Why Dr John Thomas Was Wrong

"Here and there throughout American society you meet men filled with an enthusiastic, almost fierce spirituality such as cannot be found in Europe. From time to time strange sects arise which strive to open extraordinary roads to eternal happiness. Forms of religious madness are very common there" - Alexis de Tocqueville

Dr John Thomas
As a child nurtured in the Christadelphian faith from my mother's womb my infant mind was steeped in Christadelphian myth and legend from an early age. My father would tell me the bedtime story of how the founder of Christadelphianism, the brave Dr John Thomas at the age of twenty eight in 1832 was nearly shipwrecked aboard the Marquis of Wellesley ship while en route to America. He made a vow to God that if his life was spared he would devote himself to discovering the truth about religion. God saved the good doctor from his distress and upon reaching New York he set about reading his Bible. He soon discovered The Truth that humans had lost for nineteen hundred years and published his findings in his book "Elpis Israel" in which he also predicted the return of the Jews to Palestine. He later explained every word and phrase of the Biblical book of Revelation in intricate detail in his three volume work "Eureka". Dr Thomas was a man "raised up by God for this great work" I was told and my young, impressionable mind believed every word, not realising that I was being indoctrinated into a religion that made about as much sense as Flat Earth Theory. I read “Elpis Israel”, “Eureka”, “Faith in the Last Days”, “Exposition of Daniel” and “Christendom Astray” when I was eleven and I made up my mind that baptism was a primary goal in my life.

It was twenty years later that my dearly beloved and greatly missed friend, brother John Allfree gave me a very old copy of the five volume work "Horae Apocaliptica" by a writer named Eliot. It is a preterist exposition of the Biblical book of Revelation. The book was published prior to Dr Thomas's work Eureka. In Eureka Dr Thomas frequently heaps fiery scorn and derision on Elliot and his work, so I was interested to read this work that I thought would be junk. Imagine therefore my shock when I discovered that practically 80% of Eureka had been lifted out of Hoare Apocaliptica! Eureka was NOT an original work at all; Dr Thomas had plagiarised Elliot's work mercilessly and passed it off to the Christadelphians as an original.

Further investigation convinced me that much of "Elpis Israel", "Anatolia", "The Exposition of Daniel" and practically everything else that Dr Thomas wrote had been taken from other writer's work but not acknowledged by him. Even most of the doctrinal material and the prediction that the Jews would return to Palestine was NOT original work. He was simply lashing together other people's material and publishing it as his own ideas. The man that I had venerated as someone "raised up by God" to rediscover The Truth was a charlatan as bad as any corrupt American TV evangelist in our own times.

It would take me many hundreds of pages to thoroughly expose Dr Thomas's plagiarism in full and as I have disposed of all my religious books it is now an impossible task for me. But I strongly recommend that others take up the task of repeating the work that I undertook in the early Nineteen Eighties. I would have written it all down then, but I got so far and gave up in disgust that I had been hoodwinked by Dr Thomas for so long. However it would be unfair to leave this subject without at least one illustration of what I mean, so I submit the following as a tiny fraction of the material that is available.

"Anatolia is original throughout" wrote Doctor Thomas in the introduction to that work. Let us test that statement by comparing the following quotations from "Anatolia" with another work published forty years earlier in 1814 by Granville Penn entitled "The Prophecy of Ezekiel concerning Gog":

Dr John Thomas in "Anatolia":
"The question as to what nations are signified by Rosh, Meshekh, and Thuval has long since been determined by the learned. The celebrated Bochart, about the year 1640 observed in his elaborate researches into sacred geography, that ROS, Ros, [the Hebrew word is omitted] is the most ancient form under which history makes mention of the name of RUSSIA; and he contended that Rosh and Meshekh probably denote the nations of Muscovy and Russia. 'It is credible,' says he, 'that from Rosh and Meshekh (that is the Rhossi and Moschi) of whom Ezekiel speaks, descended the Russians and Muscovites, nations of the greatest celebrity in European-Scythia.' We have indeed ample and positive testimony that the Russian nation was called Ros by the Greeks in the earliest period in which we find it mentioned, as Ethnos de oi Ros Schnthichon, peri ton archtoon Towron; that is, the Rosh are a Scythian nation bordering on the northern Taurus! and their own historians say, 'It is related that the Russians (whom the Greeks call Ros, and sometimes Rosos, Rosos) derived their name from Ros, a valiant man who delivered his nation from the yoke of its tyrants.'" p. 65

Granville Penn in "The Prophecy of Ezekiel Concerning Gog":
"If we next enquire what nations are signified by those three proper names we shall find that this question also has been long determined by the learned. The celebrated Bochart, about the year 1640, observed in his elaborate researches into sacred geography that ROS, Ros, is the most ancient form under which history makes mention of the name of RUSSIA; and he contended that the two first of those names properly denote the nations of Russia and Muscovy. 'It is credible,' says he, 'that from Rosh and Mesech (that is the Rhossi and Moschi) of whom Ezekiel speaks, descended the Russians and Muscovites, nations of the greatest celebrity in European-Scythia.' We have indeed ample and positive testimony that the Russian nation was called Ros by the Greeks in the earliest period in which we find it mentioned. Ethnos de oi Ros Schnthichon, peri ton archtoon Towron. 'The Ros are a Scythian nation bordering on the northern Taurus.' This testimony is given by Cedrenus, Zonarus, Leo Grammaticus, and Tzetzes; and their own historians thus report, 'It is related that the Russians (whom the Greeks call Ros, ROS, and sometimes Rosos, Rosos) derived their name from Ros, a valiant man who delivered his nation from the yoke of their tyrants.'" p. 19

John Thomas:
"And thus the three denominations, Rosh, Meshekh, and Thuval, united in the prophecy point out, with equal capacity and conciseness, those widely extended regions, which, at the present day, we denominate collectively THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE." p. 66

Granville Penn:
"And thus the THREE DENOMINATIONS united in the prophecy point out, with equal capacity and conciseness, those widely extended regions, which, at the present day, we denominate collectively THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE." p. 22

John Thomas:
"Since the name of Scythae, or Magog, is to be considered not by itself, but in geographical connection with Galatae, or Gomer, we have only to enquire, whether any geographical affinity is really ascribed by the Greeks to the Scythae and Galatae? and to ascertain to what regions of the earth those names so associated, were applied. If we can discover these two points we ought thereby to have discovered specifically the Magog of the prophecy, which is to be associated with the region, or people, of Gomer." - p. 67

Granville Penn:
"But, since the name of Scythae (i.e. Magog,) is here to be considered, not by itself, but in geographical connection with GALATAE, or GOMER, we have only to enquire, whether any geographical affinity is really ascribed by the Greeks to the Scythae and Galatae? and to ascertain, to what regions of the earth, those names, so associated, were applied. If we can discover these two points, we ought thereby to have discovered specifically the Magogue of the prophecy, which would be able to associate to themselves the region, or people of Gomer." - p. 41.

John Thomas:
"From the Hebrew Scripture we learn that Magog and Gomer were the names of two of the sons of Japhet; and it is to ancient Hebrew authority alone that we can resort to ascertain where, according to the common repute of the Israelites, the nation which descended from those two heads of families, and which long retained the proper names of those heads, were spread and established. Josephus says, 'That Japhet, etc., etc.' [and so on, with a quotation from Josephus, the same as given by G. Penn.] It only therefore remains for us to ascertain which were the nations that the Greeks at the time of Josephus called Scythae, and which they then called Galatae; and to observe whether the geographical affinities of these nations are such as answer to those which are plainly required by the prophecy for Magog and Gomer."

Granville Penn:"We know from the Hebrew Scriptures that these are the names of two sons of Japhet! and it is to ancient Hebrew authority alone that we can resort, to learn where, according to the common repute of the Hebrew people, the nations which descended from those two heads of families, and which long retained the proper names of those heads, were spread and established. Josephus is the earliest Hebrew authority of weight and learning, to which we can address ourselves; and he distinctly informs us, 'That Japhet, etc., etc. [The quotation following being ANATOLIA] Scythae and which they styled Galatae; and to observe whether the geographical affinities of these nations are such as answer to those which are plainly required by the prophecy of Magog and Gomer."

Does that look as if "Anatolia" is "original throughout" as Dr Thomas claimed? I leave you to judge for yourself. Much of the "Anatolia" material was also lifted from "Dissertations on the Prophecies" by Bishop Thomas Newton. For example the paraphrase of Daniel 11 found in Anatolia is very similar to a paraphrase of the same chapter in Newton's work.

Christadelphian brother Alan Eyre has published two excellent books exposing the lie that Dr Thomas "rediscovered The Truth" about Bible teaching. For example in the preface to "The Protestors" one time editor of the Christadelphian magazine brother FT Pearce wrote:
"It is a matter of great encouragement to us, whose religious views are regarded as unorthodox by our contemporaries, to find that in a number of cases where major doctrines are concerned, these early believers had come to the same conclusions as ourselves." In his Introduction to the same work brother Alan wrote: "The writer, once naively and unquestioningly accepting a popular view that Dr. John Thomas "discovered", as if from a void, the totality of Bible truth as believed by Christadelphians, was amazed to discover source after source which showed that this was at least a serious misrepresentation"....... "The nineteenth century, however, was one in which few intellectual debts were acknowledged."

So not only do we find that the founder of Christadelphianism stole his ideas about prophetic interpretation from previous writers, but it is evident that his "rediscovery of The Truth" is "at least a serious misrepresentation" as brother Eyre diplomatically words it.

It is simply not true that Dr Thomas arrived in America in 1832 and fulfilled his pledge to God made on the sinking Marquis of Wellesley and rediscovered The Truth by studying his Bible. What actually happened was that he arrived as a young man twenty eight years of age and threw himself with vigour into the American "Restorationism" movement. Wikipedia explains it thus:

"In the United States, Restorationism, sometimes called Christian primitivism, refers to the belief held by various religious movements that pristine or original Christianity should be restored, while usually claiming to be the source of that restoration. Such groups teach that this is necessary because Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant Christians introduced defects into Christian faith and practice, or have lost a vital element of genuine Christianity. Specifically, restorationism applies to the Restoration Movement and numerous other movements that originated in the eastern United States and Canada and grew rapidly in the early and mid 19th century."

Soon after his arrival in America Dr Thomas joined the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement which was one of the most prominent of dozens of different sects all competing to "rediscover The Truth" at that time. They advocated a total return to the faith of the apostolic churches, as found in the New Testament. They took no denominational title, calling themselves only by Scripture names, such as "Disciples", "Brethren", (now you know why you Christadelphians call each other "brethren and sisters) and "Christians". Mr. Thomas Campbell and his son Alexander were prominent advocates of this restoration of apostolic ways. Another leading member of that group was Mr. Walter Scott, whose acquaintance Dr. Thomas made soon after his arrival, the result being that he was baptized by Mr. Scott in 1837. Dr Thomas wrote to Alexander Campbell of his baptism:
"I am a Christian, and glory in the name, and am jealous of the honours and privileges and immunities attached to it; so much so that I am not content to share them with the innumerable pretenders to the title in the Protestant and Papal sections of the kingdom of anti-Christ. Bro. W. Scott can testify that I believed the Gospel, and obeyed it before witnesses".

During the course of the next ten years Dr Thomas continued to mix with a wide variety of different sects within the American Restorationism movement including the Millerites who later split and became the Jehovah's Witnesses. Please understand that these different sects believed in a very wide variety of different religious doctrines including all of the doctrines that Dr Thomas later formulated into the Christadelphian religion and they also rejected all of the doctrines that Dr Thomas rejected. You can truly make the Bible prove whatever you want it to prove and those people did exactly that. Every Christian belief and unbelief was promoted at one time or another by one or more of the groups, but not of course all at the same time in one sect. The different sects all competed and fought with each other like cat and dogs and castigated each other in the most virulent of language. Each claimed to hold "The Truth" and accused the others of apostasy and heresy.

After a decade of this madness Dr Thomas selected from this mêlée the beliefs and unbeliefs that suited his particular slant on the scriptures and baptised himself for a second time, saying of his previous baptism and beliefs:
"We confess that the whole matter was a mistake, and as such make this public abjuration thereof. ...... Having been immersed into an erroneous system....... I abjure the whole transaction in which I once firmly thought I had once believed the one only true Gospel of Christ".

This was sixteen years after the shipwreck incident. The man that the Christadelphians claim was raised up by God to rediscover the Truth had spent all that time going around in circles trying to discover the Truth. He had only "discovered" the Truth by stitching together different bits and pieces of the American Restorationism movement into something that suited his frame of mind. One hundred and forty years later brother Alan Eyre called it a "serious misrepresentation" to claim that he had rediscovered the Truth and the editor of The Christadelphian magazine agreed with him!

