Return to Answer

I am Christadelphian and don't have particular problem with the apostles creed. It doesn't mention or imply the trinity... that was added later in church doctrine in our opinion. If the church beloved in the trinity at that time, then surely it would have been explicit in the creed?

The second part of your question you ask how we have to interpret to agree with the creed. I've expanded on the creed (as translated to English in the link you posted) with inline comments to explain our beliefs and to show that they are consistent with the actual text of the creed.

Jesus was born human, with human mother. Conceived by God, through his power, the holy spirit. Holy spirit is not a person, merely the power of God.

Assuming this is not talking of an underworld of any kind i.e. "hell". But merely saying he was in the ground, where all the dead are. In fact it's interesting that this creed seems to support Christadelphian doctrine better than modern Christian doctrine in that it suggests all the dead descend... it doesn't say some ascend (heaven) and some descend (hell). Also of all people, the one person who "did no sin" would surely be ascending if there was a choice of merit.

The foundation of the gospel - good message. Through Christ there is hope of Resurrection, to be partakers of the promises to Abraham.

We believe it exists and sustains all creation, the spirit gifts existed but are no longer in circulation as they have done their job of supporting and confirming the gospel message.

If this means the "original" first century church - Ecclesia as we call it, based on the Greek. Then yes, we try and stick as close as possible to the original doctrines of the original (the meaning of the word Catholic, as I understand it) ecclesias (or church, is it's been translated in English).

If you want more details of what Christadelphians believe, we have our own "creed" or what we call the statement of faith. It might be interesting for you to compare it to the "Apostles Creed" and see for yourself if it is consistent with it (the actual words, not the current interpretation of it). It highlights much of what I've said above, with a number of verses to back up each of the statements. It's freely available online, and I'd recommend it as a good source for our beliefs... It doesn't cover everything, but every one who calls themselves Christadelphian must agree to these statements (either the original unamended version or the later amended version as the comment at the top of that page explains).

I am Christadelphian and don't have a particular problem with the apostle's creed. It doesn't mention or imply the trinity... that was added later in church doctrine in our opinion. If the church believed in the trinity at that time, then surely it would have been explicit in the creed?

In the second part of your question, you ask how we have to interpret to agree with the creed. I've expanded on the creed (as translated to English in the link you posted) with inline comments to explain our beliefs and to show that they are consistent with the actual text of the creed.

Jesus was born human, with a human mother. Conceived by God, through His power, the holy spirit. The holy spirit is not a person, merely the power of God.

Assuming this is not talking of an underworld of any kind i.e. "hell". But merely saying he was in the ground, where all the dead are. In fact, it's interesting that this creed seems to support Christadelphian doctrine better than modern Christian doctrine in that it suggests all the dead descend... it doesn't say some ascend (heaven) and some descend (hell). Also of all people, the one person who "did no sin" would surely be ascending if there was a choice of merit.

The foundation of the gospel - good message. Through Christ there is the hope of Resurrection, to be partakers of the promises to Abraham.

We believe it exists and sustains all creation, the holy spirit gifts existed but are no longer in circulation as they have done their job of supporting and confirming the gospel message.

If this means the "original" first-century church - Ecclesia as we call it, based on the Greek. Then yes, we try and stick as close as possible to the original doctrines of the original (the meaning of the word Catholic, as I understand it) ecclesia (or church, is it's been translated in English).

If you want more details of what Christadelphians believe, we have our own "creed" or what we call the statement of faith. It might be interesting for you to compare it to the "Apostles Creed" and see for yourself if it is consistent with it (the actual words, not the current interpretation of it). It highlights much of what I've said above, with a number of verses to back up each of the statements. It's freely available online, and I'd recommend it as a good source for our beliefs... It doesn't cover everything, but everyone who calls themselves Christadelphian must agree to these statements (either the original unamended version or the later amended version as the comment at the top of that page explains).

Heaven is the feeling place of God, and not somewhere where you go when you die. Christ ascending (to return in like manor as you saw him go up) is clear from scripture. He is at the right hand of his Father... he is not his own Father. With the whole world under his control - until he has put all his enemies under his feet, the last enemy being "death".

Heaven is the dwelling place of God, and not somewhere where you go when you die. Christ ascending (to return in like manner as you saw him go up) is clear from scripture. He is at the right hand of his Father... he is not his own Father. With the whole world under his control - until he has put all his enemies under his feet, the last enemy being "death".

The accepted answer is wrong. It argues that because we don't agree with correct Catholic Church interpretation we can't agree with it. Yet just taking the original words (via translation) I can agree fully with the creed as written.

The accepted answer is wrong. It argues that because we don't agree with the current Catholic Church interpretation we can't agree with it. Yet just taking the original words (via translation) I can agree fully with the creed as written.