Jump to content

Most Liked Content

#436567 Trying to connect to Christadelphians!

Posted by Marynsh on 30 April 2016 - 02:57 PM

Thank you for being so helpful. :ok:

  • Kay and Librarian like this

#435068 Nephilim

Posted by Mark Taunton on 23 February 2015 - 01:23 AM

PoiterM, a brief note regarding your OP...


The exact same Hebrew form for "the nephilim" that occurs in Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33 occurs also in other places in the OT.  Anyone who claims that the Genesis & Numbers uses both refer to a specific group of people in Noah's time needs to explain those other uses also. In particular, two instances from the same era as Numbers 13, i.,e. Joshua's lifetime or just after, are pertinent:

  • In Joshua 8:25 the same Hebrew form for "the nephilim" is translated by the KJV as "that fell" in "all that fell".  But manifestly, it does not refer to people living before the flood, rather it means the 12,000 inhabitants of Ai who perished by the sword at Israel's hand.
  • In Judges 20:46, the same form also occurs, again of people who died violently at that time. But notably, these were not people of the land of Canaan (such as those referred to by the 10 spies in Numbers 13) - they were Israelites, of the tribe of Benjamin.

In summary, from these instances it is clear that the word "nephilim" does not refer to any specific ethnic group. It rather refers to people who are "fallen", in some sense. So the claims some have made about Num 13 / Gen 6, regarding actual genetic descent, are unfounded and wrong.


Hoping that's helpful...

  • Kay and Librarian like this

#432000 Trying to connect to Christadelphians!

Posted by Gazing@Stars on 23 February 2013 - 05:39 AM

Yes, I received an email contact from a brother in the ecclesia this evening. Thank you for making calls on my behalf, you are so kind.


Anson (Gazing at Stars)
  • Kay and firstthings1st like this

#429322 Is there a holy piece of Paper in the world?

Posted by Richie on 26 June 2012 - 04:18 PM

And one other thing:

All your base are belong to us.
  • nsr and DragnBreth like this

#429167 Is there a holy piece of Paper in the world?

Posted by Mark Taunton on 18 June 2012 - 04:37 PM

The word "holy" means special or set apart. The Bible is a special book. But there's nothing special about the paper it is printed on. What is special or holy about the Bible is the message it contains.

  • Matt Smith and Richie like this

#428791 Antichrist

Posted by Matt Smith on 11 May 2012 - 04:02 PM

Pursuant to that point, perhaps you can answer to a prior post in which I asked another poster to list what Christian groups or denominations in the world today, deny that Jesus is the Son of God, or as claimed "reject the idea that Jesus .... died and rose from the dead." (perhaps as first century Gnostics did).

Any group or individual within christianity which claims Jesus is God.

Why don't you try answering this time rather than changing the subject. What billion Christians "reject the idea that Jesus .... died and rose from the dead."

Just because you don't like my answer doesn't mean I didn't answer it.

If Jesus is God it means he did not die (God cannot die) and if he did not die, he did not rise from the dead. So my answer remains the same: Any group or individual within christianity which claims Jesus is God.

So you make an excuse for falsely accusing that Christians "reject the idea that Jesus .... died and rose from the dead."

You accuse brethren on the basis of your apparent belief that God granted you the sole franchise on the truth of what the bible itself describes as a "mystery".

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

My brothers and sisters in Christ are those who believe the same doctrines as the apostles:

Acts 2:42 - ...they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Notice the order: doctrine first, then fellowship, breaking of bread and prayers.

All others are described as:
  • those who "went out from us"
  • "deceivers"
  • "apostate"
  • those who "obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ"
  • "antichrists"
  • "grievous wolves"
  • "men speaking perverse things"
  • "having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof"
  • "ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth"
  • "these also resist the truth"
  • "men of corrupt minds"
  • "reprobate concerning the faith"
  • "who hold the truth in unrighteousness"
  • "unrighteous"
  • "vain in their imaginations"
  • those who "do not obey the truth"
  • "false brethren"
So, yes, anyone who teaches things contrary to the apostles doctrines fits these descriptors. The good news is people are able to accept the truth, and change and become "heirs according to the promise".

