Talk:Bereans

This Cult

• I's about time you get a dose of your own medicine. Fairness, it's a beautiful thing.
• Until they put their names behing their websites and product their sources, I consider that their opinion. The edit stays.
• Off your pedestal, I see. Let slide, I will.

Emico. I have removed your statements for several reasons. Firstly your own experiences with the Apologetic group is not really relevant. They may not have replied to you, but that is no reason to assume they are guilty of something. Maybe they were on holiday, maybe they are busy. Secondly what you wrote does not conform to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Some of what you wrote was also wrong. There is no evidence for the group being based on Roman Catholic theology. In fact it is extremely unlikely - go to the website and see what they say about Roman Catholics! DJ Clayworth 05:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

DJ. First, you should'nt remove someone else's statement. else, you'll be in this vicious cycle of one removing anothers contribution. Second, how long of a holiday do you think they should take? Don't you think it is their responsibility to defend their claim? After all, we are talking about another person reputation, that of Mr Manalo. As far as NPOV, you are not observing by putting a link which is crearly against another. As far as the Bereans theology, where do you think they got the doctrine of Christ being God-man? Emico 14:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The idea that Jesus is both Man and God is part of the beliefs of almost all Christians, certainly not just Roman Catholics. Did you read what the website says about Catholics? [1] I know nothing about Mr Manalo, and I'd be quite happy if he wasn't mentioned in the article at all. It's not Wikipedia's job to refute anything the Bereans say. If you want people to know the truth about Mr Manalo (whoever he is) then you should write an article about him, not write about some other organisation. The only link I put in the article was to the Bereans' own website, which is certainly a sensible link to put in an article about the organisation. DJ Clayworth 00:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you a member of this berean cult? If you are, can you tell me what your source is for making the claim on you website. If you're not a member, then why do you care so much. The link you had had claims that were'nt true. Why do you participate in propagating lies? Do you know what you look like if you cover up for liars? (the above by User:Emico)

I care because I care about the truth. To find the source I used just click on the symbol [1] above and your browser will take you to the Berean website where they talk about Roman Catholicism. This will show you very clearly that they are not Catholic. I am removing what you wrote in the article because it is wrong. Also some of the things you wrote are your own opinion, and so do not belong in an encyclopedia. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view before you reply.

Please will you also sign your name whenever you write anything on talk pages. You can do so by putting four tilde characters like this ~~~~.

Incidentally you may be right that they are not functioning any more. Their mail server reported that their mailbox was full. DJ Clayworth 04:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

"You care about the truth"! How noble. Well, so do I. And the bereans webpage is not telling the truth. I am putting back my contribution to the article. Emico 06:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Let me put this as clearly as I can. What you are writing is factually wrong. The Bereans are not Catholic! I ask you again, did you read what the Bereans say about Catholics? They devote several pages to talking about reasons why Catholics are wrong. It is not sensible to write an article about an organisation without reading what they say about themselves! DJ Clayworth 13:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

They may not be, but they're still lying about the Iglesia ni Cristo. Tell them to fix their content, or remove your link here. By you keeping their link here, you are propagating a lie. Why do you wanat to keep on lying about another person. And you call yourself a christian? Don't you read? Read and understand my point before taking out my contribution. Emico 14:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I have read and understand your point. I'm sorry that you are offended by what the Bereans write, but it is obviously out of my control. What they are writing is a matter of opinion. Many people would agree with what they write, and many would disagree, just as there are there are those who agree and those who disagree with Iglesia ni Cristo. Should a Catholic be able to insist that we remove everything about Iglesia ni Cristo because they disagree with it? Of course not. DJ Clayworth 14:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, now you are really stretching it. In case you get confused by your own post, the issue is that you put a link that is lying about someone. Take out the link and we won't have this tit for tat. But it looks you are hellbent on lying with them. And you claim to care about truth. As long as you'll keep on propagating a lie, I'll keep on pointing it out. BTW, I got your email. It's bit short on details. Emico 14:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

This article is about the Bereans. The link is to the Bereans' own website. For anyone wanting to know about the Bereans, pointing them to their website is sensible. Maybe you should explain what it is that they are 'lying' about. The only thing I have heard so far is that they say Felix Manalo 'founded' the Iglesia ni Cristo (whatever that is) whereas you say he only registered it with the Phillipine government. That's a pretty minor distinction. On the other hand you have written in this article several times that the Bereans are a Catholic organisation when it is clear they are not.

