Talk:Christadelphians/Archive 6

message: I noticed the recent edits with first the deletion and then the replacement of the "nontrinitarian" description in the first sentence of the article.
Personally I think it's curious that anyone would want to introduce themselves with a "negative" statement (i.e. "We don't believe in a trinity"), and I would have thought that it would be better to make a positive statement about Christadelphian doctrinal distinctives rather than beginning with the "nontrinitarian" statement. Ekklesiastic 12:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it is true that in our beliefs the Christadelphians DO NOT believe in the Trinity and it is an important doctrine many Christadelphians feel that expressing negative terms first when stating their beliefs is not the best option. However this does not mean it is not one of the key beliefs we hold. So it's a tricky one. Cls14 13:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nontrinitarian 

message: I removed the link to the Sydney companion Christadelphian as there is only one site for all the other fellowships (if we add all the central meetings websites this page will double in length!) --Samtheboy 01:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed link

message: I'm new to this so hopefully I havn't trodden on too many toes by adding this to the Beliefs section. I think Christadelphians in general remember Jesus' resurrection also at the memorial meeting, else our "faith is vain"!Ozzibloke 23:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems ok to me :-) Cls14 13:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  .... and resurrection .... 

message: Included in the definition of the word “sect” in Webster dictionary it says that it is “…used esp by members of the established churches to express their disapproval of the less established or smaller”. This seems to be the reason why 217.40.26.169 wishes to use the word “sect” to define Christadelphians. Paul was a member of what others called a “sect”, a “sect” “every where … spoken against.” (Acts 28:22). All those who are members of the same “sect” as Paul are Christadelphians, so personally I have no problem with the use of the word “sect”, as long as a note is added to this effect. Others may not agree?--TCWIK 08:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are Christadelphians a "sect"? 

message: This is for the historians amongst you. It might just shed some light on the early history of Christadelphians useful to the article, though it would need to be researched.
I used to be a Christadelphian. I think in the late fifies or during the sixties Christmas Evans did a series in The Christadelphian on the history of the denomination (a word I prefer to sect). He had quite a library and on his death one of his books came to my father. It was a fascinating read. It was penned by a man - his surname might have been Norrie - who had been part of the Edinburgh meeting in its earliest days. It recounts lots of things that were happening at the time, not just in Edinburgh, and has discursions such as their interest in phrenology, all the rage in those days. I had heard that the book was printed in a severely limited edition. I think I heard that this copy of it ended up in the Christadelphian office. Ddruk 21:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early history 

message: I came across this one:
The Christadelphians.net Group not in fellowship with the main body of Christadelphians (Central/Amended) but who profess original Christadelphian Beliefs.
Can anyone enlighten me on why they are not in fellowship? --Samtheboy (t/c) 16:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Samtheboy, don't know. Perhaps contact them - I'm sure they'd be happy to answer. --Woofboy 10:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links