Talk:Berean Christadelphians

message: The text of this article has been moved from the Christadelphian article, following the precedent of a separate page for Unamended Christadelphians, and because the section on Bereans needs further work to conform to wikipedia standards. RiJB (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

message: In my opinion statements made on online discussion forums are anecdotal and not authoritative. If the statements cannot be substantiated by references to standard authoritative Berean Christadelphian works specifically on the subject under consideration they should not be used. I will therefore remove the unsubstantiated comments from the article. Taiwan Girl (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The key phrase here is 'In my opinion'.  I'm sorry, but this article is not subject to the whims of your personal opinion.  Either contribute constructively, or stay out of it.  You've already been reprimanded and corrected over your vandalism of the Christadelphian page.  I will not hesitate to correct and reprimand you if you try vandalising this one.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not simply my opinion. I was actually quoting your words which were posted on the Christadelphians talk page where you said references needed to be from "an authoritative Christadelphian work specifically on" the subject. Applying your rule to this article means that references need to be from "an authoritative Berean Christadelphian work specifically on the subject". The 'reprimand' and 'correction' on the Christadelphian talk page was by you - and therefore carries no weight or credibility with me. To call a legitimate edit 'vandalism' is mere childishness. Taiwan Girl (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh so now you're changing your mind, and suddenly it's not 'your opinion'.  As it happens, I've edited the article and contributed a considerable number of authoritative references in order to substantiate it (a number of which you have attempted to delete), so it's clear that I'm the one contributing to this article's quality whilst you're still involved in vandalism.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't change my mind. I was affirming my agreement with you that references need to be from authoritative sources. In order to improve the quality of articles it would help if you avoided emotive language and criticisms of a personal nature, and confined yourself to the accuracy of the material. Taiwan Girl (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't make any 'emotive arguments', and I'm the one providing copious accurate detail (all correctly referenced), while you attempt to remove not only the material I write but also the references I cite.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Statement by a Berean Christadelphian on an online discussion forum" 

message: The article contains a paragraph which comments on the Berean Christadelphians' method of Biblical interpretation. However, no attempt is made to show how this method differs from Christadelphianism in general. The same comment could be made of Christadelphians in the central fellowship and other subgroups. It is not peculiar to Berean Christadelphians. If the comment could be substantiated and authoritative references cited then it might be appropriate to make it in the article on Christadelphians. For the reasons given I will remove it from this article. Taiwan Girl (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not represented as peculiar to the Bereans, but as characteristic of the Bereans.  Therefore it stays.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Berean Christadelphian method of Biblical interpretation is not peculiar to them, and does not distinguish them from Christadelphiansim in general, then there is no point in commenting on it in this article, considering the section begins by saying "Over time the Bereans have developed a culture and a set of doctrines which differentiate them radically from mainstream Christadelphians. (my emphasis). The comment therefore was represented as peculiar to Berean Christadelphians or "radically" differentiated from "mainstream Christadelphians". My correction therefore stands. Taiwan Girl (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of this article is to describe the Berean Fellowship.  Sometimes this involves differentiating them from other fellowships, sometimes it doesn't.  The section you removed was not represented as unique to the Bereans, and the part of the article you quote is in a completely different context.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The part I quoted was in the same section, until you split the article into smaller sections. I have therefore left it intact but edited it to clarify that this is not unique to Berean Christadelphians. Taiwan Girl (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Method of Biblical interpretation" 