I didn't send you any email, by the way. DJ Clayworth 15:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

And of all the webpages having the name berean in them, you by chance picked this one. Convenient excuse. Pay attention DJ, after these long exchanges you claim to not know what they're lying about? Read man, read. For a man who claims to "care about the truth", you're too quick to support a liar. As far as the Bereans, I said they're daughters of catholicism. Because they believe in a catholic doctrine of Christ being God. This doctrine started in the council of nicea by the catholics. Come on, you got to at least know what you believe in! And I guess the email just so happen to come from the same ip range as yours. Emico 16:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I am well aware of the Council of Nicea. Like I said, almost all Christians believe that Jesus is God, including many denominations that were never part of the Catholic church. I didn't add the link - it was added when the article was created. And I have no idea what email you are talking about. I don't think you even know what my IP address is.

As far as I am concerned this is a trivial argument about something not very important. Shall we try for a compromise? Let's leave in the basic facts about the Bereans, take out the link to their home page (since it upsets you so much) and take out all the stuff you are adding about them. DJ Clayworth 16:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I suggested this to you 7 post before. Go ahead and remove the link. One last thing: Don't take another man's honor as trivial. One day, people will lie about you. We'll see if you think it is still trivial. Another thing, if your church say that the what "founder of the church" mean is not very important, leave that church. It's not of Christ if they don't profess that their founder is Jesus Christ. Have a nice day. Emico 16:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Um, I went to this to search for the store called Bereans, in Orange County, and Riverside, so, can someone ike mention that? Thanks. (User: ilikerad)

Wikiquette alerts 24 May

Outside view requested. I'm an atheist, so I have no axe to grind either way about theological theories. I agree with DJ Clayworth that Emico's commentary doesn't adhere to NPOV; it's also original research.

However, there are actually many churches and ministries called "Berean" - including this historical one - all named for the Bereans of Acts 17:11, with the belief in common that Christians should actively search the scriptures for verification and reject religious stances that fail this test.

So it does make sense not to single out this particular one for a link. However, I'm coming to this conclusion on the basis of the available information, not on Emico's arguments. It's unacceptable for one user to browbeat others into removing a link because he/she doesn't like the theological claims expressed there. RayGirvan 16:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see any of these links in the article. DJ Clayworth 16:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Here we go! tag teaming. Anyways, Mr Ray missed the point. Talk about etiquette butting in without first getting the whole story. Here's a summary; Mr DJ put a link of a website whose owner is unknown. I tried to find out who the owner is but there were no replies. I simply wanted the website owner to stand behind what he puts out on the web, put his name on it and be ready to defend. I was asking too much. These liar are never going to back up their claims. The website was spewing lies and me and Mr DJ being lovers of truth finally agreed to remove it. Besides, I did not 'browbeat' anything, the link was there and I simply said they won't stand by their claim. What so bad about that? I don't mind what they believe in, as long as they don't tell lies about another person. How about you Mr Ray? Has anyone tell a lie about you? Did you leave it alone? You're a fool if you did. Emico 17:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Here we go! tag teaming. No: standard Wikipedia procedure for reaching a consensus on editing deadlocks. It would help to know what, precisely, are the lies you talk about. If it has widely agreed factual inaccuracies about religion (eg "the Catholic church was founded in Australia") tell us precisely how. If it's theological - at the level of your disagreeing with their belief that various Christian offshoots are cults, or their take on the triple nature (or not) of God - that's a matter of faith and opinion, and the Wikipedia stance is to report it neutrally. Read NPOV#Religion. As I said, however, the best reason not to include it is that it's one of many, and if the only way to find out more is original research, it's not policy to to include information found that way. RayGirvan 18:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Please read the post. Thanks and have a nice day. Emico 18:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Translation: you won't tell us precisely what your objection is, because you know that would display it as POV nonsense. Have a nice day likewise. RayGirvan 20:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Emico, your edit violates origional research. However the present page is a bit anodynly pro Berean. If you can find one of the groups critisizing the Bereans then by all means quote them here. Certainly I think it needs to be covered that the Bereans see themselves as defending the Nicean Council POV on the Trinity and groups that they label as cults for not accepting the Nicaean council regard the Bereans as non biblical because of it. Finally the Bereans site has evangelical protestant written all over it (even if they don't come out and say so openly) so where do you get the idea they are Catholics?Dejvid 22:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Citing sources may help resolve this dispute. Joe D (t) 20:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Sources