Do you really think that a God who created the entire Universe would let the rediscovery of the Gospel happen in such a crazy mixed up and deceitful way? Where were the angels and the power of the Holy Spirit in all this? Would it not have been helpful for them to have put a bit of effort into reviving the Truth instead of sitting back and watching Dr Thomas run around the American Restorationism movement like a headless chicken getting baptised and re-baptised as he constantly changed his mind about what he believed? How does all this compare to the conversion of Saul/Paul, or the work of John the Baptist or the calling of Peter? It does not compare at all! In my opinion Dr John Thomas the founder of the Christadelphians was a fraud and a liar like any of the current day American TV evangelists who are either inside or outside of jail. To quote the words of Dr Thomas himself: "Pride and ambition were the leading characteristics of my early manhood". - I could not agree more!

But wait - there is more. Soon after Dr Thomas had decided to start his own religion he and his daughter dumped his sick wife Ellen (who was suffering from tuberculosis) in Richmond, Virginia and sailed off to Britain in 1848. He then applied for fellowship at the Church of the Disciples in London which was one of approximately a hundred churches affiliated to the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement in Britain. In other words he joined the very church that he had rejected a few months previously and did not tell them that he had baptised himself into a different religion. He did this because he wanted to tour Britain poaching their members to join his new faith.

Dr Thomas wrote of this: "Having made his arrangements accordingly, I arrived in London, June 28th, 1848; and in July following I received an invitation to visit Nottingham, and to deliver a course of lectures upon the times, in connection with the prophetic word. The interest created during his short stay was great and encouraging, and became the occasion of invitation to visit other towns and cities also. During this tour I visited Derby, Belper, Lincoln, Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Paisley, and addressed thousands of the people. who heard me gladly". - No mention of the fact that he was masquerading as a member of the Church of the Disciples in order to convert their members to Christadelphianism. In his defence Dr Thomas claimed that he had only rejected many of the doctrines of the Church of the Disciples and not the Church itself. This was doublespeak to hide the fact that he was blatantly lying to them.

One of the Disciples wrote in a magazine at the time:

“We have heard through the medium of some of the Second Advent proclaimers that Mr. John Thomas, M.D., from Richmond, Virginia, is on his way to England, if he has not already landed. We feel justified in stating to the brethren, and to our readers, that Mr. Thomas, in his magazine, some time ago, publicly abjured all connection with the Churches of the Reformation in the United States, more especially with brother Campbell and his associates. He not only renounced what he had learned from them, but also what he taught whilst among them, as being altogether erroneous. He has also been re-baptised, or baptised for the first time, into what he calls the hope of Israel; so that he has discovered not only that the baptism of all others of our brethren is faulty, but that his own also which he received some years ago from the hands of brother Walter Scott, and for which he has pleaded so strenuously, has no foundation in truth.”

For a fuller account of how Dr Thomas attempted to trick his way back into the Disciples Church in London see "Dr Thomas his life and work" by Robert Roberts Chapter 31.

This action caused a row with the elders of the Church of the Disciples who later threw Dr Thomas out of their fellowship but not before he had caused numerous splits amongst their own churches. These splinter groups formed much of the core of the new Christadelphian religion being formed by Dr Thomas and Robert Roberts. One of the elders of the Church of the disciples later commented about this subterfuge: "Thus we were deceived by the founder of Christadelphianism, in order to aid its introduction into churches in this country". Brother Robert Roberts who was aware of all this, wrote of Dr Thomas in his biography: "The part of friends has been rather to hide than expose infirmity. Gratitude threw the ample fold of protection over what may have been deemed the faults of an otherwise great and noble and extraordinary character." In other words he covered up the lies of Dr Thomas. One wonders what else was concealed by Robert Roberts.

Contrary to Christadelphian myth, Dr Thomas continued to evolve his new religion after the publication of Elpis Israel. That book was primarily devoted to the exposition of Bible prophecy and much of the detail relating to doctrine was skipped over. The changing views of its founder caused many splinters and splits within the new group. For example when Dr Thomas stated that the saints would be raised in mortal bodies at the resurrection, a breakaway group that he called "The Dowieties" formed in Britain and another group in America whom he named "Benjamites" - presumably after the leaders of the groups. They started a magazine called "The Gospel Banner" and in Sep 1867 they complained in their magazine about the nasty-minded manner in which Dr Thomas reviled them. To give you a flavour of the unpleasant character of the founder of the Christadelphians, here are some of his words that they quoted:

"We have a great many speculators in the faith on this side of the Atlantic, who profess to be the Ecclesia, mere theorists, who are a sort of amalgam, made up of a little Storrism, a little Adventism, a little Campbellism, and a hodge-podge of traditions, of which water, pork, alcohol, tobacco, salt, leaven, raisins, and the everlasting nigger, are the prolific head-centers." ... "They would rather be notorious for abomination than not notorious at all." ... "The Benjamin Mark Paper is a truly blood-thirsty and diabolical sheet." ... "His own selfishness has been the god of his idolatry; and to gratify this such a man will slander, lie, steal, or play the hypocrite, if it will only pay." ... "They have thought that their new paper might be their old, dirty, and blood-thirsty banner, new revised ... for editing at other people's risk, little Ben has discovered, pays better than printing on his own hook." ... These dishonest, mean-spirited traitors to good faith sought excuse and justification in the devil's law of incorporation." ... "I have put you in possession of these details that the real friends in Britain may know by what sort of natural brute beasts I am assisted." ... "I have hitherto taken no notice of him, nor his confederate, the ex-theatrical candle snuffer, being too much occupied with the Apocalypse." ... "We Christadelphians in America are a distinct generation from the so-called Benjamites - we are strong in the faith and unspoiled by accursed crotchets, which, when blended with it, make it ineffectual and generative of knaves and hypocrites."

This sort of disgusting language is sprinkled liberally throughout Dr Thomas's works, causing in the year 2000 the then editor of the Christadelphian magazine to write this note in a new edition of Elpis Israel: "At the time when it was written, frank speech expressed in robust language was indulged in without offence, and in this matter the book reflects its age. The forthrightness of the writer is seen in the vigour of his words and modern readers must make some allowance for this".

I can think of no better way to persuade Christadelphians to leave their religion, or to dissuade others from joining than by encouraging them to read the book in its entirety. It is bad tempered rambling nonsense from start to finish. Dr Thomas even claims that the Earth was inhabited by a race of alien angels before Adam and other rubbish that would cause modern day Christadelphians to cringe if they ever read it.

Let us continue to consider the writings of Doctor Thomas in this quotation from "Elpis Israel" (ed: See discussion below - this quote appears to be from the Gospel Banner in 1848, but still from John Thomas)

"The Judgment upon Ireland has been sitting since 1786. That crisis was the beginning of a retribution of seventy-five years. This period is called 'THE END' ......... After 1864 Ireland and the rest of the world will enter upon a new era, in which peace, righteousness, and blessedness will reign in the midst of the nations."

Not only did Christ not return in 1864 but Sinn Féin and later the IRA wrought terrorism and havoc in Ireland and the British mainland for over a hundred years after 1864.

Or this from Dr Thomas:

"My conviction is that the judgment upon Babylon will be announced as about to set; and that the ancient of days and the saints will meet in the air and among the clouds, in the common A.D. 1866, or 1290 years from A.D. 606."

This from Dr Thomas in "Anatolia":

"My conviction is that the judgment upon Babylon will be announced as about to set; and that the ancient of days and the saints will meet in the air and among the clouds, in the common A.D. 1866, or 1290 years from A.D. 606." ............... "But in a few years, that is, about 1866, when the 1335 years terminate, he will 'arise to his inheritance' in the Kingdom of God". ............. "How highly important is this exhortation now, seeing that in about a dozen years the resurrection will have transpired, and no further invitation to inherit it be presented to the world. The glory that shall follow is great for the approved (the Christadelphians). The world is theirs, when all nations come and do homage before the Prince of Israel, because His judgments are made manifest. But before they can have 'power over the nations,' they must bind the strong that rule them. This is their mission at the end of the 1335 years: 'To execute vengeance upon the nations, and punishment upon the peoples; to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; to execute upon them the judgment written; this honour have all his saints.' From A.D. 1866 to A.D. 1911, a period of over forty years, they will be engaged in this work and in the organizing the world upon new and better principles."

Not only did Dr Thomas erroneously and repeatedly state that Christ would return in 1866 but he also said that "the approved" (Christadelphians) would execute vengeance on the nations for forty years up until 1911.

Elsewhere Dr Thomas elaborates in detail how his immortal immoral Christadelphians will steal and plunder from the mortal population of the world:

"The estates of all the misers of this present evil world will be turned to righteous and beneficent account by and bye, in the hands of Jesus and His brethren. Only when that time comes they won't have to wait the death of the misers. They will take possession, and turn the owners adrift, in most cases into the grave." ... "All the earth will learn at the cost of much blood and treasure......"

This from Dr Thomas writing in "Elpis Israel":

"The sword only, can prepare the way for this. Mankind must be made to lick the dust like a serpent, before they will consent to change their creeds for eternal truth. Judgment will bring them to reason"............. "Nothing but violence in the beginning, in order to punish and crush the tyrants, can prepare the way for the amelioration of society. This is the order, as I shall show, which God has ordained as preliminary to the setting up of His kingdom."

This from Robert Roberts the first editor of the Christadelphian magazine and close friend of Dr Thomas:

"He (Christ) will enter into conflict with the world, drive Gentile power from every throne, and establish His kingdom under the whole heaven. Christadelphian operations will then be transferred from the arena of debate to that of military coercion."

More detail of this Christadelphian instigated genocide is given by Robert Roberts in Christendom Astray lecture 15:

"God Himself will operate in visible judgment upon the nations of the earth.......... a divine manifestation in the person of the Son of Man accompanied by sweeping judgments of fire and sword which will destroy large masses of mankind.......... The vengeance in relation to mankind will be destruction to the majority, and discipline to the remnant. Multitudes will perish by war and pestilence; multitudes more will fall victims to the fire which will descend............... The earth's population will be greatly thinned; its reprobate elements expurgated, leaving a residue composed of the meek and submissive, and well–disposed of mankind, who will constitute the willing subjects of Messiah's kingdom........ The saints co–operate with Christ in executing the judgments written. ...........It will be their privilege "to execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people.......Thus it is obvious that in the closing judgment–scenes of this dispensation, the saints will be associated with the Lord Jesus in destroying the political, ecclesiastical, and social systems.............. This is a work of devastation ................ will involve much destruction of life, ....... Widespread will be the desolations produced; bloody and scathing the judgments ministered at the hands of Jesus and the saints. (Christadelphians)"

The corruption of the various American TV evangelists who are currently languishing in US jails is eclipsed by the evil that the founders of Christadelphianism proposed to unleash on the World. They were planning to kill and maim millions, perhaps billions of humanity in a forty year Holy Spirit empowered orgy of death and violence ending in 1911. The one hundred million deaths in the two World wars and the work of Hitler and Stalin seem tame by comparison with what Dr Thomas and Robert Roberts were planning. In their paranoia they imagined that the result of this great work would be to "Leave a residue composed of the meek and submissive, and well–disposed of mankind, who will constitute the willing subjects of Messiah's kingdom". - What planet were they on? Did they really think that such a plan would succeed? A reign of terror more horrific than The Great Terror of the French revolution, worse than the purges of Stalinist Russia, more brutal that Hitler's Final Solution, more awful than the Killing Fields of Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge reign of death? What would the relatives of those who were killed think about Christ's Christadelphian Kingdom? They would NEVER forgive the Christadelphians and their leaders for inflicting such pain and suffering on the world.

Little wonder that the nations were predicted to rise up at the end of the millennium in one final act of rebellion against Christ. It would be the equivalent of the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto rising up against their Nazi tormentors and murderers in a last but futile gesture of defiance and desperation against their evil rulers.

But of course none of this will ever happen. Dr Thomas was 100% wrong about Christ returning in 1886. He was wrong about Ireland, he was wrong about the Christadelphian forty year reign of terror, he was wrong about the Kingdom and he was wrong about everything else. I again urge you to read Elpis Israel. Practically everything that the doctor predicted in that book did NOT come true. Moreover it is obvious that the events that he foretold that did happen were merely the result of coincidence. Even Christadelphians who read the book and see the endless detail about events in the Nineteenth Century, which Dr Thomas called "The Last Days", must surely realise that the Bible could not possibly have been so obsessed with Nineteenth Century history and then completely miss out all of the next century without a word!