message: Several statements have been made in the article about John Thomas and the "pioneers" of Christadelphianism which require substantiation or which could also be made of Christadelphianism in general. For example: "That John Thomas was raised up by God to restore the Truth to the earth, and was chosen by God because of his unique fitness to the task". While a reference is cited (Bob Widding, "Contending for the Faith: A Command for 21st Century Saints" from the Berean Bible Journal, January 2008) references could also be cited from works published in the broader Christadelphian denomination ("central fellowship") along similar lines. For example, Robert Roberts (first editor of The Christadelphian) wrote:
:"There is but one safe position, and in that we mean by the favour of God, to entrench ourselves ‘for better or for worse' viz., THE WHOLE TRUTH AS BROUGHT TO LIFE BY DR. THOMAS ... We yield not a slavish deference to the judgment of Dr. Thomas; but we rejoice to be able to see that by the grace of God, he exhumed for us the whole truth; and for this we shall stand till death or the Lord's coming end the fight" (The Christadelphian December, 1873, p. 564. His capitalised emphasis).
Robert Roberts also held to the view that John Thomas had discovered "all truth". He wrote that "to the charge of holding ‘that the knowledge of Scripture, in the writings of Dr Thomas, has reached a finality', we plead guilty." He made his view clear that "in the writings of Dr Thomas, the truth is developed as a finality, and that they are a depot of the Christian doctrine" (The Christadelphian September, 1874, pp. 408-9. My emphasis).
As these comments apply to other Christadelphians and are not peculiar to Berean Christadelphians I will remove them from the article. It may be appropriate to move them to the general article on Christadelphians. Taiwan Girl (talk) 03:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A comment from Robert Roberts 125 years ago does not constitute evidence that the current Central Christadelphian community as a whole (which postdates Robert Roberts), views John Thomas as he does.  On the other hand, an article from a current Berean publication which professes to represent the current Berean beliefs of contemporary Bereans, is evidence that contemporary Bereans view John Thomas so.  The edit stays.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Robert Roberts was one of the most influential Christadelphians (which is evidenced by the fact that he is one of only two Christadelphians with a biography in the Wikipedia Christadelphianism category). About him Christadelphian historian Andrew Wilson wrote that "the organising ability of Robert Roberts ... gave the movement [Christadelphianism] its rules, institutions and much of its literature" (Andrew R. Wilson B.A., M.A., A.R.Hist.S., The History of the Christadelphians, 1862-1885: The Emergence of a Denomination Shalom Publications, 1997 p.399).  The current Christadelphian position was influenced heavily by Roberts and no evidence has been advanced which suggests that Christadelphianism has changed since Roberts made these comments. My correction therefore stands. Taiwan Girl (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're still not addressing the point, which is that you didn't provide any evidence whatsoever that a comment from Robert Roberts 125 years ago constitutes evidence that the current Central Christadelphian community as a whole (which postdates Robert Roberts), views John Thomas as he does.  The comment from Wilson says nothing about this either.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I provided referenced evidence that the current Christadelphian position was influenced heavily by Roberts and no evidence has been advanced which suggests that Christadelphianism has changed since Roberts made these comments. The Wikipedia articles on Christadelphians and Robert Roberts are further evidence of his influence. You would need to provide authoritative evidence that the Christadelphian view has changed. My correction therefore stands. Taiwan Girl (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this isn't good enough.  You've provided no evidence that the current Christadelphian practice is what you claim.  You've quoted a study which says that the Christadelphian community has historically been influenced by Robert Roberts on certain issues, none of which are the issue under discussion.  Nor have you provided any evidence that the current Central Christadelphian community as a whole (which postdates Robert Roberts), views John Thomas as he did.  The quote from Robert Roberts certainly did not prove that, and the quote from Wilson doesn't either.  It doesn't even mention the subject, so once more you are misusing your sources.  I don't need to provide any evidence that the Christdaelphian position on this subject has 'changed', because you haven't provided any evidence that this was ever the position of the community.  You have made the claim that it is the view of the entire current community, so you need to substantiate that with references representative of the entire current community.  To date you have failed to do this.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "pioneers" 

message: Some phrases may need explaining further. Reading through the article with a non-Christadelphian hat on, I would ask:
* What does 'view of fellowship' mean?
* What is the Unamended Fellowship?
* What is the Central Fellowship?
* What does 'nature of the flesh' mean?
* Who is 'John Thomas'?
* What is the difference between moral and personal transgression?
* Who are the Pioneers?
* Who is Robert Roberts?
I realise these are sometimes explained later on in the article. Perhaps it would be beneficial to rearrange and/or add wiki links to make this clearer. RiJB (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made some edits.  See what you think.  Bear in mind that this is a religious article on a specific denomination (the details of which are linked to more than once), thus some prior knowledge is legitimately assumed.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think that's an improvement. Thanks. I may make some other suggestions later. RiJB (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: For the uneducated public ;)