Source for history is wikipedia.org unless otherwise indicated.Emico 19:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Erm.. Wikipedia can't use itself as a reference. Joe D (t) 19:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

You mean, wikipedia entries are not reliable sources? Everything here is not factual? Wow, I really did'nt expect that. Emico 20:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Er, no, I mean an article can't get facts from itself, in the same way a crane can not construct itself. I have no idea if this article is factual, that's why I asked those involved in the dispute to cite their sources so that we can verefy if it's factual. Joe D (t) 20:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Yep. Problem with this topic is that there doesn't seem to be much written about Berean churches and ministries except on their own sites. I'm just adding some material; maybe others can fill in detail? One aspect I haven't covered is that there appears to be a significant association of the term Berean with anti-Catholicism: Google around for Berean Beacon and Berean Call. Difficulty is, it's probably original research, as there's no documentation except on other POV sites. RayGirvan 20:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it's ok. Most wiki articles are referenced like by other wikipedia articles. And once you drill down, the last referenced document would have reference to an outside source. It genius! Kudo's to wikipedia. Anyone can always challenge what I write, but then they would be hardpressed to provide reference from another source other than wikipedia. Emico 20:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

No, they're not. Are you sure you understand what a reference is? Did you read the cite your sources link? Joe D (t)

If you'll forgive a little background info, the original Bereans 'examined the scriptures', and are therefore used as a model for a lot of churches that are founded on the principle of sola scriptura (i.e. supreme authority of scripture). Sola scriptura organisations are often in opposition to the Catholic principle of authority (scripture interpreted by the church, plus church tradition). Hence a lot of churches with Berean in the name will probably be more or less anti-Catholic. My apologies if everyone knew that already. DJ Clayworth 20:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

That's what I meant by "other POV sites"; Bereans (and Dave Hunt) get a lot of mention at sites like Catholic.com. But how to tackle this without it heing an exercise in original research? RayGirvan 20:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Calvinism - and freedom to edit

Please, let's not get into an edit war. This is a page about Bereans, not Calvinism. Therefore a description of Calvinism is off-topic and unnecessary, since Calvinism is described at the linked Wikipedia article. Also - You don't just delete other people input! - yes, you do, as long as you have a solid reason and say why. Read Wikipedia:Introduction and guidelines Be Bold. Every edit page says at the foot If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... do not submit it. This is how Wikipedia works; I deleted irrelevant material and told you exactly why in the Edit Summary. And try to be objective and ask yourself which version provides more useful information to visitors. RayGirvan 22:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Please read my contribution. And RESPECT them, as I respect all others. I am providing a history of the word 'Berean' and it will not be complete unless I mention it's origin. Thanks for the wikipedia info, I can now be less gracious with others input. As far as calling my contributions irrelevant, aren't you conceited. My contributions are gathered from various sources. Why don't you try and read some. Emico 00:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

If you have sources, cite them. For instance, what verifiable evidence do you have for The Bereans (apart for the specific historical sect) being a single entity following the doctrines of John Barclay? Calvinism is duplicated in vast detail in its own article; there's no need to repeat the basics of it here.

As for deletion: there's a difference between deleting for a rational reason justifiable by Wikipedia policy (ie duplication elsewhere) and pointlessly deleting useful non-duplicated information and links, including the detail about sola scriptura and the external citation (which your version fails to provide) for John Barclay's Bereans. RayGirvan 01:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The historical significance of John Barclay cannot be denied. After all, he was the first to be known as Berean. You may not like it, but that's the fact. Deal with it. Emico 05:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