The modern day TV evangelist tricksters daily predict that we are in the "End Times" and that the return of Christ is imminent. They have no more idea what is going on than Doctor John Thomas. They are continuing the long tradition of American Revisionists and snake oil salesmen of which the founder of the Christadelphians was but a minor participant. We are continuing the long tradition of the naive and gullible who buy the books, purchase the snake oil, submit to baptism and put money on the collection plates. We think that we are so smart being able to throw Bible verses around to prove our case and to defend our position. Everyone else in all of the other denominations thinks exactly the same way. We think that they are mistaken while they think that we are mistaken. No one has the brains to realise that this all proves only one thing - that we are ALL mistaken.

It must be obvious that this man that the Christadelphians claim was raised up by God to rediscover the Truth was clueless when it came to interpreting Bible prophecy correctly. But again I ask - what did God think that he was doing as he watched all this insanity unfold? Was it too much to ask that he use the Holy Spirit to nudge Dr Thomas in the right direction so that his chosen people would not be led completely up the garden path by erroneous teaching?

And as we now know how brainless, paranoid and psychopathic Dr Thomas and Robert Roberts were when it came to expounding Bible prophecy, what assurance can we have that their writings about other Biblical matters were any more correct than their mistaken ramblings about Bible prophecy? What is the difference? The difference is that we can prove by the passage of time that Dr Thomas was unable to expound Bible prophecy but we can't prove that he was mistaken about the doctrinal matters. We have to hope that he was as accurate about expounding the Gospel as he was inaccurate about expounding Bible prophecy.

But what guarantee do we have that Dr Thomas selected exactly the right mix of the many thousands of different beliefs and unbeliefs doing the rounds of the Nineteenth Century American Restorationism movement in order to rediscover the Truth? You really can make the Bible prove whatever you want it to prove and then dig your heels in and defend your position. But the same can be done with thousands of other beliefs about the Bible, many of them completely contradictory to each other. Don't kid yourself that you are smart enough to spot the genuine article amongst the thousands of flaws. And what if all those beliefs are flaws? What if there is no genuine article? Do you have the nerve to shout "A plague on all your houses" to the different peddlers of Christianity and to turn around and walk away?

That’s exactly what I did and it was the best decision of my entire life. Leaving the Christadelphians meant leaving a tyranny of lies, deception and fraud. If you are a Christadelphian and you genuinely seek “The Truth” I recommend that your first step to discovering truth is to write a letter of resignation to the Arranging Brethren of your Ecclesia. Free your mind from Christadelphian subterfuge and seek genuine truth wherever it may be found.


  1. Dr. John Thomas said...

    a hodge-podge of traditions, of which water, pork, alcohol, tobacco, salt, leaven, raisins, and the everlasting nigger, are the prolific head-centers.

    That wouldn't go over well today. And too, maybe CDs should take the time to read Deut. 18:20-22 on what to do with John Thomas and Robert Roberts about their false prophecies.

    1. Neither of them ever claimed to be prophets. Their works should always be seen as human writings in their time and age.

    2. Neither claimed to be inspired
      of God.
      I have not heard or read of
      'Cast not thy Pearls before Swine'
      'Even the Elect shall be deceived.'
      'Having itching Ears'
      Not leaning to your own understanding is difficult,
      as is 'latter Days' and
      'Unwalled Villages'.

    3. Unknown, what a vague and pointless comment. No, Thomas did not claim to be inspired. What he did was went on a preaching tour (at other peoples expense), and promised to write down his teachings/ learnings/ ideas in a book. A book to which you were required to "subscribe", a polite way of saying "pay up front so I do not have any expense or risk my own money", fancy that, a faith filled Christadelphian who wanted others to pay for his time and effort up front! Who would have guessed!
      No, not inspired, but if you dare to disagree with his writings, you will be chucked out of the £900 a week Bible "school" at Swanwick, it's in the T&C's.
      My guess is, he had read all this stuff by others, used it in his preaching, and then when pressured by himself to write it down, just used it without referencing it properly, either out of arrogance or knowing that his "subscribers" would be ignorant of it's true source, and did not care anyway.
      Anecdotally, I know that Christadelphians rarely want to pay their own way, and although they preach that God will provide all they need, and Jesus will be back "soon", seem to favour a successful career and a well stuffed pension pot, or a good handful of anybody else's (taxpayers) money to fund their activities.
      Although their activities seem to have ended here. Nearly all Ecclesias in the UK are still closed....due to Covid...that they prayed for in the first place and have taken great delight in.

    4. I always noticed in the U.S. that the bible schools flew in CD luminaries from Britain and Australia, and those individuals always expected their expenses and plane fares to be covered in return for their words of insight and wisdom. I also noticed that some of the luminaries over time came to think of themselves as being hot snot; one even interrupted his own lecture to rebuke two young girls for whispering to one another during his "exhortation." Such things, over time, compounded my revulsion for Christadelphianism, until I finally escaped it.

    5. Manny, the subject of fares for Bible school speakers has already been covered in discussion at https://www.ex-christadelphians.com/2020/02/the-world-is-bigger-than-christadelphia.html

      Longer version there, but in short I would say that it can be abused but isn't wrong.

    6. It is no more wrong than acne on the face of a fifteen year old boy, but often no more aesthetically pleasing. I had no problem with speakers receiving those perks, as long as the beneficiaries didn't act like movie stars or gurus. And that sometimes happened. I also felt that the speakers, if they had the means, should have paid their own way. I know many needed the assistance, but others didn't. For the latter group, "spreading God's word," which some of us would later refer to as "spreading theist manure," should have been enough.

  2. "....a hodge-podge of traditions, of which water, pork, alcohol, tobacco, salt, leaven, raisins, and the everlasting nigger, are the prolific head-centers.'

    - I never did understand what he was talking about there. Do you know

    Yes, I do. He was talking about the hodge podge of health doctrines held by the COGGC and the COG-7th day churches. The COGs were against slavery - therefore, the good doctor must have been for slavery - else, why mention black people in such a derogatory way?

    I would bet there were no black Christadelphians in his day. More than likely he thought along the same lines as the Mormons and some others of that time - that saved black people would still be servants to white people in the kingdom. Thus, "the eternal nigger".

    1. He referred to all of them as hodge-podge; and the language was from America, not Britain from whence he came. Can you not see he is disagreeing with this belief in his words? Am I missing this?

    2. He was happy to keep his own slaves and elsewhere supported the eternal nigger idea which was later edited out by christadelphians like so many things he said

  3. I take my understanding from the Bible, not the doctor (provocative comment to start off with, I know - and wouldn't have met with much acceptance by RR). I have always heard that he got many of his ideas from other people (particularly on historic interpretations of prophecy) though I was a little surprised by how much of what you quoted seemed the same word for word. I certainly know people who view him as the one great person who led us from apostasy to light. Maybe they would be more concerned by this than me.

    I have actually never read any of the books by Dr Thomas (or should that be Brother John?) The basis of my faith is the Bible. As uninspired pioneers and humans, they were unfortunately badly wrong about some things, and accepted unquestioningly their society's views on things that we would think otherwise on (hopefully rightfully). Also, I think date setting is fairly contrary to Jesus' words that no-one knows the day or the hour, and think it fairly foolish to try. As much as anything else, their example should not lead us to glibly dismiss them, but to see that just as they had faults which they could not see, we probably have faults that we can't so easily see. And they were the ones who started it all... (or something like that - but the state of what is there now is more important than how it was started).

    1. Actually, I read most of them and they are not the inspired Word of Yahweh. They were men (JT_RR) and as many others of their day, they searched a way out of Catholicism to find what the Bible held as Truth. In my humble opinion, they found it. I find all of the schoolmaster of the Law as the foundation from which the N.T. was written, but by inspired men and not plain human ones like Bro. Thomas, Bro. Roberts and sister me.

    2. Once again, a comment of mine that I no longer agree with. But, leaving that aside, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "a way out of Catholicism". To the best of my knowledge neither JT nor RR were involved in any way with Catholicism. Instead, JT in particular started with Campbellism and was a part of the wider reforming movement in the US.

  4. Among many other things, I have studied cognitive psychology, so I am aware of the biases you speak of.

    Some people do change their religious conclusions and doctrines over their lifetime - surely they at least are not "manipulating" it to support "predetermined doctrine".

    You seem to speak of absolute truth in your post. Is it worth asking what this truth is and why you believe in it?

    Does your conclusion in essence become something like "Since many people deduce many different things from the same Bible, none of them can be correct"? If so, there are lots of other things I could apply that same argument to (the interpretation of the American constitution comes to mind, as does "Science" - since many scientists study the same world and come to different conclusions, shall we deduce that none of the interpretations of science are correct? - I hope not, since a lot of science is actually rather useful in explaining and understanding the word. You might just as well use the old chestnut "I can't be a Christian because I see other Christians who behave badly").

    1. Good answer. Bre Thomas and Roberts never claimed to be inspired and the talk about how Bro. Thomas found the Truth in the Bible with a "deal with Yahweh" is fabricated from others, not him. You quote him as if he agreed with all he spoke about. He did not. None of Elpis Israel needs to be edited or corrected. The fact that others saw part of the Truth of the Bible is essential to my believing as much as I do. He was wrong in his end time date as have been many others. the Word still says what it says and the Jews did return to Israel as the Word said they would long after Bro. Thomas was dead. I see no need to try and disparage a man for his beliefs if they are Biblically sound, which his were and mine are. I am sorry you have such pain as to feel the need to put up this site but thank you for reminding me why I am a Christadelphian today.

    2. I'm glad someone agrees with my thoughts of six years ago, but I'm not sure I agree with them any more. Yes, I agree that criticising the pioneers can be a bit of a red herring since many hold their beliefs without particular reference to those pioneers. At the same time, being "Biblically sound" misses the starting point: Why should we trust the Bible? Unless it is guaranteed 100% correct, the fact that it hasn't changed is hardly a recommendation. The best expositor of the Bible alive cannot help you if the Bible itself is false. And if a person's beliefs lead to dangerous conclusions, just saying that they reflect the message of the Bible doesn't justify them.

      Incidentally, I'm interested how you can say both "None of Elpis Israel needs to edited or corrected" and "He was wrong in his end time date". Same point as above: Surely if something is wrong it should be either corrected or discarded?

    3. Actually, Jesus is the King who will reign when he returns and sits on the throne in Jerusalem as the law goes forth from Zion. I never claimed anything, john, but I sure have a lot of pity for you. Your anger and need to sling at any and every one who disagrees with you is evident in your platitudes. The lion has not yet lay down with the lamb and will not until the kingdom begins and Christ reigns on the throne. I need not explain anything, John. As I could deduce, this site was for anyone to add anything they wanted. You need to conversion; you already know much more than the rest of us poor Christadelphians who are steeped in superstition. I would rather be steeped in Hope than angry in the world, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel.

    4. No man knoweth the day or he hour, so Bro. Thomas tried and we look up to see our redemption draws nigh. This is why I am a Christadelphian today. My heart is good with Yahweh and I anxiously await an end to all the violence and hatred in the world today as a peaceful kingdom brings an end to it. I am comforted by the Word of Yahweh and have studied Hebrew and Greek, so I am in good shape. How about you?

    5. Not I think addressed to me, but look, I understand the appeal. I would love there to be a future time of perfect peace. I just don't have any reason to believe it's true.

      But I'm curious about a few things. How do you know your heart is "good with Yahweh"? And how does studying Hebrew and Greek leave you in good shape? Are they peaceful languages, or does knowledge of them save you?

    6. Anon, if the man Jesus ever existed and was alive today, there is one thing he would not be.

      A Christadelphian...More likly a Buddhist.

      "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead"

      Thomas Paine

    7. Fed up: As a starting point, it's hard to imagine Jesus being a follower of a Jesus from 2,000 years ago. He was more than a leader than a follower.

      But as a thought experiment, it is an interesting one. The Jesus of the gospels was known for challenging traditions. Which Christadelphian traditions would he challenge?

      Another one (which I have heard in a few Christadelphian talks) is the question of "If he were writing a Revelation style letter to us, what would he say?" If it was "But I have this against you", what would "this" be? Would it be moral/behavioural issues, general enthusiasm issues, or doctrinal/theological issues? Or something else completely? Obviously that's a hard question to answer even if you take the Bible as completely inspired and infallible, but as a race we humans tend to think that people in the past were bad, but we don't make those mistakes. The Jesus of the gospels was ruthless in revealing this, and if such a person were around today I imagine he/she would find plenty of problems to expose.

    8. Jakarta Jack: Most of them I would expect. He would be disgusted with the state of affairs today just as he was back then.