message: 'Taiwan Girl', you are still making edits of parts of the article which are still being discussed in this Talk page.  You will cease doing this, and start discussing the issues.  Place your suggested edits here where they can be reviewed by others.  If they are acceptable they will be included.  This article is not your personal property, and since you have a history of acting in bad faith you will have to prove yourself.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't demand what I will or will not do. I have consistently discussed the issues. Please stop making criticisms of a personal nature and confine yourself to the actual material. To be consistent to your own demands you should also desist from editing this article while it is under discussion (or do you have one rule for me and another rule for yourself?) Taiwan Girl (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not demanding, I'm simply telling you.  All the edits I made had been discussed with others previously, and all edits I made were fully referenced.  When you removed edits I had made which weren't referenced, I didn't revert them, I permitted them to be removed.  So the article was properly referenced.  You then came along and added claims which weren't properly referenced, and I removed them just as you had removed mine.  But unlike me, you didn't accept the edits, and nor did you substantiate your claims with proper references.  You just reverted them.  I didn't do that when you took away my unreferenced claims.  So it's clear that you're the one applying the double standard, not me.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: This is not a "Berean site". This is Wikipedia where anyone can edit any article as long as Wikipedia policies and guidelines are adhered to. --NeilN talk to me 02:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Running edits

message: Can I have permission to edit out many of the differences between Berean Christadelphians and Central Christadelphians. An example of a so-called difference is:
"That human nature is physically defiled by sin even before personal transgression has taken place"
This is in the BASF, Clause 5 "a sentence which defiled" which is the basis of fellowship at Central ecclesias.
Certain beliefs that have been attributed to the Berean Christadelphians on the article regarding flesh are commonly held within Central Christadelphians so I think a tighter edit might be required. Can I go ahead with the edit?  -- Jond89 (talk 00:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: First up, that's not actually in the BASF.  The BASF doesn't say that human nature is 'physically defiled by sin even before personal transgression has taken place'.  It does use the phrase 'a sentence which defiled', but the meaning of that clause was specifically clarified by the Cooper/Carter Addendum in Central, which stated explicitly that the defilement was of Adam's conscience ('He fell from his very good state and suffered the consequences of sin--shame, a defiled conscience and mortality').  The Bereans have always rejected the Cooper/Carter Addendum vigorously, for this very reason.  This is an example of why I would like to see any alleged inaccuracies discussed here first, before edits are made in the main article.
------
First up, the BASF says "a sentence which defiled and became a physical law of his being, and was transmitted to all his posterity." If the sentence became a PHYSICAL law of his BEING, can you explain how this was the defilement of "Adam's conscience" since the conscience is not a physical element of the body? And how did Adam's defiled conscience get transmitted to all his posterity? Do you feel morally defiled for eating of the tree? It sounds to me like you are advocating one element of of J. J. Andrew's teachings by claiming the defilement, or moral guilt, was transmitted to Adam's descendants. 
Second up, Cooper/Carter is a mixed bag and can be quoted on both sides of the issue. Third up, Cooper/Carter is an Australian document, never accepted, ratified, or even proposed for use outside of Australia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.48 (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Berean Differences

message: I live in London, Ontario, Canada, just down the street from a small building which bears the words "Berean Christadelphians".  I therefore assume that this is still a place of fellowship of people identifying themselves as Berean Christadelphians.  I therefore conclude that there are some Berean Christadelphians in Canada, and that the numbers of followers cited in this article need some better research and verification, since it enumerates Berean Christadelphians in the USA and other countries in such a way as to imply that there are none in other countries.JamesHAndrews (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is notoriously difficult to get numbers for these smaller groups, hence "citation needed" - the figures on the article have been reconstructed from "ecclesial intelligence" in the Berean Magazine. But I cannot see where the article uses "USA" "United States". The term "North America 200" surely includes Canada? That said.. if you can get reliable numbers to separate USA and Canada, then by all means contribute them. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Canadian Berean Christadelphians

message: Michael Morrell, a member of the Berean Christadelphians, has repeatedly removed referenced material from this article without discussion. This is a breach of Wikipedia policy motivated by his conflict of interest and desire to suppress information on the Bereans. Michael, if you want to edit the article on that scale you need to discuss it here, and adhere to Wikipedia policy.--Taiwan boi (talk) 04:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated removal of referenced material

message: Many of the References-and-Footnotes (should these be more distinct than they are?) mention The Purifying of the Heavenly. This link (or similar) 
https://www.antipas.org/books/purifying_heavenly/purifying_heavenly.html
should appear in the article 2A00:23C7:D29D:4E01:3121:33A1:E12F:804A (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Growcott link