hatsoff

That is an interesting statement. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps it is you who are mistaken, and stuck in dogmatic beliefs? If you ever have considered that possibility, you probably chastised yourself for it, because questioning your religious faith is sinful, right?

Be careful not to make baseless accusations. They may come back to bite you in the you-know-what.

diana

You have this right. I commend you. I made a choice to simply disregard all unsupported claims, whether or not I wished to believe they were so. My other choice seemed to be "suffer guilt and confusion because I could not make myself accept unsupported claims, no matter how much I wished they were so."

I'm much happier simply applying logic across the board without trying to change my conclusions based on emotions. And yes, I made the choice to do so.

d

mdd344

Actually, that relates the structure. As I recall, and I'll check my files to be sure, the members there had been meeting since about 1790. I believe a plague on the wall there signifies such.

mdd344

Diana,
Your mistaken. After speaking with you, you will notice that I did give the references, and even later the exact link, when asked by someone else. I did try and avoid using my 'j' source (Holden) since you said it would not be treated fairly. I succeeded in that a great deal. The paper by Conklin was on Tektronics, but not by Holden. I used it quite a bit, as I noted.

Talulah

This article is a good source of information on the Philidelphia church and their origins.

http://www.therestorationmovement.com/oldphilhist.htm

Apparently they were orginally influenced by another Restorationist Leader - James O'Kelly.

Wikipedia lists these influencial leaders of the Movement.

hatsoff

Mdd, I commend you for sticking through this for as long as you have. Most Christians run away at the first sign of pressure.

Nevertheless, you have given us a long string of untenable assertions. And what's maddening is that you don't seem to understand *any* of your countless errors. You're a slave to your religion. You obviously can't engage in objective discussion, because by definition an objective discussion requires you to put aside your pre-existing beliefs.

Realize it. Admit it. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is the truth.

Sauron

Can one of the mods split the discussion about the origins of the Church of Christ off to another thread?

It would make more sense to keep this thread focused on the question of the reliability of the book of Daniel.

Tx.

David B

I normally avoid making fun of the typos of others, being far from immune to them myself.

But I do love 'plague' in this context

David B

diana

How interesting that COCers are quick to point to other COCs and claim they aren't true CsOC on a regular basis (because they're too "liberal," they use musical instruments, etc). However, when confronted with the problem of the unbroken chain of COCs in history, they will point to any group who has the right name and claims to "follow the Bible" (of course, this is pretty easy; every Christian church claims to follow the Bible).

Apparently, "True Christian" has a variable definition, depending upon the immediate needs of the "True Christian" who uses it.

And I noticed that, yet again, you have avoided the Koran question. To wit:

d

hatsoff

Diana, I think what he's saying is that it doesn't matter if there's an unbroken chain, not that there *was* an unbroken chain.

And yes, of course "Christian" has a variable definition. But I really don't think you're going to get through to him using that approach.