and traditions as much as some churches do but there are - as you have dug up - individuals who view "founders" as having some kind of special status, as if they were Athanasius, Luther or Calvin, and it's not good. We are supposed not to do that.
Nevertheless that physical God view is definitely not held by 99% of us, is resisted where it occurs and gets pushback and deletion. It is no part of the major publishing and preaching sources: CBM CALS CMPA.
Maybe it is something if you accept Dan or Levi's invitations worth talking about.
Okay. But thanks for your reply on this. I will see if we can get some of those sources flagged. Thank you.
When I started an alternate YT channel that discussed the intersection of Christianity and Anarchism, I interacted a bit with a TH-camr I respected on an intellectual level who was a Christadelphian. It was the first time I actually interacted with the belief that Jesus is the Son of God but not God. It helped me solidify where I stood on that question.
We have one in Bloomington IL. Despite living here 28 years I have never met a single member of
I know several of them, nice folk. They used to do public seminars, not sure if they still do.
Wait, did Thomas appreciate Robert's writings or Roberts' writings?
"God is a physical being"
So do Christadelphians believe God to be visible or invisible?
I might have misunderstood what was said.
I noticed that, too!
Both views appear to have some adherents among Christadelphians.
@@ReadyToHarvest This is a fascinating array of doctrines. Thanks for the clarification!
@@AF-tv6uf He can be invisible, but He did walk around in the garden of Eden. Revelation 22:4 says that we will see His face and this would be when we are raised or made incorruptible.
Christadelphian Beliefs: WORD SALAD
That's what I thought!
Word Salad is defined as a jumble of incoherent speech. So, if you think this about Christadelphian beliefs, then you would at least have to apply it to all Christian denominations. We're just believing what we find the Bible teaches. And if that goes against mainstream long held doctrines, then that's just one of those things. As we all know, something isn't correct just because it's in the majority position, or been around for a long time.
I think Duncan Heaster is a bit fringe in CD circles and perhaps not the best source to use. His books are not sold by the Christadelphian office, for example. You quote him as saying that God has a physical body and a location. I am skeptical that many CDs would agree with that
On God being physical, you are right that it's definitely not the only view. I did compile a list of some other Christadelphian sources that teach it in response to another comment. Here they are.
John Thomas, in the Christadelphian Advocate, 1887
"The material God of the Bible only hath it inherently and underived from any other source-1 Tim. vi: 16"
p.88 (PDF page 101)
literature.christadelphianresources.com/Williams/Advocate/Volume%203%20-%201887.pdf
John Thomas
"In this the resurrection-epoch and era of Israel's regeneration, the earthy bodies from the grave, to wit, the bodies of Christ's accepted brethren, together with the living of the same class who are contemporary with the crisis, are clothed with incorruption or spirit from heaven, which in the twinkling of an eye transforms them into spirit and makes them consubstantial with the corporeal nature of the Father and the Son" www.antipas.org/pdf_files/christadelphian_treasury.pdf
John Thomas
We learn from the Bible that the Deity it reveals has both body and parts. Paul teaches us this in declaring that the resurrected and anointed Jesus is the reflexion of the glory and peculiar nature of the substance of the Theos (Heb. i. 3). In other words, he partakes of the Divine Nature; so that what He is now is what the Deity hath always been. The substance of the Theos is essentially living substance. It could not exist and yet be dead substance, for " the Father hath life in Himself ", and that life is His inherent peculiarity. It is underived from any antecedent existence; nor can it forsake the Divine Substance, for in that event the Deity would be mortal. But Paul styles Him "the Incorruptible Theos", and says that " He is the only One having deathlessness ". Hence, the essential qualities of the substance, which underlies all that is predicable of Him, are incorruptibility and life.
www.antipas.org/pdf_files/christadelphian_treasury.pdf
Christadelphian Teacher Ron Cowie:
“God is a personal, physical being
God is the eternal, infinite Creator of all things-Isa 45v18
He has a bodily existence, dwelling in Heaven in unapproachable light
1Timothy 6v15-16; Psalm 123v1; Matt 6v9; 1 Kings 8v30,34,39; Gen 1v26 cp
James 3v9”
www.jimcowie.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/FIRST-PRINCIPLES-Ron-Cowie.pdf
Belgian Christadelphians:
“God is a real, physical being, as the following points prove:
- It is a fundamental tenet of Christianity that Jesus is the Son of God. If God is not a real being, then it is impossible for Him to have a Son who was the "image of His person" (Heb. 1:3).”
sites.google.com/view/belgianchristadelphians/sayings-around-god
Hebrews 1 exposition in the book “The Book of Hebrews Verse By Verse Exposition” by H.P. Mansfield
“Christ was to be the perfect reflection of the mental, moral and physical glory of the Father (cp. Hab. 3:3, mg., in which is described the "brightness" as "bright beams out of His side" (In. lO:25; 12:28; 14:9). "of His person"
_ Gk. hupostaseos; R.V. "substance" or "essence". The Word has the idea of placing under, such as a foundation. It Speaks of divine nature as the physical being of the Deity, now seen also in His Son.”
www.christadelphian-origin.org/hebrews-1/
Book found at christadelphianlibrary.com/products/thebookofhebrewschristadelphianexpositorseries-mansfield
Christadelphians in Whangarei New Zealand
“God is a real, physical being, that we must come to “know” as the following points prove…
It is a fundamental tenet of Christianity that Jesus is the Son of God. If God is not a real being, then it is impossible for Him to have a Son who was the “image of His person” (Heb. 1:3).