He probably was, but what is the evidence? As you've been told more than once, on Wikipedia you have to provide it. "The earliest I know about" or "the earliest I can find on Google" isn't enough. An OED citation for the earliest use of the word would be good. And why have you deleted all the other information I added? RayGirvan 09:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to the stuff about John Barclay being here. However I have removed the stuff about the Trinity. Barclay and the Bereans believed in the Trinity, in which respect they are just like 98% of other Christians, so noting the fact is irrelevant. Much of what you wrote is also just plain wrong. Belief in the Trinity certainly predates the Council of Nicea. See Trinity. Please do not use this article as a reason for expounding your own personal beliefs. DJ Clayworth 13:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The 'stuff' I wrote I learned through research. Please do some reading on the subject. Emico 13:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I have researched this subject for twenty years. Read the article Trinity and some of the pages referenced by it. Even if what you wrote was true (which it only partly is) it is irrelevant because the beliefs of Barclay's Bereans about the Trinity did not differ at all from those of the other Christians around them or of 98% of Christians today. DJ Clayworth 13:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

And besides, on Wikipedia even expert personal knowledge must always be backed up by verifiable external citation. Emico, I urge you to read and abide by the Wikipedia guidelines, especially Cite sources. It's not optional; it's fundamental to the way Wikipedia functions and maintains its credibiity as an encyclopaedia. RayGirvan 13:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

To me, you sound like your defending a belief instead of writing an unbiased article. Please contend with the original research, not me. Start with wikipedia articles and travense them until you get to their source. Emico 14:10, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm defending standard practice here. Read Cite sources. RayGirvan 17:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Funny how you cry about sources now, but if you look at your previous edits, you kept most of my contributions. The one thing you did'nt like was my reference to the trinity as a catholic doctrine, which it is. And then I noticed that the Bereans of today are taking potshots at the catholics! They actually have a running battle at one of the websites you linked. Very interesting. I think it would help if you admit you're a berean. Emico 20:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Summary of dispute May 28 2005

For the record, I'm reverting this article - yet again - for the following reasons: the Emico version provides no references or sources; its descriptions of Calvinism, the Trinity and Nicene Creed are unnecessary as they exist in great detail at linked Wikipedia articles; the factual accuracy of Emico's statements about historical belief in the Trinity has been disputed (see above); and it omits relevant material about the many other modern Berean churches.

As well as refusing to work by basic Wikipedia guidelines such as Cite sources, Emico also appears to have POV issues with the topic, having accused editors trying to uphold Wikipedia:Neutral point of view of being Bereans. See User talk:Emico and Talk:Iglesia_ni_Cristo ("I like my contributions on the Bereans because it is true I've enquired and did not get a response. Are you a berean too?).

Readers can decide which version is constructive and which vandalism. I think this needs taking to dispute resolution procedure. RayGirvan 22:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm reverting this article to the original submission. User RayGirvan agreed with most of it and even provided sources to my contributions. Except for the one issue of the trinity doctrine. When research showed that the trinity doctrine can be attributed to the catholics, user Raygirvan was quick to remove it. (I'm am now reviewing these sources to make sure copyright is not violated and will add them here as soon as possible.)

Currently, the Bereans and the Catholics have a running feud, as evident by a website link provided by User:RayGirvan. I think user RayGirvan has a POV against the catholics and cannot accept the fact that the trinity doctrine is indeed from the catholic church. Further, user RayGirvan will not confirm or deny that he is a Berean.