      Your right, that is a difficult question to answer because I know he didn’t exist and that’s kind of my point. There really should be no such thing as a Christadelphian. The whole document is taken out of context...literally. I have been out of Christadelphia for many years, but am fascinated by the psychology and am working to understand the text from its mystical and mythical origins. The fantasy of a literal translation divinely inspired and a conversation on doctrine is almost impossible for me to engage in these days. It hurts my brain and offends my reason.

      His message though is very much eastern. Christians in general have entirely missed the message.

      For example, his reference to the single eye in Matt 6:22. In the remaining of the chapter he tells us to “Take no thought” four times. And when praying to “enter thy closet and shut the door”

      He’s not telling us to pray in a literal closet with the door closed, they are all references to meditation. I don’t know many Christadelphians or Christians that meditate.

      When Jesus said ask, knock, seek and ye shall find. And, ye shall know the truth and the truth will make you free...I don’t think he meant take an oath of ignorance and read the bible as the only authority till you die, that’s essentially their statement of faith is as I read it. Seeking truth is what we’re doing, not Christadelphians.

      He's right, the truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off...

    9. Fed Up: I would not have read those passages the same way as you, but it doesn't really matter as we both find plenty of reasons to reject them.

      I was actually arguing on a different forum today with someone who thought objections to the Bible were because those who objected were anachronistically projecting modern views onto an ANE context. The gist of my response was that understanding how the Bible was connected to other ANE texts might be useful in deflecting criticisms of Christianity based on a literal reading, but it doesn't give me any reasons to accept the Bible as a divinely inspired text.

    10. Jakarta Jack: It is useful. If you don’t understand, you won’t understand. The bible plagiarises from many sources, particularly the Old Testament. It really is a multi layered mish mash.

      To expand a little on my references to meditation, In Luke when Jesus is reproving the relgiuos leaders of the time, he states:

      Luke 11:52 Woe unto you lawyers! For ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

      Let’s focus on the words “entering in”. Ancient cultures, particularly the Mystics and Masters of the sects of the day, Jesus was called Master many many times...interesting.... as well as many cultures today, “enter in” regularly. It’s called meditation.

      The “key of knowledge” is associated to “entering in”, that’s a huge statement...explain that from a traditional religious viewpoint? Without bias...

      Meditation is a difficult practice, and generally not well understood in western culture, although gaining attention. For good reason.

      The current religious viewpoint is the most destructive force on the planet. As it was back then. Nothing has changed.

      Religion has always taken away the keys of knowledge... It locks down your mind. It "hinders" people from seeking answers within.

    11. Well said Steve.

      Generation after generation of people waiting, hoping, praying for something that will never arrive. Mean while the totalitarian tip toe creeps slowly forward...

      I read something funny the other day, thought I'd share:

      “Religious people and donkeys:

      A donkey is a simple creature; it would follow a carrot on a stick, but...
      It is still capable, even with its most basic of intellect of determining when THERE IS NO CARROT!”

  5. So you assume a supreme being will think exactly the same as you, and work in exactly the same way as you would work?

    Also, I suspect that any work like the Bible will be twisted by some people to support their own agenda. If it is sufficiently important to the world at large, and they want justification for what they do, why not find it in the Bible? Surely it does not invalidate a book's primary purpose if people seize it and use it for their own ends?

    How do you expect a supreme being would communicate with people?

    1. That would depend on the intelligence of the "supreme being" as it shouldn't be too hard to communicate more clearly than the bible does, infact most people (and even my cat) communicate more clearly on a daily basis.
      Also if supreme means almighty then it could step in and correct any misconceptions then no one would have to rely on anything so evidently unreliable as faith

    2. Shaun, I think this comment was one of my earliest forays onto this site. Who'd have guessed I would end up a contributing author?

  6. Anonymous,

    Haven't you ever noticed that everyone's god believes the same things as they do?

    The way the thing works is, a person wants to believe a certain thing and then finds proof texts in the bible to support what they believe. If there are passages that oppose the belief, those passages will be explained away.

    For example, there are around a hundred passages that plainly say that Jesus would return in the same generation and lifetimes of his disciples. Those passages have been explained away for the past nineteen hundred years.

    How would you expect a god to communicate with his people? Through men? Isn't that a little bit convenient for the all the priests (of all kinds) who have existed on this planet?

    That makes a veritable playground for charlatans, doesn't it?

  7. Corky,

    I don't deny people have misused the Bible. That could include John Thomas. Realistically, it could include me as well. Similarly people have misused "spirit voices" and other revelations of God. Similarly people have misused science and pseudo-science. I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that all of these things are false because they have been misused (and yes, I know you draw a distinction between science and religion, and I agree that the modus operandi are different between the two).

    If you don't want God to communicate through humans, how do you want him to communicate? Zapping people the instant they do something wrong?

  8. John,

    So we ask again "What is this "supreme being's" object?" Again, the question comes to me "Are you (or any human) really the best person to understand how a supreme being would think and work"?

    The debate's not about whether God chose John Thomas as the best way to bring truth to an unenlightened world (or at least, it isn't from my side).

    All kinds of interesting verses occur to me at this point, but I see no purpose adding them.

  9. All I'm pointing out is that your judgement about what a supreme being might or might not do is not very reliable.

  10. Hi! Greetings from Brazil!
    I believe in God. I have my own reasons to believe He exists. However, I think it is a waste of time to try to give proofs of His existence to people who do not believe in Him. Belief, in the definition given in the Letter to the Hebrews, is sureness or certainty. In modern languages belief has connotation of guessing. Yes, I also believe it is a waste of time and saliva to try to make someone who believes in God aggree with arguments against his/her belief. Yes again, I have found your posts very funny. You are so right and so wrong! but that's is just my opinion! Ah! My friend and brother Alan Eyre wasn't really a Thomasite. A certain Jim Hunter, however is, and he told me that the works of John Thomas were untouchable. I think John Thomas was for slavery. Robert Roberts was racist. Somewhere in his "Christedom Astray" he says that black people were unable to understand the gospel just because they were black. A sister explained that just like the neo-testamentarian devil and demons, it was the tongue of those days. She said I was been unfair to those men of God saying they were racist. But, I still like John Thomas. I believe that if he were kept alive until today he would have changed his Christology. Phanerosis shows He was changing, He could see Jesus as God manifested in flesh. If he hadn't died he would have progressed to the level of a man named Huberto Rodhen, a Brazilian ex-priest and Bible translator, he would have become an universalist, but that is another story.

  11. While I agree with much that you have to say (as an Ex-Christadelphian), I think your words would have more impact if you tone down the implication that Christadelphians are "stupid" (thereby stressing your intellectual superiority by default). You do well making your point without all that.
    Thank you for listening :-)

  12. Hello John,
    I believe you contacted me a couple of years ago. You see there is room for belief, but not in a religious environment.
    I went to Sunday school for the duration until preparation class. We learned bible stories, to read the Bible as a matter of duty, and later we learned to believe doctrine. Then we were baptised! Great success for indoctrination!
    In all that time we never had a lesson on ethics. Now I regard that a serious omission since if the bible is about anything, it is about ethics unlike religion which is about doctrine, especially in the christadelphian religion.
    Every person has within them a set of values which are tuned in the school of hard knocks.For instance if a child pinches another it soon gets pinched back and if it hurts he or she soon learns better conduct or recognises that they are doing the wrong thing. This ability to learn from experience is not a set of taught rules or expedients but ethical principles which are enunciated in the proverbs and the character of people like Job and many others.
    The ultimate expression is found in the character and discourses of Jeshua Ha'Notzri commonly known as Jesus of Nazareth who 'learned from the things that he suffered'. He was not concerned with doctrines and challenged those of the religious rulers.
    This ability to choose right from wrong seems to be innate and a specific human characteristic, and those who develop right choices are highlighted in the Jewish histories. This is commendable, and whether one ascribes it to God as godliness is related to arguments for or against the existence of a creator. To deny this is to postulate that ethical principles are acquired characteristics, that is, that morality can be passed on in the genes. If this is the case one would expect the development of two classes of society over time, the totally moral and the other totally immoral.
    Like my argument for a being called God, www.christadelphianism.info/is god
    Not to accept the proposition leads one into impossible arguments such as "Out of nothing everything came into existence".
    The argument for maintaining ethical principles is also on the site "Rules or principles", and whether or not one allows the existence of a god in all of this, it still seems better to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. I suggest that to do this is, in biblical terms, godliness, or an expression of the proposition that God is.
    I am suggesting that this is an ethical thing and not a belief thing and that religions have got it all wrong in trying to differentiate their beliefs.

    1. Behaviour is mostly genetic, there's plenty of science on the subject. How precisely do you expect a totally immoral population to come into being and thrive? They would be naturally selected against as individuals because people don't like being abused, fooled or loosing loved ones and thus jail, abandon or kill those who perpetrate those actions

  13. Hi John,
    Here is a counterintuitive argument for you. Maybe the universe came into being at the instigation of an all-powerful creator, just as every birth does.
    Just a thought! In England I used to work with a production Engineer who was adamant that God was a spaceman.
    Your statement about Quantum mechanics is a little hard to prove, In my limited understanding Quantum mechanics deals with the mode of existence of a quantum of light, Whether it exists as a particle or as a wave.
    Einstein posed some thought experiments (as he usually did) to question the theory on the basis that it seemed a muddled way for his God to work, that a scientist had to choose between equations. He later agreed with Bohr, while Bohr agreed with Einsteins photon theory.
    It seems to me to be an argument over determining the exact position of a particle and not whether it exists or not. Some of the theories to explain the behaviour postulate that the particle disappeared into a multi parallel universe only to return.
    When I studied mathematics it included manipulations within a framework of many dimensions. We did not quite understand how this could be but the sums worked.
    It seems that quantum mechanics is a similar work in progress, far from finality with ideas like "string theory" and other concepts beyond the comprehension of all but those working in the field.
    On this basis John it seems to me as good a bet to accept my former workmate's view until we have more knowledge.

  14. I just thought I'd add this, not as flippantly as it may appear, to the discussion as a questioning mind seeking the truth for the perusal of those of like mind seeking enlightenment -
    Can an omnipotent being create an object so massive that they cannot move it?

  15. Hi John
    Very interesting blog and comments by all. I feel that you obviously have issues with Christadelphians and probably had a few problems with them in the past.
    I was fortunate to have parents who did not force me to become baptized but various members of the ecclesia tried to put pressure on me which made me dig my heels in and say no - in my own time please. While my peers were becoming baptized at 15/16 I went to other denominations just to see for myself what they believed.
    In the end after 7 years I became baptised basically because of our beliefs.Most Christadelphians realise that Thomas's views on prophecy are not his own but those of Isaac Newton and Joseph Mead which most Christian groups have taken onboard - so Thomas isn't the only one who is guilty of plagarism.This is human nature unfortunately and is rife all the world over especially with the internet. Nothing new under the sun.
    My take on this is simplistic. I am not an intellectual but accept that Christ is my Savoiur and is to return soon. The faith I have I feel is the nearest to the truth (you may disagree)as we can get to.
    Do not forget the words of Paul that we are looking thro' a glass darkly and it will probably be that as we stand before The Master and He says I think your doctrine on the .... is not right are we going to say hold on a minute.
    Surely not, as the Word tells us that education and learning is required.
    Is the Kingdom of God going to be full of Christadelphains ? How boring. Surely not.
    We must realise that all religions however noble have their faults, even Christadelphians with their splinter groups and divisions as well as JW'S and others.
    I daresy some Christadelphians would not share my view but many are critical and have distanced themselves from views expressed by Thomas/Roberts and others.
    Like one of your bloggers I have never read any of the "pioneers works" simply because my Father said there are a few places where he has got it wrong.I feel the doctrines are right but prophecy will always be a contentious issue but but not neccessary for salvation except the final outcome of the restoration of The Kingdom.
    My main criticism of yourself is your apparent anger at the Christadelphians when really the spirit of Christ is to pray for them to see the error of their ways as you see it. Christ did this all the time and so should we.
    We often talk about a new world order in the Kingdom to come - It will be Gods order not that of Thomas , Smith or anybody else , because at the end of the day it is by Gods grace and His grace alone that an entrance into that Kingdom will be permitted whether we are disciple of the Master or not.
    Kind regards

  16. Hi John,

    I'm not a CD nor do I belong to any religious group. It seems to me that you've switched from religious beliefs that now seem to you as impossible to believe to an atheist acceptance of Big Bang Theory, Evolution and so it goes. In so doing, I detect the same inclination you speak of -while you were teaching your CD's doctrines- to discard all the gaps in these theories in order to prevail in your defense of the same. You may not see it, but you contradict yourself, and your falling for the default theories aforementioned makes me think that your search for "truth" may be too simplistic, in the sense that you replaced religion with scientific theories. But you aren't alone in this, I still haven't met an atheist with previous religious beliefs who didn't embrace these theories without much understanding of them, just like Christians do with their doctrines.