Further, it becomes difficult to develop a personal, living relationship with ‘God’, if ‘God’ is just a concept in our mind. It is tragic that the majority of religions have this unreal, intangible conception of God.
As God is so infinitely greater than we are, it is understandable that many peoples’ faith has balked at the clear promises that ultimately we will see Him: “Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God” (Mt. 5:8).
Jesus tells us that we should not swear, because “he who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it” (Mt. 23:22). To “sit” one must be a physical being.”
truebibleteaching.com/index.php/god-does-exist/
Christadelphia.net
“The nature of God
1.1 There is a personal being called God
1.2 who has a specific location in Heaven
1.3 having a real, corporeal existence
1.4 whose image we bear
1.5 The Angels are His messengers
1.6 who cannot sin
1.7 sharing God's nature.
1.8 There is only one form of existence taught in the Bible - existence in a bodily form. God and the Angels exist in a bodily form.
1.9 The Christian hope is to be given God's nature in a bodily form at Christ's return.”
christadelphia.net/God.htm
the SPIRIT by Aleck Crawford (Christadelphian book) - whole chapter on this but here is a snippet.
“Since Jesus has flesh and bones it seems incongruous that his Father would not. The writer to the Hebrews says that Christ was "the express image of His person"8 The angels are "ministering spirits"9 but they were seen by men many times. Many passages in scripture show that God is corporeal and shares emotions that we do”
www.christadelphia.org/books/spirit/index.html (book source)
www.christadelphia.org/books/spirit/sectionB.php#corporeal (takes to this section)
“The Prominent Features of the Christadelphian Faith” Published in The Christadelphian Feb 1874:
“…They believe in one God, omniscient, omnipotent, substantial, and corporeal…”
facebook.com/groups/2539624386048559/posts/25425045487079791/?__cft__[0]=AZXz3WXuTQQbpAiTK2CsFObfSiF4uLFNhaPqjl0KvHpKAH6RvdlZoLX47ZXJXjV2dF_91C7-H0kPHRlKCwiEAbW9am2yvjMzAOR1Up1kiXHv24nDPY30gt0QCoNBxnIUlj4p3I9EXFQihCYZadQn0-mJ2dr1MsT7iVIILNDsWM6_Ag&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R
@@ReadyToHarvest except that none of these are mainstream modern Christadelphian sources. Except for the Belgian one which when I saw this I contacted them and they said 'oops', they had copy-pasted a piece with a survey of views which had somehow had that get it into it. I mean there will always be individuals who are overly attached to 19th Century writers, just as many Trinitarians are overly attached to 4th Century writers. But it's the one bit of the video that has Christadelphians going "what?" :)
@@ReadyToHarvest thanks, for the sources, I think the Belgian group is Duncan Heaster’s group, if so they would be the same source
The image in the thumbnail looks like the Christadelphian church in Ancaster, Ontario.
I spoke with a few of this group over the years...they all contradicted each other.
Not on doctrine.
@masada2828
Of course, they all contradict each other. That's why they're different groups. And yes, that's what I found when I spoke to them. They are not united in any way. There must be about 20 different versions of the same original group all contradicting each other, I spoke with one called ecclesia of Christ , they don't believe the same thing as the Birmingham Christadelpians... I prepared a reply to the ecclesia guy Based on discussing it with my neighbour, It didn't apply because they believed different things.
Rejecting that Jesus is God means they aren't Christians.
The “Trinity “ is tricky for so many. Great Theological works have been penned over the past centuries. Yet, still remains a “mystery “. WE Humans tend to look at things carnally. This lead us to “take sides”. Either/Or, when the Bible is clear that it can be “understood “ even by a child. As an Adult, we Overthink things - complicate things. A Child simply takes what “knowledge “ is given, and believes.
Has it not entered into [ man], that BOTH “sides “ may apply to many doctrines❓.
Simply put, what does Scripture SAY❓ [ Not , how do I interpret- because we are not given the “right “ to interpret. It’s up to us to connect with the Holy Spirit to GIVE us the truth that is ALREADY there.].
There are 3, and these 3 are [ also ] 1.
There is a “one-ness”, that we cannot comprehend now, but we , too will be “one” with Him, as He is with the Father.
Jesus was both God and man, as God was in Him.