My intention for the history part or the article is to show the progression of the Bereans from the time it was first attributed to Mr Barclay up the the present. User RayGirvan is giving me strong indication that the Bereans have forgotten their roots and somehow do not remember their history, whose root is Mr Barclay. I believe my contributions shows clear and concise early history of the bereans and will compliment the whole article once all the pieces are put together. Emico 23:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add from what I gather, the contention between the Berean and Catholics is the following: the Bereans claim that the doctrine of the trinity is biblical; the catholics maintain that even from their earliest manuscripts, the trinity is a catholic doctrine. One must ask, did Mr John Barclay, the founder of the Berean sect in Edinburg contend that the trinity is a catholic doctrine? If he did not, why then do his followers contend it now? Is this a case of the current Bereans departing from the belief of their founder? Very interesting stuff which I intend to pursue. Emico 23:34, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no affiliation with either stance; as far as I'm concerned, Bereans vs anti-Bereans is like aliens arguing whether "Zarg is the son of Quogg" or "Quogg is the son of Zarg". It's interesting as a phenomenon, but that doesn't make me a believer in either position. I came to this because I follow Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts and an exeternal viewpoint was requested. My sole complaint is that that you are continually reverting the article to a personal viewpoint and a format that fails to obey basic Wikipedia standards. For instance, if you believe in historical continuity between Barclayites and modern Bereans, you must provide a verifiable external source. RayGirvan 00:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Then you should'nt find anything wrong with what my research showed concerning the trinity. You, on the other hand, wether intentionally or not, biased or not, are taking the side of the (current) Bereans. Let them and the catholics fight it out on their forum. Wikipedia is not for personal POV. You pointed out my entry in Talk:Iglesia_ni_Cristo. Did you find anything wrong with that entry. If you want to know, on the Berean website there was profile. I personally asked member of the Iglesia ni Cristo if that particular entry was correct and was told it was not. I tried to have the Bereans correct it but unfortunately, most of the writers on that website do not sign their work. And there were no other ways to contact them but via a web-based form. I did not get a reply nor a correction to the error I pointed out. There is no personal viewpoint in my contributions. I'm simply pointing out in a clear and concise manner details and readers can follow the hyperlinks to other wiki articles. Sources are forthcoming. As I said, YOU already provided the source, I'm just reviewing them right now. Emico 00:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I personally asked member of the Iglesia ni Cristo if that particular entry was correct and was told it was not. I tried to have the Bereans correct it. Another breach: No original research.

I've refreshed the Article Content Disputes entry on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment; you can dispute it with someone else. They can't all be Bereans. RayGirvan 00:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

give me a break Emico 01:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

User Raygirvan, protector of all things fair, what can you say about the second paragraph of this article. Don't you think it a free advertisement for the bereans? POV as plain as day. Let see what you do with this. Emico 01:10, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

If you're genuinely prepared to cooperate on editing, I'm happy to do so likewise. Yes, I think it's POV by omission. Its inclusion as the sole example makes it central to, rather than an example of, modern Bereans; and it omits details that would show more fairly its controversial nature (ie that it views as cults a variety of religions that most people - religious or not - view as perfectly mainstream}. Therefore, I'm restoring that detail and the details of other Bereans (with the necessary references. RayGirvan 01:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

User Raygirvan, I hope you checked the copyright before putting a live link of Eastons on this article. Emico 01:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Read the link: "Public domain - copy freely". Providing a link, besides, isn't a breach of copyright. RayGirvan 01:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

User Raygirvan, will you remove the link to thebereans.net. They have a profile of the Iglesia ni Cristo, which I pointed out as erroneous and it has'nt been corrected. They haven't replied to my inquiries nor provided source for their content. We don't want to propagate a lie. Thanks. Emico 01:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll just have a look. Back shortly. RayGirvan 02:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Re John Barclay's Bereans. I've removed the sentence about them being the first to have that name, and changed present tense to past. I'm perfectly prepared to believe it true, and that there may be some historical continuity to modern Bereans. But as currently there's no explicit verification, it's against Wikipedia policy to say so. The full Oxford English Dictionary - which I don't have - ought to give a date citation for the term. RayGirvan 02:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

You blushing description of the Bereans of the philippines is POV. Reconsider. Emico 02:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I have also removed the re-added paragraph about the Trinity. Please read my comments above to find the reason for this. DJ Clayworth 02:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

My entries about the trinity are backed by research. They're staying. Nice tag team. Emico 02:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Raygirvan, of all the berean congregation all over the world, you just by chance picked one from far away Philippines. You true colors are showing. Emico 02:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

We've been through this before. The fact that you don't believe in the Trinity is no reason to put a paragraph about why you don't believe in it into an article about a group of people who do. DJ Clayworth 02:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

My personal belief has got nothing to do with this. It is factual that it was the catholics who decreed the trinity and it is factual that the trinity is not in the bible. The sources I cited clearly states this fact.

This article is not about the particular berean website you support, who by the way do not believe in the trinity. This article is about the Bereans as they started out to be. Do you evagelizing on your own website. Your bias on the side of one particular berean website cannot be denied. Please take your bias somewhere else. Not on wikipedia. Have a nice day. Emico 02:41, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The point is that the Bereans did believe in the Trinity, which makes them exactly like 98% of other Christians. I do not support any Berean website, and had never heard of the Phillipine Bereans (which are the ones you seem to object to) until I read about them in this article about a week ago.

