by Tuesday 20 Replies latest jw friends
I had a teacher that was Christadelphian. If I recall correctly they don't accept a literal existence of Satan, but rather that he is a personifcation of the inherent evil within us.
I also am pretty sure they count time for "witnessing" about their faith. Would they call that "Christadelphianing"
Hah!!! "Christadelphianing"...!!! That's a mouthful, Walls of Jerico!!!
How about just "delphing"....
Similar to the "Delphi" oracle, just for fun!!
That's actually the thing, in almost every other instance Christadelphians believe the same as the JWs. If you told them "The difference between your beliefs and the Christadelphians is they believe Satan isn't a living creature." They would say the Christadelphians are crazy until you point out that every time Satan shows up it's when someone is being tempted to disobey God (Eve, Job and Jesus) to which what is the real proof that they're wrong with their interpretation? Has anyone actually been in contact with the Devil or a possessed person who's "demon" identified themselves as Satan?
I've been going to the Unitarian Church (hard to say church ha ha) and no one has said JC did or didn't have a pre-existance.
Hi! I am a Christadelphian and would be glad to answer any of your questions. From what I know, here are the differences between JWs and Christadelphians (perhaps you all can straighten me out if I don't understand all of the JW teachings).
1. We don't believe in a personal Satan, but, as been pointed out, it is the natural inclination to disobey God within us.
2. We all take part in the bread and wine each Sunday.
3. We do not believe that Jesus came back in 1914 (even in spirit) but that his return is yet future.
4. We take the 144,000 as figurative of the body of saints, not literal.
5. We do not believe that Jesus preexisted.
Again, as has been pointed out, there is a far greater agreement in our beliefs than disagreement. When you compare this small list versus the divergence in our common beliefs from mainstream Christianity, we certainly find ourselves in the same foxhole so to speak. Hope this helps!
Do the Witnesses belief that Jesus pre=existed? Michael is not Jesus. People told me his impersonal life energy was transfered to Jesus. Where did Michael go? Was he hibernating? Why could not God, the creator of all, create a new entity. Very strange.
I have a feeling all these groups can best be explained by historical movements in religion in America. The Witnesses pretend that their teachings are unique b/c they are the sole agent of the Holy Spirit. Yet many groups hold the core beliefs.
I don't see where the differences truly matter.
Why ANYONE would think that Russell was God's spokesman AND STILL IS, boggles my mind!
It boggles my mind. The Pyraminds, the occult symbols, the saccharine, hokey language do not endear me. Rutherford, while prob. not a nicer person, seems less crazy, IMO.
The problem is that these groups are not found on a Biblical principle but a human personality. Many of the groups that are off shoots appear to worship Russell. I find no merit in Russell. He was one historical figure in a minor strange of American religion.
The death witness testimony is so over the topic that it is eery. I find not a single redeeming point in Russell's theology. He is extremely dated. Seances, miracle cures, lack of knowledge of earth science and space were common in his era. Why anyone today would follow Russell is crazy, IMO.
It takes all people.
Do the Witnesses belief that Jesus pre=existed? Michael is not Jesus. People told me his impersonal life energy was transfered to Jesus. Where did Michael go? Was he hibernating? Why could not God, the creator of all, create a new entity. Very strange.
But, for goodness sake, how can anyone actually know the details of Michael, Jesus, or anything? People can believe. I do not see how anyone can say categorically that X is so and Y may be so but Z is absolutely not true. Not in the same way that we can prove that water is wet or that when you're really hungry fish and chips'll hit the spot.
Just my view.
Dear Chariklo, humans just love to be dogmatic and love to feel that they are RIGHT.
These squabbling sects are like the Big and Little Endians in Gulliver's Travels, arguing about which end of a boiled egg you should open.
I would think that as all these so similar groups are obviously moribund it would make sense for them to ignore the slight unprovable differences and combine as a single Church.
The most cult-like one of the three or four contenders would of course refuse to do this, so would the one that is not only a cult but mainly a business, as sharing the profits, even with its members, is simply not done, which one would that be I wonder ?
