The Physician Who Doctored the Truth

An article contributed by John Bedson

"The time has come for honest men to denounce false teachers and attack false gods." - Luther Burbank

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":

"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.

John Bedson
Melbourne Australia
bedson@pacific.net.au

27 comments:

  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.

    ReplyDelete
  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".

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for that explanation. I'm sorry that I deleted my post, but I am having difficulty getting my Google account to work correctly. It keeps displaying the wrong name for me.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You must be correct. John Thomas was against the abolition of slavery in the US. How amazing!

    ReplyDelete
  5. 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).

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks for your comments.

    I agree that just because the Christadelphian religion has rotten foundations that this does not necessarily mean that the religion now is wrong. However it does concern me that the whole thing might just be a sect/cult formed by some charismatic humans who have deceived their followers down to this day. By “deceived” I don’t mean that they deliberately deceived. I mean that in their innocent ignorance, they mistakenly deceived people, if you see what I mean. I’m sure that the founders of Christadelphianism believed all that nonsense, just as I did when I was a Christadelphian. But they were making a mistake, just like I did when as a young person I came to “believe” Christadelphianism. It was only later that I woke up to the fact that I was being a fool. I had been fooled by people who themselves had been fooled.

    You say that “I take my understanding from the Bible” but that’s what all Christian religions, sect and cults say and that’s what I used to think of my own beliefs. Looking back I realise that the reality was that I took my understanding from my parents and from the Christadelphian teachers that I was forced to listen to throughout my childhood and teenage years. Like all other Christians I juggled Bible verses to support my preconceived eschatology. Manipulating Bible verses to support a predetermined doctrine is the easiest thing in the world; approximately two billion humans who believe in “Christianity” do it all the time to “prove” thousands of different and contradictory doctrines. It’s not clever, it’s stupid.

    Humans are not “rational” thinkers; they are “rationalising” thinkers. They spend 99% of their time seeking to find evidence to support what they already believe about their choice of partners, choice of school, car, home, political allegiance, household appliance, favourite brands etc AND their choice of religion. We “rationalise” the evidence to support what we have already decided. We also “rationalise” evidence to suite conclusions that we have decided on the basis of emotional decision making, which is how most of our decisions are made. That’s why we make so many “human” mistakes; because we are not clever enough to adequately assess all of the available evidence, so we take short cuts and use our emotions to make the decisions on the basis of passion instead. We are not slaves of reason, we are slaves of passion.

    See:

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/

    article/0,9171,1580372,00.html
    To see my link, please join the two links together and then cut/paste them into your browser.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 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").

    ReplyDelete
  8. Let me answer your second question first:

    No, I do not believe in “Absolute Truth”. I write with conviction about what I do believe, but I am open minded to the possibility that I might have to modify my thinking when new data forces me to rethink my position.

    Your first question concerns people who modify their religious beliefs. To my way of thinking this is re-arranging the deckchairs on the deck of a sinking Titanic. If someone has a fixation that an invisible, mute, inactive supreme being is ruling the world, then they are wasting their time worrying about “doctrine” etc. Their root problem is that they believe in something that is unsupported by any credible evidence. That is superstition. It is a complete waste of time and effort. They have a "predetermined doctrine" that God exists even though they have never seen him or heard from him and “manipulating” doctrine or anything else to support their conviction is pointless.

    Your third question:

    No, I do not say that because there are many different interpretations of the Bible they must by default be all wrong. I wrote

    “And WHAT IF all those beliefs are flaws? WHAT IF there is no genuine article?”

    I am open-minded. I do not close my mind to any possibility. But what I am saying is that the ease with which people prove whatever they like from the Bible (as they also do with the Koran, the Book of Mormon and all other religious texts) is an indication that this is unlikely to be a form of communication from a supreme being, unless he were also supremely stupid to have chosen such a crazy method of communicating with his subjects. Inevitably he would leave them in total confusion; all at each others throats, which is how Christianity has turned out.

    If you were a supreme, all knowing, all powerful being, would you choose to communicate your purpose to your creation in a book that you knew would be totally misunderstood by the creation and cause them to kill, burn and torture each other for two and a half thousand years? Of course not. Let’s face it: the Bible is the work of humans and nothing more.

    Science is different. It is the difference of opinion about scientific theories that is the strength of science. That discussion is a “bottom up” mechanism which science uses to discover, evolve, promote and evaluate truth. Critical thinking is what keeps science on the rails. But critical thinking derails and wrecks religious belief because it is not based on reasoned thinking. It is based on emotional desire, not rational deduction.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 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?

    ReplyDelete
  10. 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?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I would not expect a Supreme Being to think like me, I would expect a supreme being to be vastly more intelligent then me and I would expect them to communicate articulately and sensibly with their creation in order to easily achieve their objective. By contrast the Bible is one of the most stupid books ever written and has caused endless confusion, controversy, suffering and misery ever since people started writing and distributing it.