As an aside on the phrase "mystery" as found in the Bible, if you read carefully you find that the context tells you that it is a revealed mystery, not one which is kept a mystery, especially to the believers.
  • DragnBreth and Richie like this

#427464 Why was Jesus born of a virgin? (If He was to be fully human as we)

Posted by Acomtha on 14 February 2012 - 03:31 AM

Adam and Eve didn't have human parents, and they were 100% human.
  • Librarian and arman like this

#437050 Greetings Fellow Believers in the Lord

Posted by cgaviria on 10 October 2016 - 04:11 PM

Hello fellow believers in Jesus Christ,
I wanted to introduce myself, my name is Christian and I am new to this forum. I was pleased to find that many of your teachings align with many teachings I have come to know and understand in my own personal studies of scripture. I discovered your group by the word of someone I was debating against in another forum.

  • firstthings1st likes this

#436882 Remnant Fellowship

Posted by concernedfather2 on 03 August 2016 - 03:45 PM

I have two children that live with their aunt children's mother abandoned them with her father father and the sister got custody during this time I was out of the loop as after I married my ex-wife I found out there was more issues than what I saw on the surface that were on repairable when I separated she ran with the kids as to keep her government money for having the kids and being a single mother I once tried to retrieve my kids after being called by a minor that they were left with my kids unattended the judge granted custody back to you the ex-wife because she was the mother when I was finally told where my kids were the aunt had already had custody so now for the pickle she is steadfast in the remnant Fellowship chapter of Franklin Tennessee and will not allow me to see the children unless I move there she also wants me to drop everything and move there so that they can help me find a house and job I am 35 now and I have been a Christian since the age of 11 and baptized at the age of 13 I know that Christians look out for each other and that they help one another but something definitely sounds fishy I would gladly pick up and move for my kids but after reading some of the articles especially on child discipline I now fear for my kids any help or any advice would be greatly appreciated
  • firstthings1st likes this

#436652 How the Serpent Became Satan

Posted by Kay on 29 May 2016 - 02:36 AM

Of interest: 
How the Serpent Became Satan
Adam, Eve and the serpent in the Garden of Eden
Shawna Dolansky  •  04/08/2016
"Introduced as “the most clever of all of the beasts of the field that YHWH God had made,” the serpent in the Garden of Eden is portrayed as just that: a serpent. Satan does not make an appearance in Genesis 2–3, for the simple reason that when the story was written, the concept of the devil had not yet been invented. Explaining the serpent in the Garden of Eden as Satan would have been as foreign a concept to the ancient authors of the text as referring to Ezekiel’s vision as a UFO (but Google “Ezekiel’s vision” now, and you’ll see that plenty of people today have made that connection!). In fact, while the word satan appears elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, it is never a proper name; since there is no devil in ancient Israel’s worldview, there can’t yet have been a proper name for such a creature."


  • Marynsh likes this

#436620 TFTD - May 2016

Posted by Librarian on 18 May 2016 - 11:47 AM

18 May 2016
"How was Jesus able to endure? By the same process as every other human who is tried, yet with this difference; every other man and woman failed, on some occasion, but Jesus never failed; so deep rooted was his faith that he looked with perfect vision to that joy set before him, despising the shame, and so it came about that he is set down on the right hand of God."
- J.A. Swaish
So Great a Cloud of Witnesses (1961)

  • Marynsh likes this

#436552 Trying to connect to Christadelphians!

Posted by Kay on 27 April 2016 - 12:05 PM

Be back to you in the next day or so, will email the ecclesial member.

  • Marynsh likes this

#435956 Loss of Faith - Returning to Faith

Posted by Chris-M on 31 October 2015 - 10:11 AM

Luke 15:11-32

Thank you very much this  :)


It's appreciated

  • Librarian likes this

#435952 Loss of Faith - Returning to Faith

Posted by Chris-M on 30 October 2015 - 07:20 AM

What does the bible say about a person that once believed, then had a period of years (about 2 to 3) where as far as they could tell, they think they didn't believe any more, but then - returned to the faith? Is a person forever condemned because they left the faith, or can that person come back to God's saving grace? I don't really believe in 'once saved always saved' because Paul said something about running the race, that it was an ongoing fight. But I'm not sure. 


I questioned my faith for years and at one point I said to myself I was probably agnostic. I 'think' at one point I might even said I was probably atheist (though I'm really not very sure about this). For the longest time my faith was hanging by the thinnest of threads, but I think deep down I still believed, albeit weakly. I can't ever remember 'feeling' like an atheist (whatever that feels like), and I do remember that I still said silent prayers in my head - but I think this might have been more to do with a 'just in case it's all true' attitude. I would never blaspheme either. It is true to say at one point though, that I honestly did question my faith and did not really know what I believed any more. 