    1. On the contrary I only know atheists who came from religion have rigorously looked into scientific theories and found out all the creationist lies and seen all the evidence of the truth in science.
      I find it funny how many religious people have accepted germ theory when it replaces the evil spirits the character of Jesus makes those he heals believe in or the shape of the earth and composition of the universe that contradict genesis.

  17. Christadelphianism made great progress in its restoration of the Gospel of the Kingdom, and in defining God as Jesus did (Mk 12:29), but it then wounded itself with the astonising belief that the biblical Devil is merely human nature. Their view on that point eliminates the whole dimension of supernatural evil from the Bible. The method by which they arrive at this idea is the very opposite of the natural, easy approach to the meaning of words by which they arrrived at other important truths. Christadelphianism is need of reform, correcting the systematic errors which spoiled John Thomas' theology. He also set a date for the Second Coming and this failed! My website is at restorationfellowship.org.

  18. So if I leave the christadelphians and this as you say is my first step in finding "The Truth". What is the next step for all of us deceived and blind with the exception of you of course. Since you are so confident and have "discovered" that the christadelphians believe fairy tails, you must be the authority on what "The Real Truth" is. Please enlighten us poor deceived fools!

  19. So about a billion or so years ago a big explosion happened in the universe and here we all are! That sounds like a fairy tail to me John. A belief based on theories and guesses. You go with that and Good Luck!

  20. Dear John, maybe when you "were" a Christadelphian you believed that the earth is only created 6000 years ago, and that dinosaurs were on Noah's ark. That is not what is taught, especially from those who actually read or have read anything by the pioneers. So I would like to know how and when you spoke to 99.9 percent of Christadelphians. This is highly improbable seeing that we probably would have spoke before and I would definitely remember you. So your big free press is probably owned by Rupert Murdoch and is just like the Sun newspaper, full of lies. Did John actually speak to a estimated 50,000 people? Well everybody who reads this will have a neuron in their brain go "hold on a minute" I think John is lying, I wonder what else he is lying about?? He probably is not the big "bright brain" he thinks he is. The truth of the matter is this you can beLIEve that out of chaos, given a number of years order will manifest itself. That some single cell organism will then, given time will evolve into man. 13 billion years will go by and this big bright brain, free press way of thinking, you come up with wearing used underpants on my head..... looks like the big brain has evolved back to a single cell in a blink of an eye.

  21. John Bedson, thanks to you and our enlightening conversations, I've had a EUREKA moment. I can feel my brain has gotten brighter already and I even stopped drooling and don't even want to drink that funny koolaid anymore. I think it was making me feel brainwashed anyway. Finally after just recently learning how to spell the word BIBLE you have made me realize I don't need it anymore because your words are a LIGHT TO MY PATHWAY. I've also realized from you that I have the freedom to JUDGE an entire community of thousands of people by only the words and actions of a few. You have KNOCKED ON THE DOOR of my mind and I have opened to you and realized I don't need to feel NAKED AND ASHAMED anymore. I put that used underwear on today for the first time, and will no longer wave it over my head. How silly of me to do such a thing. I have REJECTED all these birdbrain thoughts because now I have a bright brain! You can be sure of this JOHN BEDSON, I will from now on be sure that all these crazy ideas will PERISH from my brand new big bright brain. Wow thats a tongue twister, try saying that ten times fast!

  22. John,

    Why do you treat the Christadelphians like fools? You belittle them and insult them and then expect them to listen to what you have to say.

    You are arrogant and self righteous and your transparent claim that you "so love" the Christadelphians and want to save them from their pitiful ignorance is such a whitewashed hypocritical claim!

    Maybe you need to carry on with your life and let go of all the bitterness. I suppose you blame all your problems on

    1. parents
    2. Those stupid Christadelphians who tricked you!
    3. The Christadelphians
    4. The Christadelphians
    5. The Christadelphians
    6. The Christadelphians
    7. The Christadelphians
    8. The Christadelphians
    9. The Christadelphians
    10. Those stupid Christadelphians who tricked me!

    Mr Spock

  23. John,

    Christadelphians go to university like everyone else. They have degrees and are highly educated. They just don't happen to agree with YOU so that makes them "simple minded folk". John Bedson is the expert who has all the answers for us morons(maybe we should bow down to him).

    Go ahead John, tell us the answers to life and the universe as you try not to fall off that high pedestal you've got yourself on!


    1. I understand these vitriolic posts are eight years old, but I would like to suggest that some of you folks remove the aluminum foil from your cullender hats. I think the foil might be affecting the Alpha waves that your brains usually generate. Having attended CD meetings for many decades, I found only modest levels of intelligence in most of them; you therefore need the Alpha waves or whatever personal best you can manage.

  24. Hi, I am not a CD but appreciated reading about the plagiarism set out above as have been reading EUREKA and particularly the 'exposition' of Revelation 11. Having read sections of Horae Apocalypticae, I wondered about plagiarism. As noted above, I was struck by the minute detail about the French Revolution in page after page. My marginal note was 'so what?'

    Having studied the Scriptures over a period of 34 years, I found Dr Thomas' interpretation of Rev. 11 to be boggling. I do not see how any open minded person could put such a construction on this chapter. He totally changes the plain meaning of almost every word. "The great city" (verse 8) is obviously Jerusalem (in my AV a translator's note states this) but by convoluted casuistry he transforms this to Rome. "Where also our Lord was crucified" is given the same treatment, as are "The two witnesses" of which we later learn Dr Thomas is mystically a part of. The failed preditcions are glaring and fatally undermine his (or the) thesis.

    I have had contact with not a few CD's over the years and have found them to be largely warm and kindly folk who know more about the Bible than the majority of professing 'mainstream' Christians. Though I have found a reticence to address Bible texts which challenge their position.

    Congrats on a useful blog. Its a pity a note of acrimony is evident in later posts.

  25. I find all this quite interesting, I've only studied bits and pieces of what many people I know refer to as the Second Great Awakening and what Corky referenced as 'Restorationism', but I think it an error to call it 'Christian Primitivism' I don't think it is Christian at all. I find most of the men who established new denominations in early America to be frauds and liars. Personally I can't accept this premise that the truth had been lost for hundreds of years. Historically I can trace my beliefs and doctrines back to the most respected Church Father Athanasius of Alexandria. His teachings straightened out Augustine of Hippo who got most of Athanasius correct, but Augustine and his Calvinist disciples had difficulties with the Promises made to Abraham and the confusion between Israel as a people and Israel as a nation. Augustine created a new foundation for the concept of Election and who it was that God foreknew, but for centuries the historic church had the basics of salvation and Christianity correct. The way I see it this Restorationism or Primitivism was a departure from the truth of Historic Christianity proclaimed throughout the 1st Great Awakening and a modified understanding of Calvinism is being revised throughout the US and the world. Now I'm not a Calvinist, but I'm a Monergist their cousin and feel they are mistaken on a few things, but not enough to be written off as being heretical. Down through the centuries radical Catholic and Protestant leaders and persecuted many Ana-baptistic, Baptized believer churches who would not yield to their leadership, being they were sectarian in nature. I see the same problem with the descendants of the Campbellites Stone-ites, Finney-ites and I guess the modern Christadelphians if they are anything like their JW cousins; all of them and the Mormons say you have to be baptized by them to be in the true Church, when the reality is there is no true church.

    Just think about what I posted on Facebook before I started reading Christadelphian material less than 40 hours ago. Go to Larry Joyce Jenkins on face book and read what I wrote under the fallen Planned Parenthood sign. I tried posing it but I had too many characters, so I'll try this shorter version.

    Every religion started by men is bound to fail and fall apart.

  26. If you understand baptism, you are immersed into Christ, not a religion.

    1. Perhaps, but caveat emptor applies. If you want to join with people of a particular religion they may have very different ideas about what baptism means and what is a valid baptism.

  27. Baptism has nothing to do with actual water. The bible talks about a batisim of fire, does that mean you should set yourself alight? I guess it does if you take the bible literally...

    In greek mythology, water is the second stage of consiosness achived via meditation.

    1)Earth-2)Water-3)Air-4)Fire-5)Eather or Christ consiosness.

    An example of this is summarised in the allagorical story of the mythical Jesus walking on water with Peter.

    The New Testament is a Greek document written in the times of Plato, Pythagorus, Aristotle etc.

    If you look at it without taking the aforementioned into account, you miss the whole message and start dunking your head in water. Modern baptisim is a pagan ritual, along with eating the flesh of Christ and drinking his blood...I mean come on...really??

    Its not that hard to put the peices together is it?

    The writters of the bible would be scratching their heads in bemusment if they were alive today. Your first clue the bible is Mythical is the talking snake. The second clue is the talking donkey. The third clue is the talking bush, i could go on and on, being swallowed by a fish...Eve being made by spare ribs.

    THEY EVEN PUT UNICORNS IN IT!! Just incase you were still stupid enough to take it literally, but oh no, we are..

    Haha. Wake up people, please.

  28. I have previously been involved with the christadelphian cult. I have heard of their belief system that black people are either the decendants of cain or the child who laughed when he saw a drunk and naked noah. Can anyone confirm this and say if this belief system is still used to poison the minds of children?

    1. I heard of this back when I was in Sunday School, though I forget the context (it may well have been as an example of wrong doctrine and its effects). As far as I am aware it is not a common belief nor is it central to (nor representative of) the religion.

      Here's a link to a Christadelphian book that speaks out against this view:

    2. I spent many decades in CDism, and I never encountered this.

  29. Tell me do you believe in what the bible says, or have you given up on faith. It sounds like you were disappointed that your parents lead you into something that wasted your time in. I have read all the books by Thomas and Roberts and they did get there information from others like we all do. We should get as much information as disposable with bible in hand, and make a judgment whether its right or wrong. This how we will be judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged matt 7:2 .

    1. Jim,

      SO we should get as much information as possible? Interesting shift since when I was growing up the narrative was the Dr Thomas 'rediscoved' the truth by reading the Bible alone. Not that he read other works and picked his own set of doctrines.

      Apart from works of Cds, who else have you read?

  30. Ive read many things..even agnostics, bordering on atheists ,who are university people /professors in cosmology you name it ,with the same info as Dawkins and Krauss come to a different conclusion. There conclusion is science has not come close to disproving God..so thats information working checking..

    1. Until "God" (and especially the specific gods people worship) has been proven, or even shown to be likely, such disproof would seem redundant. No one can "disprove" something that is not falsifiable or testable in any way.

      For what it's worth, science also hasn't disproven Zeus, fairies, or magic. Should we believe in all of those too? Science can disprove specific claims attributed to them, just like it has disproven specific claimed attributes of gods in the past (we know what causes lightning, for example), but it can never disprove the existence of any mystical being. Nothing can. The burden of proof is on those claiming such beings DO exist.

      There are many older beliefs (geocentrism, demons, etc) that have been falsified by science, or at least rendered unnecessary. Every time that happens, people reinterpret the relevant verses in their holy books and carry on believing. Often they choose new interpretations that are not testable, which shows their true motivation. Untestable claims cannot be demonstrated to be true, let alone false.

      Can you imagine a universe configuration that would disprove God? Or to go further, can you devise any test at all that would, even in principle, disprove God? Until someone can answer either of those questions in the affirmative, the "God hypothesis" is nothing more than a belief in magic. If your answer to every unknown is that it must be magic, then you haven't explained anything. "It's magic" (or "God did it") can literally be the answer to every question about how something works or how something came to be. But it doesn't advance our understanding in any way, and has no predictive or explanatory power. It could also be wrong, but there's no way to tell. To believe in such an answer is to deceive yourself.

      It gets worse. Even if we grant that a god exists and that it created the universe etc, there's still no way to demonstrate that this same god had anything to do with any holy book, nor that there is any afterlife. This makes the deistic arguments pointless. It gets us nowhere.

    2. Dave, If you have read many things, then could I suggest that you read "believing bullshit" by Stephen Law. Secondhand copies are available very cheaply. The chapter "but it fits" deals with un-falsifiability in very simple to understand terms.
      It is a serious mistake to think that there is any validity at all in a hypothesis that relies on not being able to falsify it. Peddlers of young earth creationism consistently fail to grasp that.

    3. Paul, So you have read widely - was that to understand the Bible better as Jim stated ? I was really asking what CDs are encouraged to read since Jim said 'We should get as much information as disposable with bible in hand, and make a judgement whether its right or wrong'.

