A message to Christadelphians about the KINGDOM

By Fed Up With Religion

You all need to re-read the character Jesus’ words putting yourselves in the place of the Scribes and Pharisees. You are the modern day version after all.

He may just be talking about you and to you... Let’s look at just a few of Jesus’ words and some observations.

Matt7:15 Beware of false prophets which come to you in sheep’s clothing (You have become false prophets, making and clinging to your “prophesies”.)

Matt 23:2 Saying; The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses seat: (You now sit in Moses seat, whether you’re aware of it or not. You make up the doctrines. What you will and won’t “believe”.)

2 Cor 3:15 But even unto this day when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart. (Understand what you’re reading if you’re going to sit in his seat...please... it’s mythological allegory.)

Matt 23: 4: For they bind heavy burdens on people and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders. (You now bind the heavy burdens of fear and guilt on people’s shoulders, and your own.)

Vs 5 But all their works they do to be seen. (You do everything to be seen from an outward appearance, going to church, preaching, singing hymns, prayers etc.)

Vs 13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. (Big clue in this verse as to the location of the Kingdom...)

Mark 4:11 And he said unto them, unto you it is given to know the MYSTERY of the kingdom of God: but, UNTO ALL THEM THAT ARE WITHOUT, ALL THESE THINGS ARE DONE IN PARABLES:

Vs 12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive: and hearing they may hear, and not understand...

Vs 13 And he said unto them, know ye not this parable? And how then will ye know all parables? (Do you really understand what is being said here?)

1 Cor 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a MYSTERY, even the HIDDEN wisdom... (This is a key statement as to the nature of the book itself, you have completely missed it.)

And last but not least; The MYSTERY OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN that you shut up against men, given unto all of us, laid out bare and answered by the character Jesus himself;

Matt 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God...
A very specific direction... and you are within your rights to ask, where is it? How do we find it? Where do we look?

He tells you... if you would only receive it...but you’re blinded like the Scribes and Pharisees.

Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, “THE KINGDOM OF GOD COMETH NOT WITH OBSERVATION:”

Vs 21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! Or, lo there! For behold the “KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU!”

Vs 23 And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: “GO NOT AFTER THEM, NOR FOLLOW THEM.”

That’s a pretty specific answer...

Why should anyone follow any Religion? When you don’t understand what you’re reading... Jesus and the bibles words, not mine...

Mark 7:7 “Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”

For those that understand, no explanation is necessary, for those who do not, no explanation is possible.


  1. The oral teachings of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament are as mixed up and contradictory as the historical references. The reason for this is the fact that these things were written down decades after they happened by people who were either pretending to be apostles or were old apostles with failing memories.

    The notion that these word were inspired by the creator of our universe is ludicrous.

    1. Jesus is returning it's all set in motion

    2. When you say "it's all set in motion", could you tell us when it was set in motion? And how you know? And I guess it would be good to know what is actually moving?

      I hope you didn't take that from the Worship book. Christadelphian song books are not generally considered inspired.

    3. Fed Up With ReligionOctober 19, 2016 at 12:31 PM

      Anonymous proves the point in the article, blind and worshiping in vain...

      Probably didn't even read it, or couldn't understand it if they did, otherwise he/she would have had something to say other than just a deluded statement.

  2. Fed Up With ReligionOctober 9, 2016 at 12:16 PM

    The very simple fact of the matter is that some ancient cultures and individuals were allot more in tune with themselves and nature. Some still are. The Initiates of the ancient “Mystery Schools” (there’s that word again) highly valued that information and they wrote it down in allegorical form to protect it throughout time... The Kingdom is the same place Buddha called “Nirvana”.

    You wouldn’t know that of course, unless you were `allowed’ to read anything else other than the “Holy Bible”...

    The book has nothing to do with religion at all, the opposite in fact, IT WARNS YOU FROM IT. It has been perverted.

    I mean, find me a Peter, Paul and Mary in “Ancient Palestine”...Adam...Eve... Nathaniel... Mathew, Mark, Luke, John...

    These are all ENGLISH names...”Pip Pip Hello”... “Spot of afternoon tea anyone?”... You don’t even have to read any words to know something isn’t right with the way it’s presented. I’m surprised there’s not a "Henry" in there somewhere myself...or an “Edward”.

    Come on...this is pretty basic stuff people...We don’t question anything anymore?? Is that how it is?

    Look what happens to the world when you don’t.

    Turn on the news.

    1. Odd, I didn't think the arrow of time pointed in that direction.

      Which is more likely, that readers of a religious book often named their children after characters in the book, or that the characters in the book were named after the children of the readers of the book?

    2. Fed Up With ReligionOctober 10, 2016 at 3:25 PM

      It is odd, neither in this scenario. I imagine all the names would be Latin derived from Greek, Hebrew or Old English or something if you put the work in to trace them all back, I’ve checked a couple and it seems to be the case. Inserted, to suit a purpose and agenda.

      Meaning, origin and history of the name John. English form of Iohannes, the Latin form of the Greek name Ιωαννης (Ioannes), itself derived from the Hebrew name יוֹחָנָן (Yochanan) meaning "YAHWEH is gracious".

      Mary is a feminine given name, the English form of the name Maria, which was in turn a Latin form of the Greek names Mariam, and/or Maria.