Read the article on the Trinity. It is accepted by most Christians that the concept of the Trinity is in the Bible, even if the word is not. I can explain it to you in detail, but I don't want to do so here.

However this is not the point. Even if you believe that the Trinity is wrong, an article about a group that does believe it is the wrong place to explain why it is wrong. DJ Clayworth 02:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, DJ Clayworth: I'm out of here. I don't need this angst. This is about some kind of religious obsession - (see Talk:Iglesia_ni_Cristo) - and we're not going to be able to get a rational edit or compromise. I think the only thing that would get this article on track would be a ban on Emico editing the page, on user conduct grounds: messy, time-consuming and rarely conclusive. Requesting page protection - Wikipedia:Protection_policy - is another option, but Wikipedia don't like it, and it's just as likely to get protected in the Emico format. At the moment I don't care ever to see the term Bereans again. But let me know if you want my support on the required procedures: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Comment_about_individual_users / Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Example_user. RayGirvan 03:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I understand completely. It is, after all, just an article. Have fun. DJ Clayworth 03:18, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I've examined a few more Google searches on Bereans, and I've reached the conclusion that the Phillipine Bereans are just not noteworthy enough in the grand scheme of things to warrant a separate mention. There appear to be dozens of them, and the Phillipine ones are way downt he list of importance. Feel free to disagree. DJ Clayworth 03:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Ho hum. I say again, there is no evidence that Berean churches do not believe in the Trinity. Here are some websites supporting the view that they do believe it. [2] [3] [4] [5] DJ Clayworth 01:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

As before, if you want to state that the Bereans, Barclayists or modern, did not believe in the Trinity you must provide evidence for this. If you do not then your edits amount to vandalism. DJ Clayworth 18:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Emico. Those are good links, clearly showing that the Berean church mentioned is Trinitarian. DJ Clayworth 16:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Too bad. It's a good fight(so to speak) and 4 against 1 is'nt so bad. One of them reverts for another to get around the 3 revert rule. He does'nt even read what he's reverting! loser. But I do have to do some personal stuff. My comments are in User_talk:Emico. I don't want to put them here where the vandals are. Emico 18:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• Get over yourself. I read what you wrote! Major omissions without consensus have the right to be reverted. The 3RR page states the 3RR specifically does not apply to groups. If the edit really needs reverting, somebody else will probably do it—and that will serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which of two competing versions is correct. I'm not getting around the 3RR. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 22:05, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

• • Don't be a sore loser. You did get around the 3 revert rule. and you're not reading what you revert. Here, for your reading pleasure, when I asked you why you removed my entries, you said "I don't know what you are talking about. Nor do I care. I made the revert so that Onlytofind won't get the Bereans article locked.". Wait for a weasel reply. They always do it the same way. The other guy was first very tough, then he went nice while inserting his own view on the article. When I busted him, he called backup. That's the way it was. But I have to do other things, so we let it pass this time. Emico 23:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• • • Think what you want, Emico. Just like RayGirvan, I can no longer be bothered to argue with you. I made my point and I bolded what I said in your talk page. Leave me alone and don't bait me again. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 00:05, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Don't worry about that. You, on the other should stop blaiming someone else for blindly doing what the juvenile told you to do. It was you who paraded in this article like a know-it-all. I never baited you. You came here on your own. Good riddance. Emico 00:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For the good of the article, and all its main editors, I feel compelled to bring the full reason for getting involved with this article in the first place. For those who are curious of why I reverted the page: Besides the points I gave to Emico above, look at the differences between the version before and after my reversion, the references, external links and categories were blanked out and omitted. I took it as damage to the structure of the article, and decided to revert it. Since I looked at the history of the page, I wanted to avoid any 3RR problems, since Onlytofind and Emico were in a 3RR situation and I didn't want a freeze on either the article or anybody's posting priviages. So I reverted it instead. After forgetting about it, Emico baits me by sending a message to my talk page, accusing me of being biased: "Do you have a problem with the facts about the trinity being decreed by the catholics? If you claim to be fair and unbiased, then show it. Emico 15:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)". I answered his question, not knowing what he was talking about. Soon after, based on his conduct with other wikipedians as well as myself, I planned on issuing a Request for Comment on him. Instead I found out someone already started, but didn't fill out the actual form. I added the template, endorced it and encouraged whoever I though started the RFC to finish it.