      I am sure none of the science / cosmology you have read concluded that the Earth is older than the Sun, or that fish appeared / were created later than trees, or that the age of the Earth is less that 10k years, or that there was a worldwide flood in human history ? Yet CDs seem still to be required to believe these things.

      I agree with Thom, I am a theist but as I believe God is outside our observable universe then it is impossible for science to prove me right or wrong. I do not read Genesis as history or science as it is clear that science can and has proved it not to be so.

    4. Never said that i except the earth is less than 10000 years old.

      Thats you assuming i think that..reading is this case was from Cambridge university..

    5. Joseph, ive got a better source..than that , reading bullshit can be done on this website from your comment.. you assume too much

      Reading done from Cambridge university agnostic.. i suppose you think thats bullshit too??

    6. Paul,
      Reading back my comment, I can see that it could be read as accusing you of being a YEC. Thant was not my intent.
      I wasn't suggesting you are a YEC, just that YEC's use the unfalsifiable line to defend their position. Law gives it as a particularly easy to understand example of a bullshit belief system.
      Perhaps if you give me your references I can take a look and decide for myself if I think the "Cambridge University" agnostic is a bullshitter.
      I'm a terrible cynic at the best of times, but would never judge a person on which academic institution they attended or lectured at, that itself is a fallacy.
      The easiest way for you to let us know what you believe is to tell us, and at the same time, clear up any confusion by telling us your rationale for those beliefs. As nicely and you could even have them published as an article here.

    7. Have read "the god delusion " by Dawkins. Also have read writtings by David Berlinski(he was from columbia) not Cambridge.He is secular, thats the agnostic i was refering too.Plus John Polkinghorne.. he was Cambridge.. i got my self back to front with those too on the universitys. Surley the last two i mentioned carry a bit of weight.

      Thats posted nicely.. will the reply be nice if you dont agree...time will tell. Dont actully care if it isnt..

    8. Arguments and evidence carry weight, not so much the authors who come up with them.

    9. Also read the majic of reality by Dawkins.Yes you are correct what you say.Its no so much the author,yes i agree.
      What im getting at is those names ive mentioned are not just Joe blogs public..they are distinguished blokes.With the same evidence and arguments as you put it,it seems to me they have come to a different conclusion.. so why not read there books.and decide for yourself...??

    10. Ugh, book recommendations like this feel like someone telling you to run a marathon because they may have seen a UFO at some random point along the way.

      If you've read their books and found them convincing, why not share what it was that you found convincing? Or offer a chapter or page number?

      But no, you didn't even tell us which book to read.

      I'm happy to add a recommended book to my reading list (even if experience tells me that the book is rarely as compelling as the believer suggests), but please at least specify the book(s) you are recommending. Thanks.

      Meanwhile, if all you're proposing is that one can't rule out deism, then this is likely all a waste of time. Of course no one can disprove deism because deism is not falsifiable! That doesn't mean it's true. It means it's effectively unknowable! It's staggering how few people get that.

      Sure, the universe might have been created by a "god", but that "explanation" is only one among millions, and there's no reason to think it any more likely than any other. It's also a non-explanation and no different to saying the universe was created by magic. We simply don't know the answer and perhaps never will. But as I said, even if it turned out to be true, it's still unknown (and likely unknowable) whether said deity has ever communicated with us. There's no reason to think it would. We would know absolutely nothing else about it, despite theists claiming to know everything right down to its sexual preferences!

      There's nothing that would connect the Bible or Quran or Bhagavad Gita to whatever created the universe. In fact none of them even give an accurate account of how that came about! There is (in my view) very good evidence that all these books are man-made and zero evidence otherwise.

    11. Read both the books by Dawkins.. as i stated already. Dont beleive me ..?? off the top off my head..as been a while..the majic of reality..
      he goes on about what makes a rainbow, earthquake, how languages evolve etc.. The God Delusion..he goes on about the little purple man..how if its drummed into you as a child from parents etc.. ive read them alright.
      Im starting on Berlinskis the Devils Delsuion soon... read bit of it already on the net , but will read the whole thing for myself. How bout i come back to you after reading it..?? will be a while as im going to be tied up with motor racing for the next few months.. but yes certainly let you know what i take of it.

    12. oh yeah coming back to me now.. the Epic of gilgamesh.. in one of them..

    13. I've read The God Delusion (I read it a while after I left religion), but have not yet read The Magic of Reality. I'd like to read more books from Dawkins as I find him to be a good writer.

      Would be interested to hear your thoughts on Berlinski's book once you've read it.

  31. My apologies, no Idea why I put "Dave", I did of course mean "Paul"..celebrating 10 years out of the Christadelphians today.

  32. Myself, I've been largely free of the Christadelphians for about 40 years; leaving before the age of 22.

    But they do appear fully ignorant (for all their bible reading) of just what might lead to the situation that they call- "Christendom Astray"?

    Over and over when predictions fail, the "faithful"(?) discard their "Truth", and create a "New Truth".
    You have The Great Disappointment in the Millerite movement (1844) as a good example.
    Then there is the Jehovah's Witnesses (Watchtower) "concepts" of Old Light, New Light & Black Light. Many of the Witnesses today likely have no knowledge of the aspect that they were once "Looking Forward to 1975" or that their publications once predicted that “Many Now Living Would Never Die” - with 1914 beginning that period.
    All literary work in the New Testament following after The Book of Acts consists of letters (epistles) addressed to various collective followers. Even the Book of Revelation was addressed to ‘the seven collectives of Asia'. If they are genuine, then we must conclude that the contents of these works was intended solely for the members of these 1st Century believers - and not for other people living (now) more than 20 Centuries later.

    The “last trump” of 1 Thessalonians 4, and 1 Corinthians 15, was expected to “sound” during their mortal life-times. Theirs’ was ‘This Generation’ (Matthew 24:34 and Matthew 16:28)! That was why they “held all things in common”.
    But we may find that misogynist and deceiver: Saul of Tarsus was an early example of one leading believers astray - even though he too taught that he, himself, expected to among those still alive at the Last Trump.

  33. Just ask a Christadelphian what is sin and how do they repent, for if you don't know what sin how can you repent it, you will find they will take you to some letter Paul wrote to try and explain, and when you start to show them the writings of James and even Paul for all ten commandments can be found in the new testament also Jesus said the law will never pass away (commandments) God set them in stone, looking in any dictionary sin is breaking the divine laws of God (commandments) and yet they will tell you they have a free hand to do whatever they want in other words be part of this world, they will tell you they are saved by Grace but I say where is the obedience to God Jesus said to his disciples listen to the Pharisees but do not do as they do, what was the Pharisees teaching the Torah but they were not keeping it, to sum it up God throughout the Bible expects obedience to him all went well when men kept the law soon as they did not they either did not enter into the promise land or they went into captivity as a 1000 years are like a day to God I will ask you do you think in four days God would do away with his eternal law because I do not, and as James said if you guilty of one commandment you guilty of them all Christadelphians may well keep 9 of the 10 commandments but not the sabbath day.

    1. You seem passionate but I have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe try using punctuation next time. And paragraphs.

  34. I think because of his losing a bet and agreeing to a baptism into the Campbellites proved to me that JThomas was lacking in integrity, try getting a CD to see that.He also always gets credit for Israel being restored in 1948 by CDs, even though earlier writers made the same predictions. Present day CDs are spiteful towards America in youtube videos and in Lectures and endlessly push the lie that Britain favours and looks out for Israel. The Weekly World Watch by Andy Walton is absolutely spiteful and condescending towards Israel, President Trump and America and this seems to be the prevailing attitude in the brotherhood from the platform and in conversations afterwards.Thomas should have included a source for his references in his books, the fact that reprints of his books arent revised to include these references is a poor reflection on the current leadership of the CDs

    1. I haven't followed Weekly World Watch for years, though when I was following it I did notice that the same proof texts came up again year after year - so much so that I wondered if a computer could generate it and save Andy Walton the trouble...

      I am interested by your comments about Britain and America, since I'm pretty sure I remember being told by my parents that the reason US power increased after WW2 while the British Empire collapsed was that the US had supported the Jews while the British Mandate had turned its back on them ("he who blesses you I will bless, and he who curses you I will curse"). My impression is that the US still supports Israel more strongly than the UK, as does my own country, Australia (note my family didn't buy into much of the Pioneers' view of prophecy, so I don't know how representative that is).

      I discussed the prophecy of the restoration of Israel last year at https://www.jonmorgan.info/religion/2018/05/14/the-state-of-israel-seventy-years-on.html
      I don't think the important thing is that other people made the prediction before John Thomas - I think the important thing is that the original prophecies probably didn't refer to that restoration, and even if they did John Thomas made lots of predictions about what that restoration would look like that proved wrong. It's ridiculous to take "fulfilled" prophecy as a proof of the correctness of an interpretation if you've first ignored all the parts that weren't fulfilled.

    2. Walton's World Watch, much like bibleinthenews is both a trap for the unwary, and an embarrassment to many Christadelphians.
      I would have thought that in this day and age, it would be quite easy to have an algorithm written to produce this material. Alt-Right groups are easily able to forward their agenda by making observations that "tie in" with their pre-conceived ideas.
      Andy is quick to point out that making sense of his pronouncements is conditional on a prior "understanding" of traditional Christadelphian material. In doing so he locks himself in to this, and creates a perfect cover if challenged. Simply state that the challenger does not properly understand, and hence the problem lies with them (this in itself is a fairly traditional Christadelphian belief-nothing can be challenged). I spent a lot of my time as a Christadelphian with people who had struggled to do well in secondary education, and had failed to get further, it never seemed plausable to me that these people (2nd&3rd gen CD's) would have been capable of all the claimed Bible study and independent searching that was claimed of them, especially as they just seemed to loudly imitate the senior members of the meeting, and their homes contained no evidence whatsoever of wide study. For such people I suspect Walton's WW makes complete sense.
      WWW will end up a burden for Andy. Can he ever stop doing it? What would that signify? Anecdotally, less indoctrinated, wider educated and thinking young people walk out through the door and never join the CD's, some parents do "steer" them to study in towns with a "good" meeting, but increasingly it gets harder all the time to retain them. Foolish stuff like WWW and bibleinthenews does nothing to reverse the tide.

  35. "The Judgment upon Ireland has been sitting since 1786. That crisis was the beginning of a retribution of seventy-five years. This period is called 'THE END' ......... After 1864 Ireland and the rest of the world will enter upon a new era, in which peace, righteousness, and blessedness will reign in the midst of the nations."

    Hello. I tried searching for this quote in Elpsis Israel, but I couldn't find it. Can anyone tell me the page number?

  36. Unknown, I have very little familiarity with John Thomas's writings, but according to an article on Christadelphian Research, the quote is not from Elpis Israel but from the Gospel Banner, November 1848.

  37. I'd agree with you both, the quote does not appear to be from Elpis Israel,certainly not in the searchable logos PDF edition, but as Jon points out, it is referenced elsewhere as being from the 1848 "Gospel Banner"( My check sent me to "WHAT THEY SAID WOULD HAPPEN-A REVIEW OF CHRISTADELPHIAN PREDICTIONS"


    Thank you for pointing out the error, perhaps one of the editors could correct it?

    Either way, this prediction turned out to be false, just as all other Christadelphian prediction have.

  38. Joseph, I agree and have added a note to the reference in the article.

    Personally, searching for the quote I found it more amusing turning up a 150+ page rebuttal by Aleck Crawford. The original takes 19 pages, then there are 172 footnotes and an index. I think he takes the article more seriously than I do, perhaps even more seriously than the original author. I think I might be quite amused if he ever critiqued one of my articles...

    And no, I haven't bothered to read it all. But on the particular quote under discussion he says "John Thomas should not have said this in writing", then refers us to a later footnote (115, since he complains about incomplete references) which includes this:
    "It should be pointed out to readers [and especially to people like JB] that the Apostles were fundamentally correct, but had a major problem with timing—over 1,980 years—much more so than Brother Thomas did. They believed that Christ was the Messiah, the Son of God, but they “…were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel…”"

    I'm afraid I can't find this other than amusing, given I have in some of my articles pointed out that the disciples being wrong about Christ's return is IMHO a reason to doubt large parts of the New Testament. I'm obviously over-simplifying, but to say "Trust John Thomas's interpretation of prophecy because it isn't off by as much as the original authors of those prophecies" is an interesting position to take.

    So yes, Joseph, I totally agree Christadelphian predictions have turned out false, and I think the underlying problem can be traced back to at least the 1st century and probably earlier.

  39. Here is the full quote from John Thomas, whom I think you misrepresent slightly - although I broadly agree with your ideas.
    "While a Christian would take no part in the armed melee, he is convinced that nothing but
    violence in the beginning, in order to punish and crush the tyrants, can prepare the way
    for the amelioration of society."