    I would think that a Supreme Being might be malevolent. There is no logical reason to imagine that he might be good or bad, so he could be either. In view of the unimaginable suffering of animals over the past few hundred million years and of humans over the past approximately one hundred and fifty thousand years; if there is a supreme being, I would assume that he is certainly a malevolent being that either enjoys watching suffering or at the very least is indifferent to suffering.

    In my view it does “invalidate a book's primary purpose if people seize it and use it for their own ends.” A Supreme Being who allows his communication to be abused in that way cannot complain if virtually no one understands what on Earth he was trying to tell them. The Bible is a “dud” because no one knows what it means or what it is attempting to communicate. Books like “Revelation” are not even understood by the Christadelphians and rubbish like “The Song of Solomon” are best forgotten as embarrassing, rambling drivel.

    Fifty thousand Christadelphians understand “The Truth” and several billion other humans are left confused and mistaken as to what the Supreme Being requires of them. An egotistical, lying, sick wife neglecting, slave abusing physician in the Nineteenth Century rediscovered this “Truth” although it took him twenty years to do it because the Supreme Being gave him no useful assistance. Do we really have to discuss such an absurd hypothesis? We might as well discuss how many grains of sand compose the Sahara Desert.

    Christadelphianism is not wrong because it requires reform, or a minor tweaking of the doctrinal beliefs. Christadelphianism is wrong because it is outright lunacy.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 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?

    ReplyDelete
  13. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous said...

    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?

    First, I would have to assume there is a god, then I would have to assume that the god was a he. Then I would have to assume that he wanted to communicate.

    Assuming all that, which is a lot of assumption without evidence, God could make his "will" known to everyone just as easy as to a few.

    When you get right down to it, everything God expects of us humans could have been written down on one page. Not that a god would have to write a book or a page...just saying.

    I mean, we are talking about a god who can do anything but has to have humans to reveal him and his will to other humans.

    If God can only "call" a few out of billions, then we are all predestined anyway and don't have any choice in the matter.

    The bad part is that we only have other human's word, written down or otherwise, that a god even exists. And which god is he? Is he the one who promised to send "hornets" to drive out the Canaanites or is he the one who sent people to drive out the Canaanites?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hello! another fantastic blog; im a regular follower of your blogs. beautifully written.

    think you might enjoy my blogs, some articles may interest you, feel free to check them out

    http://davidhatton1987.blogspot.com/

    in the mean time, keep up the good work,

    all the way from england,

    David Hatton

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous:

    Asking me “What is this "Supreme Being's object?" is like asking me “what is the object of the troll that lives under the Brooklyn Bridge” or “Why is an elf living in my roof?”

    Come to your senses. You do not have a shred of evidence that this Supreme Being exists. To prove his existence you have to resort to something like “The Universe and life are wonderfully made” or some other meaningless, irrelevant statement.

    Show me you Supreme Being or give me a single piece of scientifically provable data to demonstrate his existence and I promise you that I will immediately start to think about what his object is. Or maybe I’ll ask him. But I’m not going to waste my time fantasising about the object of something that only exists in your imagination. How silly would I be if I did that? I could go into any mental hospital in the world and start taking the patient’s delusions seriously, but it would not get me anywhere other than crazy.

    You must chase your own ghosts, don’t ask me to join the hunt.

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

    ReplyDelete
  18. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 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 :-)

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous:

    Thanks for your comments and thank you for taking the time to read this site.

    ReplyDelete
  21. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Laurie
    Thanks for your comments.

    "Out of nothing everything came into existence" in not such an impossible notion; in fact it is one of the basic tenants of Quantum Physics where particles both appear from the “void” (nothing) and also can return back to the “void”. It is counterintuitive, just as a sperical Earth, the heliocentric solar system, Einstein’s theory of relativity; evolution, continental drift, index tracker investing and many other facts were counterintuitive when they were first proposed. But they are not impossible. The odd thing is that counterintuitive ideas very often are true. It is our intuition that is limited. The truth is not limited by what our restricted brains can conceive of as being true. Counter intuition is often a gateway to truth.

    ReplyDelete
  23. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  24. 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?

    ReplyDelete
  25. 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
    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous: You do not accept the prophetic writings of the Christadelphian pioneers and you reject large parts of their teaching and current Christadelphian eschatology. You are not a Christadelphian, except in name; you don’t accept their teachings. If you think that JWs etc are going to be in the Kingdom, the Christadelphians should withdraw fellowship from you. It sounds to me as if you are already an Ex-Christadelphian. Welcome to the club.

    ReplyDelete