From this point on, with the exception of developing a Disambiguation page, I no longer want to be invloved with the Bereans article. I'm sorry for any inconvienience this has caused for anybody. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 01:56, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Once again LBMixPro is passing blame. You should instead be a man and accept responsibility for what you did. You came on to a developing article and took sides. I did'nt bait you. Out of (misplaced)respect instead of reverting your revert, I called your attention by posting on your talk. You should have investigated instead of lashing out. Again you display here your lack of care for what you do: "I answered his question, not knowing what he was talking about.". Instead of fixing what you did, you lashed out again and complain about my conduct? Do you even read what the juvenile is spewing out ? Good riddance. Next time, think before you act. And stop writing self-serving speeches. Emico 14:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Sneaky edit juvenile. So that's how you do it, two edits, one after another. To be strictly honest, you should state what you remove. I guess you're not that kind of person. Emico 19:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Your personal attacks are far too many, and is doing NOTHING for the article, WP, or yourself. All it's doing is causing everybody invloved to take this dispute to the "highest court" in WP. I apologize for anything which may have pissed you off. But please, I don't want to continue an argument over a revert which probably doesn't affect the article's current standing. I would like to put the issue to rest. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 22:22, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Before I jump to conclusions, Emico. Why did you erase the talk about the diambig page? --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 22:22, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know how I did it until you pointed it out. But I think it's running out of space. I can put it back one but would like someone to check for space first. Emico 22:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Appearently there is about 3 different types of "Bereans" organizations that are/have been in existence. Although they are similar, they are all different. I suggest we turn this article into a disambig page, then link each organization into its own article. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 01:15, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Disaffected

You know what Emico? Maybe I can't find the word 'disaffected' in any web reference about Barclay. Doesn't mean he wasn't disaffected of course, and it's very nitpicking, but I haven't got time to argue. However we should write 'former Presbyterian minister' because he obviously wasn't one at the time he founded the Bereans. DJ Clayworth

Fair enough. "Disaffected" doesn't seem an unreasonable description however; he went on to form his own church after disputes with his bosses and being denied promotion within the Presbyterians. [6] RayGirvan 10:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. AND personal opinions! So now, I nitpick. To avoid this back and forth, you should really practice what you preach. In my short time on wikipedia I've seen what I've thought of as reliable, fair contributors to mere selfish, biased posers. Can you cite the source where you where you find 'former'? Emico 15:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Read the account above. To put it plainer, he was fired. RayGirvan 15:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I wish I have time, but now. Anyway, whatever you declare here is saved. I can comeback some other time. Emico 15:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How simple do we have to make this? Former means 'used to be'. Barclay 'used to be' a Presbyterian minister; then when he founded the Bereans he wasn't one any more. I apologise if English is not your first language Emico, but this is really basic stuff. DJ Clayworth 16:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Very easy! Stick with the sources. On the source I provided, there was no mention of him being 'fired', former or disaffected. If you can point to a source that says these, then fine. If not, then it's an opinion and you're not practicing what you preach, plain and simple. Emico 16:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The presbytery of Fordoun seized this opportunity of gratifying their spleen; they prohibited Mr Barclay from preaching in the kirk of Fettercairn, and used all their influence to prevent him from being employed ... The presbytery carried their hostility against Mr Barclay so far, as to refuse him a certificate of character, which is always done, as a matter of course, when a preacher leaves their bounds. He appealed to the Synod, and afterwards to the Assembly, who found (though he was in no instance accused of any immorality) that the presbytery were justified in withholding the certificate. He had no alternative, and therefore left the communion of the Church of Scotland. [7] RayGirvan 16:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. I guess you're pointing out "refuse him a certificate" means "fired"? I would ask, if he was already 'fired', why did he leave, "left the communion"? Emico 16:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

'Refused him a certificate' essentially means they wouldn't provide a reference, which practically meant he would not get another preaching job in the church. 'left the communion' meant that he left the church, not just as a preacher but as a member. DJ Clayworth 16:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Under UK employment law, this situation is called constructive dismissal. If your employer deliberately makes your working conditions so impossible that you have to leave (ie you're frozen out of the job as Barclay was) it's treated as legally equivalent to being fired: hence my use of the word. BTW the Bereans page ought to make clear that he was formerly a minister's assistant, not a minister. RayGirvan 17:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Did this law exist in John Barclay's time? If yes, then he was fire. If not, he was'nt fired. --Emico 23:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think that as a junior clergyman in a church he might have still been a 'minister'. DJ Clayworth 17:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nitpicking: constantly focussing on small and unimportant details in a critical way. When Ray said 'fired' he was trying to explain to you why we used the word 'former'. His explaining of the 'constructive dismissal' law was trying to explain why 'fired' was appropriate. Emico, you are focussing on something that is two steps removed from anything in the article.