  40. Chris, thanks for that. I agree with you - looking at the context, it seems to be talking about the current world order, not the establishment of the kingdom. And it's quite consistent with Christadelphian teachings not to be involved in current wars - hence the conscientious objection - while still being told we have to be ready to fight if God commands it.

    Just note that you are commenting on a post over ten years old by an author who hasn't been involved for years.

  41. "Forms of religious madness." (See the opening quotation.) Boy, that resonates, because I still encounter such people even today, both inside CDism and outside of it. Met a lovely middle aged woman in Boston, who within half an hour was telling me about her ritual cleansing baths and how God had spoken to her and had directed her to take on a Hebrew name. She was quite sure that the world is going to burst into flames at the hands of Satan at any moment. I smiled and nodded politely until there was a chance to make an escape. When you encounter lunatics -- violent ones or otherwise -- the wisest course of action is to quietly agree with them until you can flee.

  42. You are so stupid for resign because you accused John Thomas as a tyranny of lies, deception and fraud. You are so ridiculous!

    John Thomas was right in many prophecies. Look at the world today! Soon the Armageddon war will happen then Christ and the saints will end the Armageddon war and take over to rule the world from the city of Jerusalem.

    You all, who accused John Thomas falsely, will be held responsible! The angel will deal with you at the judgement very soon! Good Luck!

    1. Poe's Law strikes. I honestly can't tell whether this is genuine or satire.

    2. Just some farting noises from a flatulent, brainwashed idiot.

  43. Dr Thomas was a complete fraud he plagiarized most of his teachings from other people. He was not consistent he kept changing his views. In an article from 1855 titled our terrestrial system before the fall Dr Thomas introduces the clean flesh this teaching which actually supports the idea of evolution. Many christadelphians today would.find it hard to agree with Dr Thomas in this article

  44. Peter, (I'm assuming that this is you), do you think that in the war, if a bomb were to have dropped on a house, and injured the occupants, who just happened to be Roman Catholics, such that they were trapped, and screaming for help, that neighbouring Christadelphians would have ignored their pleas? Or gone immediately to their assistance?

    Genuine question, I have my own thoughts on this, but wonder what yours are?

    1. Yes it is me Peter from my personal experience with the christadelphians I would assume the crusadelphians would stand by and let those people die they would see it as the will of God

    2. The christadelphians are probably glorifying the destruction of the Palestinians by the israelis as we speak

    3. Peter, I don`t think that the Christadelphians are "glorifying" in the destruction of the people in Gaza, while at the same time they do believe it is the Hand of God. I am in touch with one or two Cd friends, and they they are as appalled at the suffering there, as am I. But, Cds are programmed to believe that the bible is inerrant, so if it says that Joshua, obeying God, took his army, and slaughtered 12000 men women and children (keeping the virgins for themselves, of course), then that is what happened (they believe). It was in god`s purpose as part of the Hebrews being given the Promised Land, they would say. To believe it to be right for the wilful and dreadful slaughter of human beings to happen, and at the same time to believe it is the Hand of God, is quite a dichotomy to stomach.

    4. Mancott, I expect that you will remember back in 1983, when Dennis Healy accused Margaret Thatcher of having "gloried in the slaughter" of the Falklands conflict, and effectively used the loss of life for her own political purposes.
      I see some parallels here, and suspect that whilst publicly, Christadelphians will echo your friend's sentiments, behind closed doors, huddled away from the public eye and ear, their thoughts may be very different.
      One only has to read the unfiltered writings of Robert Roberts and his wish to "greatly thin" the population to get a sense of what their "programming", as you put it, will result in.
      With Google now using A.I. rather than humans, to vet the content of YouTube videos before they are allowed on the platform, resulting in a large number of strikes and suspensions, possibly as a result of the online harm bill, I think that a two faced approach will become ever more prevalent, there will be the "private" beliefs for between themselves, and a softened up, edited approach for public consumption.
      Just to repeat though. I have no horse in the race, and hence no opinion on the current conflict in the middle east.

    5. Mancott, on a different tangent: I went to a new opera on Galileo last week, and your comment about Joshua reminds me that one of the verses cited against him was the one about Joshua commanding the sun to stand still. And I find that very interesting in light of how literally the Bible should be taken as God's truth. Nowadays you may find believers holding that God miraculously lengthened the day so Joshua's army could finish the slaughter (I know people who believe that, and so did I for a time). And you may find believers arguing that it isn't meant to be taken literally, and rather means that God strengthened them or confused the enemy so that they could finish the job in the daylight available (I think Jonathan Burke took that line, among others?). What you won't find is believers arguing that that verse proves the sun moves round the earth rather than vice versa. Or at least, maybe some do hold that, but I've never heard it.

      And I think that's the challenge for all believers taking God's word literally and talking about God's truth vs the wisdom of the world or some such thing: How do they know they haven't fixed on something that a later generation will go "Isn't it *obvious* that the Bible doesn't mean that?" Perhaps one day even young earth creationism will join that category, and the dreaded evolution will be accepted as compatible with the Bible (as I think it is in many denominations, though I'm not holding my breath for Christadelphia to join the club).

    6. Jon, indeed the fact that Genesis 1 & 2 is not history or science has been taught for decades by even the bible based denominations here in the UK, but it seems to still be a red line in CDism. I used to think that any scientific consensus at the time of the pioneers was taken as true by CDs and any that came later False, but now I see that some CDs are promoting a flat earth. I guess once they start ignoring the overwhelming evidence of an old earth then its not much of a step to ignore the overwhelming evidence of a spherical earth. On 11 Oct 2023 the dreadful East Kilbride CDs posted a picture of the flat earther's map along with 'God is enthroned above the circle of the earth'. They usually just repost dog whistle memes from fundamentalist US sites, so they may not intentionally be promoting a flat earth but who knows.

    7. My understanding is that YEC is comparatively recent in Christadelphia (though it felt like the norm where I was growing up), and that the pioneers were more willing to accept scientific consensus on things like the age of the Earth. Though I gather that was also combined with the idea that there was a previous creation, and that our current version started at Eden on a similar timeframe to YEC, and I don't think that works in with our current scientific consensus.

      I looked at East Kilbride a few times during the Covid era, and nothing I saw was even close to the Christadelphians I know. I've heard the "circle of the Earth" verse combined with the "hanging on nothing" verse to prove the world is a sphere and the authors of the Bible knew it because it was revealed by God, but never in support of a flat Earth. Ah well.

    8. Bob, I wouldn't describe the East Kilbride Christadelphians as "dreadful" I would rather use the word "typical".
      I am guessing that they have never watched any of the hundreds of live streamed spaceX launches on the internet, and seen the world develop into a sphere before their eyes, a sight which never fails to fill me with awe, regardless of the fact that I no longer believe in a creator God.
      I think that they have missed a trick here. Each morning as my breakfast warms on the stove, I put a plate of food out for the birds in my garden. Before I get back into the house they have jumped down from the trees and are lined up like planes on final approach to Heathrow. One does not need to be a creationist to appreciate the creation around oneself.

    9. Christadelphians here in the UK are changing quite fast on the issue of female subjugation, there is an interesting blog with survey results at https://www.pressonjournal.org/can-we-talk-about-change-text . As Joseph has noted the bible schools have made YEC a condition of attendance for a while now, which means there must be a number of them that do hold that view, otherwise they would not make an issue of it. I find it surprising that they don't believe in supernatural evil, but do believe in the deception of Eve by a talking snake. I suspect that one day they will accept that snakes can't and never could naturally synthesis human voice.

  45. The simple fact is the christadelphians are being very hypocritical they claimed to be conscientious objectives yet they are supporting the political state of Israel that is not the actions of a true conscientious objector. And please don't give me that rubbish that they care deeply for the Palestinian people because I've spoken to the Christadelphian at these prophecy they events and believe me they don't care for no one apart from those who support Zionism

  46. Peter, perhaps you should attend this "mock tribunal" in Coventry next month, and see what the young brethren have to say for themselves and if the other brethren on the panel make of their excuses.


    1. No thank you I've attended enough prophecy talks in the very few years I was a member of the christadelphians also you will remember that I started the bible Prophecy channel benzion888 I remember a talk by Jonathan Bowman in 2011 quoting Palsm 149 to show how the immortalized resurrected christadelphians will destroy the people of the world after Armageddon

    2. However if I was to go to one of these prophecy talks I would ask them a very hard question if sin only means the transgression of god's law how do you explain infant mortality. If there is a god they are attributing great unrighteousness to God by claiming that sin only means the transgression of god's law and it does not explain infant mortality.

    3. Peter, as I have said many times here in the past, if you asked them that difficult question, then their answer to you would simply be that the reason you do not understand, is because YOU have failed to do sufficient bible study, with a sufficiently "open" mind. Try not to waste your life on these people. Leave them to their death spiral.

    4. I find it challenging to distance myself from the hurt caused by my experiences with the Christadelphians. Back in 2006, I engaged in studying with the Old Paths in Manchester and Bolton, operating out of Manchester Central Library. Initially, everything went smoothly as I attended lectures and read the book "Elpis Israel," up to Chapter 4. When I shared my enjoyment of the book, particularly its perspective on original sin as a physical element of the animal nature, Les's wife, Jane, inexplicably became angry and denied that such content existed. Instead of apologizing, she attempted to explain it away, asserting it wasn't meant in the way Catholics understand original sin. In hindsight, I should have walked away, but my thirst for knowledge kept me hooked.

      Additionally, I initiated a Bible prophecy channel for the Christadelphians, starting from the Stockport Central ecclesia. However, my efforts faced resistance from this ecclesia, which disagreed with talks produced by the Rugby ecclesia. They insisted on reviewing every talk before uploading, causing confusion and seeming illogical given the talks were already vetted by 500 Christadelphians in Rugby. Despite the popularity of my YouTube channel, it was maliciously shut down by the Rugby ecclesia out of jealousy. And that's the thanks I get

      During this period, I faced harassment from a so-called Christadelphian from the Blackburn area. This individual stalked me, attempting to bribe me with food and money to buy cannabis, exploiting my addiction. Realizing his manipulative intentions, I resorted to drastic measures by putting a brick through his car and living room windows to sever ties.

      Moreover, this individual manipulated the situation further by driving from Blackburn to Crewe to see my mother behind my back. Eventually, she became a member of the Crewe ecclesia, leading to my exclusion from attending her baptism and visiting her at the ecclesia. It was disheartening to witness her involvement from 2018 until recently, and only now have I succeeded in liberating her from what I perceive as a dangerous and twisted cult.

      The insults hurled at me by the Christadelphians, branding me a Pharisee merely because of my photographic memory, further exacerbate the pain associated with my interactions within this community. The complex web of emotional turmoil, manipulation, and exclusion has left a lasting impact on my perception of the Christadelphians and their practices.

    5. Wasn`t "putting a brick through his car and living room windows" going a bit over-the-top? Wouldn`t a well-penned letter have done the trick?
      The pen can not only be mightier than the sword, it can be mightier than the brick.

    6. He should have just sent some anonymous hate mail to the source of his anger. That happened twice in my ecclesia. It was unnerving stuff to read, but it halted some of the more objectionable behavior that was occurring. They got the message, and desisted from the behavior.

      I certainly do, however, relate to the bitterness this poster is expressing. It was like the bullies were procreating in the church's dark basement or something. Why does this happen? I dunno. Maybe it's just some organic part of human behavior. People need to feel empowered somewhere, so they kick ass in some nothing little worship group.

    7. I still think that a letter/email would have been the wiser move. Hot-headed actions can come back like a boomerang and (to mix a metaphor) bite you in the bum. In the UK such a brick-throwing action can lead to a large fine, costs, paying out for the damage, or even prison.

    8. I must only have skimmed the comment when first approving it, because I didn't notice the brick reference. I agree with Mancott - it doesn't matter how much you think it's justified, or whether in the court of public opinion it would be found to be justified: It's still a crime, and a crime that can have consequences. It's probably not wise to commit such a crime, and it's probably also not wise putting details of such a crime on the internet...

    9. Emails and letters are pointless if you wish to deal with/ stop a sustained course of abusive action/ stalking, although a violent response is never really to be condoned, no matter what the provocation.
      Speaking personally, if they are continuing to interfere with your life after you leave them, it is better to go to a live meeting, and confront those involved, in front of their peers/congregation, whatever, and lay down some ground rules. letters and emails can vanish very easily, and Christadelphians are past masters at tormenting those they consider "wrong" or inferior.
      As per my other comment on this thread, it is far better to simply make your mind up, and have nothing whatsoever to do with them. Continued engagement only leads to continued problems.