Thanks all

  • Kay likes this

#435941 Revelation 14:11

Posted by Chris-M on 25 October 2015 - 04:29 PM

Thanks for posting this


I found it to be very informative if a little difficult to understand. The style of writing is I think, quite reminiscent of its day and has a certain elegance about it. But to the modern reader (me), I found it tricky to 'take in'. 


Still, I believe the main thrust of the text was to give evidence that the immortal soul is not biblical. 

  • Librarian likes this

#435720 TFTD - August 2015

Posted by pete on 29 August 2015 - 01:20 PM

More grease to your elbow. Thank you for sharing all these!

  • Librarian likes this

#435343 Characteristics Which Define the Average Theistic Evolutionist

Posted by cindyb6 on 13 May 2015 - 01:24 AM

One of the problems that we have with the attitude displayed here, is the demand for people to accept the peer-reviewed "consensus" view by scientists on evolutionary biology. This demand is couched in many ways, but the most confronting version is when any dissenter or questioner is asked what qualifications they have to be able to go against those with degrees in these sciences. And, even if you can supply qualifications (which most of us can't), then they are either not in the right sciences or the dissenter has not published any peer-reviewed papers. This makes it extremely difficult to have a reasonable discussion on the issues and often leaves a person feeling crushed and beaten, rather than reasoning together as brethren. 

A comment I recently read, seems relevant in this context:

"How can we distinguish the good papers from the poor? This can be very difficult without actually attempting to reproduce their findings. Short of that, apply the same critical thinking skills and healthy skepticism to scientific papers that you do for political, historical or religious claims. 21st century science can often be heavily influenced by poor experimental practices, unproven computational models, political agendas, competition for funding, and scientism (atheism dressed up as science). When going over a paper ask questions like, how large was the data set? What sort of statistical analysis was performed? Are there other papers that independently support or disconfirm these findings? What is not being discussed? One thing for sure, don’t accept something simply because ‘hundreds’ or even ‘thousands’ of papers say so, especially if Darwinian evolution is the topic. Practice critical thinking with the question in the back of your mind, 'Is this one of those papers that will be retracted?'."


We may not have the relevant man-made degrees but, as students of the Word, we need to be able to discuss these aspects of the Word of God, without being bullied into submission.

  • Librarian likes this

#435342 Characteristics Which Define the Average Theistic Evolutionist

Posted by leviathan on 12 May 2015 - 04:08 PM

Hi Kay,


I am one of many who has tried to discuss this topic with Jonathan in a civil manner only to find the dialogue following the same old script as you have described above.


Jonathan's views place him well outside the BASF and his conduct and behaviour is highly divisive.

Together with Ken Gilmore, Jonathan runs a number of pages attacking our publications.

I am one of many who feel the time has come to mark those who cause division. Jonathan's behaviour needs to be highlighted.


Yes is is negative and unpleasant, but this is simply a reaction to a pattern of behaviour that has gone unchecked for too long and has led many astray who tragically mimic many of the techniques they learn from the likes of Jonathan.


This needs to be called out.

  • Librarian likes this

#435336 Characteristics Which Define the Average Theistic Evolutionist

Posted by TrevorL on 12 May 2015 - 04:52 AM

Greetings Kay,


My assessment of this thread is that it is in bad taste, not only in content but also the fact that it is anonymous. My suggestion is that this thread should be deleted.


Kind regards


  • jimbob likes this

#435109 Nephilim

Posted by Ivastic on 06 March 2015 - 12:31 AM

Nathan, I have given various reasons why I think that some of what is now being preached is wrong, I am entitled to do so.



No one has ever said you're not entitled to speak out about what you believe is wrong, that doesn't mean I have to agree with you ;)


You came here of your own accord, you also said you didn't come back because you didn't try hard enough (more or less a sleight - that is how it appeared)



Yes I did, I came here to discuss it with Peter because he said he wanted to talk about this subject (local flood and EC) on both BDF and BEREA. Previously I hadn't been back because a) I tried a while back and couldn't get on, and b) there never seemed to be a whole lot of discussion here and c) I am an admin at BEREA and don't have the time to focus on 2 forums (I don't even post on BTDF anymore)


 - though this time you must have - because we also had the "evolutionary Christadelphian Police" viewing the OP, though of course linked on facebook ...


There is no such thing as the EC police, this is just inflammatory language. 


and we have had Evangelion reappearing, IP's from Taiwan ... even Iceland viewing the board, but not this particular topic.