Look the article is fine. Can we just leave it that way and stop arguing? DJ Clayworth 03:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Does the 'no name-calling' apply to everyone, or just me? I know you spelled out my english is not so good, so you should know better the difference between 'fired' and 'leave' and I will not belabor it here. I just wonder why you are so cavalier about Mr Barclay's reputation. I don't know much about him, so I tend be a careful on how I potray him. That's the least I can do for articles I contribute to. If you think this is a small and unimportant detail, then suit yourself. I still think it's wrong. --Emico 14:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, Emico. You do make life difficult for your self, don't you. The point is unimportant because nobody said 'fired' in the article. It was us trying to explain things in simple terms to you. And in fact both are true because Barclay was fired (effectively) from a preaching job and then left the church. DJ Clayworth 13:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now, here's a condescending statement if I ever saw one. But you still cannot back up your claim that he was fired. Your own source he left. I wonder why you would reopen this issue now?--Emico 14:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let me quote what I said above. "'Refused him a certificate' essentially means they wouldn't provide a reference, which practically meant he would not get another preaching job in the church.". So for practical purposes he was fired as a minister. Again quoting myself above, he was fired as a minister, and he then left the church. DJ Clayworth 16:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I really don't want to prolong this. But let me just say that forcing someone to leave by some means may have the same effect as firing someone, meaning getting rid of the person. But they certainly are not the same thing. --Emico 16:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments from The Bereans: Apologetics Research Ministry's webservant

Hi all, I am abuGian webservant of The Bereans: Apologetics Research Ministry I just learned about this controversy so if you would allow me I'll just post my brief comment.

First of all we received no email from Emico. If he did sent us I can't remember receiving it, opening it or reading it. I often get a copy of all emails addressed to this Ministry. Now, regarding a full mailbox, we owe it to the server move we just went through, it doesn't mean we're already stopped serving the public. Thirdly, we have no affiliation to Johhn Barclay's ministry nor are we Roman Catholics. If John Barclay named his ministry "Bereans," it does not follow that we borrowed from John Barclay, after all, a quick look at Acts 17:11 would suggest Barclay and our Ministry both borrowed from the Bible. Lastly, it is not necessarily true that if a ministry is Trinitarian it follows it is a Roman Catholic ministry.

I just couldn't help but laugh at how Emico projected an image of narrow-mindedness in the Editing Talk:Bereans.

FYI, I made some analysis of this controversy myself in our forum: http://thebereans.net/forum/index.php?topic=4422.msg122497#msg122497

Delete OT material

I hate to wade into a pre-existing controversy, but this article has a long section beginning "Perhaps of greater importance is WHICH scriptures are being referred to here".

This section appears to be off-topic, and also does not seem to have a citation. Since it is apparently an argument, not an encyclopedia entry relevant to the topic Bereans, I suggest it should be deleted. Geoffrey.landis 04:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to make the article a little clearer by adding topic headers for the biblical Bereans, the historical Bereans, and the scriptural discussion. I did not delete, edit, or alter any of the text, just moved it to what (I hope!) is an easier-to-follow order. Geoffrey.landis 16:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Three weeks ago I suggested deleting the off-topic material. Since there was no commentary opposing this (in fact, no commentary at all), I am deleting it now. (if you disagree with the deletion, go ahead and revert my 25 July edit.) Geoffrey.landis 23:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bereans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025050750/http://www.thebereanchronicles.com:80/index.html to http://www.thebereanchronicles.com/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050422120441/http://bartleby.com:80/65/be/Bereans.html to http://www.bartleby.com/65/be/Bereans.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050205045220/http://www.catholic.com:80/thisrock/1997/9703fea3.asp to http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703fea3.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)