Even their own doctrine counterdicts itself
I was thinking of joining the Adephians for Christ.
ha, you're more than welcome. :)
but we aren't adoptionists, we totally believe in the virgin birth.
Wow, very JWesque complete with even an accusation that the cross is pagan and that Jesus was staked
Had no idea they were involved with the Campbell's
This is one of those features that is actually quite typical of the non-Nicene Restorationist groups: they'll tend to have a Nicene counterpart that they have at least historical connections to.
Thanks for this. I quit the JWs in 1997 and ran into these folks. Read Wrested Scriptures. Interesting arguments they have. Very old Jewish understanding of the NT and i could be sympathetic to that if the disciples really did write the gospels.
The length and attention to detail of this video imply that Christadelphianism is treated as a sect of Christianity. Whereas, other faiths whose teachings on the trinity depart from traditional Christianity less drastically than Christadelphianism are not considered sects of Christianity. Am I misreading the presentation or is there a real inconsistency here?
The length of this video is not unusual, and I hope that every video on this channel has the same high level of attention to detail.
Here's the length of some of my other videos:
Church of God Jerusalem Acres 37:50
Reformed Baptists 35:52
Christian Reformed Church 30:25
Moravian Church 37:54
Evangelical Covenant Church 34:34
Salvation Army 50:16
In other words, length of video is not a good way to determine how to categorize a denomination.
@@ReadyToHarvest My comment wasn't meant as a criticism, nor did I mean to imply that the length or attention to detail was unusual. I haven't seen every video on this channel. Among the many videos I have seen, I don't recall seeing any of this length and detail dedicated to denominations considered non-Christian. That unscientific observation is the origin of my hypothetical inference. So, is there a short answer to the question, "Is Christadelphianism considered Christian?" Or am I destined to watch 3 1/2 hours of videos tonight? And thank you for your very interesting and informative videos!
The answer to "are Unitarians considered Christian?" depends on who is answering the question. Christadelphian theology is Unitarian, and that tends to be the dividing line. If someone views other Unitarians as Christian, they will probably view Christadelphians as Christians too.
All I can say is; wow
Great work on this channel
Well, clearly this is one of those occasions where the Bible calls for Church Discipline, as described in Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5, right?
THE PROCESS
The Unamended Christadelphians can accuse at least one Amended Christadelphian of heresy. Then, they can try to convince him of his error: First privately, then with the testimony of two or three witnesses. When that fails, they should take him "to the Church," and if he refuses to listen "even to the Church" he should be out of fellowship.
This, naturally, is an outcome which he would dread, since Paul elsewhere describes such a disfellowshipping as equivalent to having one's body "turned over to the enemy." Paul also says that it's done in hopes that the offender's soul _might_ be saved: To Paul, _salvation is at risk_ for the person who is not listening "even to the Church," since Paul claims the Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth."
WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN
We can all forsee that this process _should_ work, if...
(a.) the Person who gave us this process is either God, or inerrantly proclaiming a process intended _by_ God;
and,
(b.) the persons using the process have interpreted it correctly (i.e., have a correct ecclesiology).
But, of course, if the two groups have a wrong ecclesiology, then the process will fail.
And if the process Jesus gave us is just unworkable and kinda dumb, then Jesus neither _is_ God, nor even _speaks accurately for_ God.
Right?
WHAT WOULD ACTUALLY HAPPEN
I ask, because I think it's clear that neither of the Christadelphian groups can _possibly_ make this process work meaningfully. Their ecclesiology doesn't allow it to function, even in principle. By making the word "church" mean nothing other than the local congregation, they render the entire church-discipline process a dead-letter. They also make the Person who gave it to us look like a moron who didn't know much about humans.
CONCLUSION
So, it seems to me that Christadelphians, examining this reality, find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. They should conclude that either their ecclesiology is incorrect; or else, that Jesus was not sent by God.
In either case, I can't see why they'd remain Christadelphian (other than, y'know, to keep the parents happy).
Hey, I co-host a Christadelphian podcast (which you can find on our channel here or any podcast player, just search for Bible Feed). If you would like more info or more sources on Christadelphians, I'd be happy to help, feel free to contact us.
Dan (co-host of the Bible Feed podcast)
interesting 😎
Thousands of denominations and thousands of interpretations of scripture
We must treat heresy like the Church Fathers and the early Church did
I find it a mishmash with bits of Arianism, Unitarianism, Roman Catholicism (works works works!) and even Mormonism (physical body of YHWH). Could only make it through half...
I attend the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. No guess work there.
The fruits of Solo Scriptura.
They seem a strange mixture of very theologically conservative and very theologically liberal. Arguing the Bible is meaningfully inerrent, while saying demons don't exist. Like a specific point of corruption by theological liberalism was frozen in time.
I agre with alot of what they say about 40 percent.
Who are they? Sadducees
'John Thomas'. All you need to know really. (It's British slang.)
Jesus cast out what now? Lol
So these guys are Nestorian.
All that is old becomes new
No they are eunomian