The reason that people like Ev and Fort were viewing this thread, is because Peter (who started this thread) was involved in a discussion on FB with fort and said he would come to both BDF and BEREA to discuss it further. I have no idea who your visitor from Iceland is, I don't know anyone from Iceland. 


ACC (the name has changed again?) - rather than frequent sites like skepticalscience, expand your horizons



I am not a scientist, and so I trust the scholarly consensus on subjects like Evolution, Climate Change/Global Warming, Vaccinations, and the fact that things like homeopathy is garbage, I trust this consensus in the same way I trust that if I get Cancer, Chemo and Radio therapy are my best options, and when I broke my leg last year, I trusted my surgeon to repair it. 


and from the ABC too and left leaning places



I am not sure how this is at all relevant to this discussion.


that is not the intention, but sometimes friends can lead one astray in belief 



Perhaps you should take your own advice here. 


Also, the fact is, the OP relates to what Jonathan Burke has written and promoting



And the scholarly consensus agrees with him, since, he is not promoting his own views, but that of biblical scholarship. 


but to suit the purpose of promoting Theistic Evolution to the brotherhood



Accepting the flood is local, has nothing to do with promoting EC, and that can be seen by the fact that some of our pioneers accepted a local flood (even if they believed it was anthropologically global, they still believed it was physically local) - none of them accepted evolution. 


so the Word of God again appears inaccurate, is called into question. Such brings us again to this:



No one would accuse the pioneers of saying the bible was inaccurate, even if they accepted a local flood


Actually, some of it has been copied and sent to others ... so there you go!



Proof? You and Matt keep claiming you have all this material copied from "secret" meetings and "private" discussions and yet, you produce none of it. 


we had someone who believed in YEC here, and then the  "evolutionary Christadelphian Police" descended ... and drove the person interested in our belief away, and in the interim at BEREA running dialogue mocking the one here because they believed in YEC ... the thread at BEREA was moved out of public view apparently - the damage, well, I am certain they at BEREA would place the blame elsewhere, that he had the gall to believe in YEC - they always do in any issue, though that said, I will give David Burke credit, he tried to reason with those commenting at BEREA.



I don't know anything about this, it was obviously before my time at BEREA, so I can't comment on it. 


BEREA IS top heavy in the public arena promoting evolution to the brotherhood



I'm sorry, but that's just not true. While it is true that some of the admin / mod team at BEREA accept EC, not all of us do. Also, the only two sites I know of actively 'promoting' evolution are ECACP and COD - neither are run by BEREA. 


number of the comments are dated, science has moved on, or with other opinion 



You know what science hasn't moved on from - The consensus that Universal Common Descent explains the diversity of life on earth ;)


and even when asked who they were, I don't think there was immediate response and openess 



The main reviewers are those with their names on the front of the journal, but there is a larger group on BEREA who review all the content for D&C (I am one of those people for example) 


but then one on the review panel, some of the writings they have given consent to, or the nod, the writings were very questionable and in some cases wrong.




The material of D & C is weighted towards TE/EC



Lets test this theory: 

  • D&C has produced 4 editions so far.
  • The first edition had 2 out of 11 articles about science (neither directly about EC) 
  • The second edition had 0 out of 8 articles about science
  • The third edition had 0 out of 21 articles about science 
  • The fourth edition had 2 out of 11 articles about science (neither directly about EC) 

So in 4 editions, over 51 total articles and only 4 about science, yes I can see how this is heavily weighted to TE/EC 

Now, who else uses the name "duplicitous liar"



Anyone who has a good grasp of the english language? I am not really sure what you are trying to prove here. I was calling out bedson for what he is. 


there are those who believe in TE/EC who have been less than honest to their brethren, and then supporting them not realising that they have been lied to. 



Really? I would like proof of that. 


Dave Burke usually asks for 6 examples



I don't care what Dave burke does, I was asking for one - I note you haven't provided one. 


they are from former Christadelphians who have stated that it was all there for them at BEREA, to assist in the journey from believing to unbelief



I know of one regular poster on bedsons blog who was an active member of BEREA, and I can assure you his reason for leaving had nothing to do with our material. I would also like proof of this claim, (also, note that Bedson has multiple "Sock Puppet" accounts on his blog so you can't actually trust that everyone who is posting there is a real person) 


but when called out, that there are other victims, this is denied or cast aside



We aren't denying it could have happened, we are saying we have seen no proof of it happening, and whenever we ask, we don't get a single straight answer. 



  • Evangelion likes this