      Mancott, what punishment you get in the UK for criminal damage now depends more on one's political motivation than the physical outcome of such actions.

    10. Joseph, not sure I understand what you are positing in your last paragraph.
      I do agree that letter responses of mildly complaining content are certainly useless. But, the English language is so rich that it should be easy to put together words of such stinging effect that the recipient is left with great shame for his/her actions burnishing his/her cheek -- especially if the individual`s actions and your stinging words (stinging, not libellous) can be given a wider broadcast than simply to the individual in question.

    11. Mancott, I was simply referencing the fact that over the last few years, certain acts of what might have been called, in the past, "criminal damage", have been deemed by the courts not to be so, dependent on the aims and motivations of those carrying out the acts, although the "damage" caused, was clear and obvious (to a man riding the top deck of a Clapham omnibus).
      From what he describes, Peter was suffering from a sustained course of menacing, harmful and corrupting actions including stalking, and also, possibly, paranoia as a result of cannabis misuse. I am not excusing the actions, just attempting to contextualise them.
      With regard to Rugby Ecclesia's prophecy channel, it has been clear for years that they are cranks, but cranks who claim, unopposed it has to be said, to represent the whole of Christadelphia. They upload many, many hours of material per week, to the point that you would have to be crazy to attempt to watch even a fraction of it.

    12. Yeah, I regret throwing that brick because I'm still paying off the fine. I admitted guilt—I didn't want to deal with a court case.

      Regarding the Christadelphian Prophecy Channel by the Rugby Ecclesia, they've made a lot of false prophecies. I personally experienced Paul Billington claiming the second coming would be in 2018. There are numerous false prophecies by Jim Cowie.

      I'm currently working on a YouTube channel that will expose the Crusadelphians. I've got some videos by John Benson that were once on a website, and I've also gathered clips from Jim Cowie and Jonathan Bowman saying some very extreme just search for the christadelphian court on YouTube

    13. Peter, as Sergeant Wilson might have said to Captain Mainwearing, if Mainwearing had thrown a brick, "Was that wise, Sir?" All actions have consequences, and hot-headed actions generally have not unexpected rather nasty consequential results.
      Hopefully the state of your finances will soon return to a less rapidly diminishing and a regret-acknowledging level.
      As for Rugby Ecclesia, they have harboured over many years within their ranks, to my recollection, those with many hot-headed notions in terms of what they promote, and I think it would be wise to ignore them and let them continue wading about in their own miasma of muddy ideas.

  47. One of the biggest problems with christadelphian prophecy is they believe the new covenant is only for the Jews and will be established at the second coming when Jesus resources the kingdom to Israel this new covenant will involve a temple with animal sacrifices yet yeah if Jesus is the final on Ultimate sacrifice why do they need sacrifices in the age to come this was a major theme within the writings of Dr Thomas

  48. They are being very hypocritical if they claim to be conscientious objectives how can they support a secular state like the state of Israel they are not the actions of a conscientious objector

    1. Peter, the really baffling thing is that the last time there was conscription in the UK, was 1963, fully 60 years ago, and with the exception of the "new intake" of Iranian Christadelphians, most of them are well beyond fighting age. To waste time on such a "mock tribunal", when some Ecclesias have lost 75% of attendees over the last few years, and they can only recruit from the indigenous population in single digits per year, is mindless beyond comprehension really.
      A bit of thought as to why they lose so many people to internal conflicts rather than the vague possibility of conscription, would be a far better use of their time.
      I can safely say though that there is not the slightest chance that what they do say at the tribunal will be published online.

  49. Joseph, you keep reminding us all that you don't have a horse in the race.Whats your thoughts on the suffering? Do you actually give a shit? or dont care? im curious...

    1. I remind you, because as an ex-christadelphian, you may mistakenly think that I would have retained some biases as a result of that part of my life.
      I have no thoughts on the "suffering". In all wars, there are two or more sides, and people on both sides will suffer, some long after the conflict has ended. I have no friends or relatives involved in the middle east conflict(s), and no religion that may possibly to cause me to take sides. Thus for me to claim to be concerned about suffering would be false. The same is true of the Russian/Ukraine conflict. I know nobody involved and am thus unable to empathise with either side, although I am sure that families on both sides are suffering, none of them are related to me, I have no influence over the conflict, and little understanding of what it might be over, so, I lack the knowledge to have an opinion that is valid.
      The same will be true in the Pakistan/Iran skirmish, and the bombing of Syria by Turkey- outside of my world so barely relevant to me.
      So yes, you could say that I don't care, and don't give a shit, if you wish to put it that way.
      But don't leave it at that, let us know your anonymous thoughts and if YOU are concerned by the suffering, better still, let us know if you think that one or other of the sides in the above conflicts are more or less deserving of suffering, preferably from a Christadelphian point of view.

  50. Forget any religious views. Do you care about your fellow man's suffering and have pity on him? Someone's who's lying in agony after say an accident. ? What about animals that are eaten alive? Any compassion for them?

    1. Firstly, Anon, for goodness sake, give yourself a name, or pseudonym. As for caring about suffering, it`s not easy for anyone to give a straight answer. Right at the start, why should Joseph care about suffering. Is it obligatory? People can decide to not care or not feel able to care, or want to care, for several reasons. They may not be able to bring themselves to a feeling within of being able to care, some block within them stops them. It may be that they have been through so much trauma in their life they they have become numb to other`s suffering. It may be that they they can`t enter into people`s suffering because they choose not to get to know about it. There can be a psychological cause within them. It can come from a disturbed childhood -- or a distressing association with someone, or some group -- and so many more reasons. Why should you say, or insist, that someone has to answer such a question, as the one you have asked?
      If I might point out, Jon, this has become way off topic.

    2. Mancott, I did think about the off-topic issue before approving that comment. My take is that it's off-topic for this post, but not necessarily for the website. Leaving Christadelphia can make people re-assess their views on many different things (for example, if you were brought up thinking the suffering of yourself and others was a part of the will of God and that it could only truly be fixed by the return of Christ, which I'd say was a part of my upbringing, you might want to reconsider that).

      My concern is more that it doesn't get into personal attacks on Joseph (or anyone else, for that matter). But I'd agree with Joseph that just asking questions without providing any opinions of their own rarely leads to useful discussion, and with Mancott that no-one is obligated to answer such questions. Particularly when asked in a way that reads combative.

  51. Well if i saw Joseph( if thats his real name) lying on the side of the road writhing in agony id have compassion on him and try to help him.Its got nothing to to do with Christadelphians or any religion. I think you just know to help out and show a bit of human kindness. Jon, you say my question is combative but is not being told that i dont have a horse in the race a few times some what the same? You can have a bit of a dig but because you dont have a horse in the race, well it lets you off the hook as such.

  52. There are some massive jumps in logic going on here. Remember, this started from discussion of Israel and Palestine. Events that are probably more than 1,000 miles from anyone involved in the discussion.

    Even as I write this, there are probably ten people getting involved in serious road accidents somewhere in the world. In an abstract sense, I have compassion towards these people - they could face a long and difficult recovery, and they may in fact never get back to what they were, and depending on the person and their situation that could have all kinds of consequences. In practice, though, I don't know these people. I don't know anything about them. Not only am I not walking past and ignoring them writhing in agony, but the odds seem good that I'll never in my life meet any of the people who were injured in road accidents in, say, the last half hour.

    Then when it comes to practical recovery, the expertise question Joseph raised also comes in. Perhaps they will need pain-killers. Perhaps one or more blood transfusions. Perhaps one or more operations. Perhaps physical therapy. Which steps are taken and when could have a big impact on their recovery and quality of life. I want them to have the right support. But I'm not going to be drawing up a recovery plan for them, and even if I did it's probably not going to be that helpful for them.

    The world is large, and so is its population. We each have only 24 hours each day (84600 seconds), and have to decide how best to use them. The care and kindness and compassion we may show to our own personal circle of friends and family and neighbours and local wildlife does not scale well to the millions or billions of humans and animals who are in need or suffering.

    To leap from someone's statement about a distant war to suggestions that that person might not help someone in need they actually walk past is a massive leap, and an aggressive one. That is not welcome here. I don't see any equivalence with Joseph's statements.

    1. Anon, across several comments now, you have failed to be specific about exactly which "suffering" it is that you feel that I should be concerned about, or indeed what you think it is that I should do about it, so, before I comment further, please clear that up, and at the same time do let us know what you are doing, practically about this "suffering" that you seem so unclear about.
      We all know that Christadelphians sit firmly on the side of Israel in one of those conflicts, we also know that they don't like Russians, because they are identified as being under the rule of "The King of The North" or some such prophetic drivel. Will they be sending round collecting plates for bereaved mothers in Vladivostok who have lost their sons in that conflict? I doubt it, or heading off out there to help them chop firewood now their sons are dead? what thinks you?
      Jon has explained perfectly well my position, but yours remains obscure.

    2. All absolutely, bang on the money, Jon.
      And I don`t see the connection between having a horse in the race and being let off a hook. Would that be the same as putting one`s hand to the plough but then sheathing the sword?

  53. Fair enough Jon, but i see his comments differently. He said he has no thoughts on suffering on both sides. I've never asked anyone to take a side. I for one feel sorry for both sides in the War. Also, he agrees with me that he doesn't give a shit if it's not affecting him. Do you not think those comments are just not a tad combative? or provoking for a bite? which he got.

    1. I have objected to personal attacks on other commenters. None of what you cite is a personal attack on you or anyone else here. (nor would I see it as a personal attack on those involved in that war, or any war).

      I too feel sorry for those suffering in war, but it's a very abstract thing, and it does nothing to help those actually involved in the war. A quick Google says from this current conflict 24,000 dead, 90,000 casualties, and that was a couple of weeks ago, so it's probably higher now. Spending a second feeling sorry for each one of them would literally take all day. Trying to find each individual life story would take even longer (which is why if, say, reading news articles about the suffering that mention individual cases, we have to trust the journalists to try and find representative cases). And none of that would, in my view, do anything to help those people we feel sorry for. What will probably help is better medical aid and an end to the war. But that will probably require political solutions, and it would require a lot more expertise and involvement to even know what those solutions might be, let alone to have the ability to convince those directly involved to work towards them.

      So yeah, I don't think feeling sorry for people that we will never interact with is a bad thing. But nor do I think it is a good thing. Unless it leads to action, it doesn't affect anyone but ourselves. And if it does lead to action, then it will depend on the actions chosen whether the results are positive, negative or just neutral. But that action will also take time which could be used for other things - maybe better, maybe worse, maybe again just neutral. Each person needs to decide how they will manage that, because in our modern, connected world there are always more causes than anyone has time to even understand, let alone get involved productively with.

    2. Anon, I am in full agreement with both Jon, and Mancott's thinking here. What I am saying, and I think Jon may be agreeing with, was neatly summed up by Sandra Bullock's character in the film "Miss Congeniality", in the "World Peace" scene. Link below if you have never seen the film.


      It is of course a dated stereotype, however it serves the point. It is all of the contestant's main desire, but we all know that it is a shallow thought to please the crowd, and nothing more, whilst her character's real thoughts and practical suggestion brings a stony silence.

      While I do not carry biases over from my Christadelphian life, being brought up in a Christian home is less easy, perhaps impossible, to erase completely, and hence Proverbs 26:17 comes to mind, and sways my thinking. The resource below, and the explanation in the right pane is very close to my thinking.


      On 13th October 2023, "Bibleinthenews" (a prominent Christadelphian website) linked to a YouTube channel from within the combat area, I have followed it since. Here is their (at time of writing)most recent report.

      Here is another short video, this time from what could probably be described as a "far right" channel. The lady being heckled is a UK opposition (left wing) party politician, she is not part of the government at the moment and thus has limited power to intervene in international matters.


      Jon's final paragraph emphasises how such influences are almost overwhelming in the modern world, and make sorting out what is what such that it is even possible to form a valid opinion is difficult if not impossible.
      Some other context, in the UK we have to pay for a licence to watch live TV, or any material from the state sponsored broadcaster, some years ago, I decided not to, so I am not exposed to the curated content produced by what might loosely be called trusted sources.
      Just another reason why I remain neutral and detached.

  54. Jon i think you get where im coming from in a round about way. Certainly not asking anyone to wallow in the suffering in this war or any war . You can feel sorry as you do without going way off the deep end. I think we should be very thankfull were we live we dont experiece this sort of thing.
    Joesph, yes ive watched Miss Congeniality many times and know the scene well. My thinking and yours are a bifferent on this topic and thats just the way it is.


Please do not comment as 'Anonymous'. Rather, choose 'Name/URL' and use a fake name. The URL can be left blank. This makes it easier to see who is replying to whom.