      Eve /iːv/ is an English given name for a female, derived from the Latin name Eva


      The texts been revised, edited and translated so many times...The mythical allegories are plagiarised and the names changed. They couldn’t use “Mithra” again so they made up Jesus, and they couldn’t use “Isis” again so they inserted Mary etc.

      We don’t pay much attention to the names now; we’ve grown up with them. I’m named after one of them though, go figure.

      But take yourself back to Ancient Palestine, Syria, Samaria, Persia, Egypt, Rome, and Greece etc. Read all the he begat, begat, begat, begat... in the bible. Tell me if the names fit? They hardly fit in the present day. It’s a common sense observation. It’s a Western, European, English religion. The white man’s religion.

      If you can find me a reference to any of those names at that time, in those places, in the historical record...

      I’ll buy you a beer. :)

      "It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the evangelists themselves ... they [the New Testament collection] are supplied with titles which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those writings." (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 655-6)

      The Church maintains that "the titles of our Gospels were not intended to indicate authorship", adding that "the headings ... were affixed to them" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. i, p. 117, vol. vi, pp. 655, 656). Therefore they are not Gospels written "according to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John", as publicly stated.

      English...Latin...Rome...Vatican...Lies...Commissioned Forgeries...Question everything for your own sake...

    3. OK, I get where you're coming from now. Though as usual you work so many points in that I'm bound to disagree with at least one.

      Yes, the names have probably passed through a number of transliteration steps to get to us. I thought they were more usually tied to Jewish names (e.g. Miriam for Mary, and Joshua/Yah-shua for Jesus). The only one I know of with a distinctly "English" agenda is James - I believe it is "Jacob" or equivalent in the Greek and in some non-English translations, but James had become the "right" version by the time it was translated (unless you are talking about the Jacobite cause, of course).

      And I totally agree about the gospel authors. On some sites this is one of the key pieces of evidence advanced for them being eye-witness accounts. To which all you need to respond is "none of them say who they are written by". John makes the most explicit claim to be one of the disciples and an eyewitness, but even then it's only in the prologue and appendix, while much of the main body sounds distinctly third person to me (not really "eyewitness third person" either).

    4. //John makes the most explicit claim to be one of the disciples and an eyewitness, but even then it's only in the prologue and appendix//

      I disagree. A careful reading of the wording in John 21:24 (which I assume is what you're referring to) suggests that it is not John who claimed to write the gospel, but rather someone who had read John's testimony.

      "This is the disciple who testifies about these things and has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true"

      Contrast "we" and "his" in the last half of the sentence. The author is identifying with 'we' and speaking of the disciple in the third person 'his'. Unless he has multiple personality disorder, it's unlikely they're the same person. The author says that this John wrote down his testimony and that the author knows that the testimony is true.

      Bart Ehrman interprets this passage as suggesting that John (the son of Zebedee, often assumed to be "the disciple whom Jesus loved") did not write the gospel. I guess it depends whether you think the author of verse 24 is also the author of the gospel, or whether someone tacked some verses on the end of what was supposed to be John's testimony.

      Either way, John isn't mentioned in the book, which some take as evidence that he wrote it, which seems really odd because a lot of other people aren't mentioned by name either and they can't all have written it.

      To go further though, it's almost certainly true that John the son of Zebedee could not write, being an uneducated fisherman from Galilee.

      Worth a read: https://ehrmanblog.org/did-john-write-the-fourth-gospel/

    5. Steve, you are correct, that is the verse I had in mind, and I can see what you're saying. I guess verse 23 could be spun either way: either that it is the legendary long-lived John who is writing near his death, or someone else writing after this disciple's death to remind everyone "Jesus never said this disciple wouldn't die, so don't worry about it - just focus on the message he left us".

      I do think it's reasonable to consider John 21 an appendix (and possibly a later addition) because it seems to finish so neatly at chapter 20. But I don't think the rest of John sounds particularly "eye-witness" like anyway.

      The other section where "we" is used is John 1:14 - 18, which sounds much more like an eyewitness claim (unless I've missed something else). Of course, the claim being made does not automatically make it true.

      The thing with identifying authorship is that there are two characters not named ("the disciple Jesus loved" and "the other disciple"). Both of them are claimed to be disciples (which considerably narrows the field), and about both are written things that few people would know, and which do not show in the other gospels. It is considered the author would be in a good position to know and want to talk about these things. Naturally, it's an assumption that the two are the same (if they were different, it would weaken the argument that one of them is the writer). And it's hard to give a good reason for writing yourself in as anonymous but with enough clues that it's not really anonymous. You can't just write it off as modesty, because it's not exactly modest sending out a book where people are likely to learn that it's actually you who are "the disciple Jesus loved".

      Similar reasoning is used to suggest the young man of Mark 14:51 - 52 must be the author of Mark.

      BTW, we studied John in year 12, so I was at some point exposed to all the scholarly arguments considered relevant. It's a long time ago, though.

    6. That all makes sense to me.

      I think it's awesome that you studied it in year 12, including the scholarly arguments. I think I'm still catching up with it all, but now it's more like a side-interest and not the central focus of my life.


To become a blog member please email us: Ex-Christadelphians@Hotmail.com

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.