If the meaning of the Bible is so clear...

[Lapey]

and back to the OP

Point 1

I’ve looked into where that number is coming from:
for ex:
"Methodists (23 million members, 123 denominations), "

but now I see how they are counting denominations

The United Methodist in America , that’s 1

Methodist Church of Southern Africa that’s another one
Igreja Metodista Unida in Mozambique. is another one
United Methodist Church in the Philippines in another one
Methodist Church in Ireland is another one

etc…etc…

Point 2

they are counting non denominations as denominations

Words have meanings:
Is a non-binding legal document binding?
Is a non- resident of New York a resident of New York?
Is a non-fat yogurt a yogurt with fat?
Is a non- denominational church a denomination?

Denomination defined:
thefreedictionary.com/denomination

“A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.”

“a group of religious congregations having its own organization and a distinctive faith”

By definition, a “denomination” can NOT be a single church.

By definition a non- denominational church can NOT be a denomination

I would suspect that over 95% of ALL Protestants are affiliated with the top 20 denominations , over 99% with the top 30.

That’s a big difference from the 30,000 being quoted.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline_(Protestant

21 million just in the top 7 denominations

Point #3
over 70% percent of the people in the world (that about 5 billion people) live in countries where there is no religious freedom. the government tells you what to believe.

Most of us posting on these boards live in a country where you can become a Minister by answering an ad from the back of a Rolling Stone magazine.

I thank God for the freedom I have in my country.
But, like any freedom or liberty, it can be abused.
The 30,000 has less to do with the Protestant Reformation and more to do with the freedoms (and tax laws)in a country.

Or do you want the “State” to only give their religious “stamp of approval” to the selected few?

Do you think one guy declaring that his trailer is the Church of Harley- riding Eggplant- farmers of Vineland, New Jersey should really count as a denomination?

so please stop the nonsense of saying there are 33000+ Protestant denominations.

Remember :
21 million just in the top 7 denominations

So the local “non-denominational” is not a denomination? I most definitely believe it is. There is different doctrine and tradition, it is stand alone, it is a denomination. Sorry but it is.

Although I will offer this, if the stand alone non-denom is not a denomination then the Catholic Church is the first non-denominational church to be in existence; it includes several rites which belong to the stand alone Church with Jesus Christ as the Head of the Body of Christ!

 

[RedBert]

bill pick,

When the Pope speaks or writes (and it is translated into English) do you understand what he said?

Even when it is a complicated subject, could you ask someone more knowledgeable than your self to explain it?

Do you need an interpreter to understand what the Pope says?

 

[Lapey]

bill pick,

When the Pope speaks or writes (and it is translated into English) do you understand what he said?

Even when it is a complicated subject, could you ask someone more knowledgeable than your self to explain it?

Do you need an interpreter to understand what the Pope says?

The Popes writings are translated in many languages, what is your point? Interpreting scripture and papal writings are the same? Is that your assertion?

 

[RedBert]

So the local “non-denominational” is not a denomination? I most definitely believe it is. There is different doctrine and tradition, it is stand alone, it is a denomination. Sorry but it is.

Although I will offer this, if the stand alone non-denom is not a denomination then the Catholic Church is the first non-denominational church to be in existence; it includes several rites which belong to the stand alone Church with Jesus Christ as the Head of the Body of Christ!

wow, not even dictionary definitions of the word “denomination” are acceptable.

take a step back a look at the stance you are taking.

there is no such thing as a denomination of one!!

Denomination defined:
thefreedictionary.com/denomination

“A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.”

“**a group **of religious congregations having its own organization and a distinctive faith”

 

[RedBert]

The Popes writings are translated in many languages, what is your point? Interpreting scripture and papal writings are the same? Is that your assertion?

the point is IF you can understand what the current Pope is saying ( even when it is an ex cathedra statement) without an interpreter, why do you need an interpreter to tell you what the first Pope meant?

 

[Libertarian_FL]

Its not that complicated there are three persons in the Trinity so more than one approach to come to God. The only thing that matters is does a church or path lead to Jesus or not?

These silly differences are not a biggy if one church says the Lord’s Supper happened and this other one it didn’t happen is that really worth fighting over?

How many heretics did the Roman Catholic Church destroy over what amounts to petter differences, how many Catholics died at Protestant hands I mean its not really an issue.

As for the number of denominations and churches its clear there cannot be a church of one, and a denomination assumes an organized structure of churches and a leadership. I’d rather say there are many roads that could be of one person winding his or her way to God through Jesus. To make the case what if a child was abandoned on an island alone for their whole life from age twelve and could read and there was a Bible, would their learning about God on their own not be legitimate if they were never given a path like being baptized Catholic is God that petty or demanding?

Rather his teacher would be the Holy Spirit alone if its good for the young man it should be as good for us.

 

[RedBert]

and back to the OP

and so easily interpreted–and the Holy Spirt leads every Christian to interpret if for themselves,then why are there over 32,000 Prostestants denominations, and millions of indivodual Prostestants,all interpreting the Bible differently and Jesus started one Church.

Its easy to point out the different denominations of the Protestant church:

What’s better; different beliefs under one roof ore different beliefs under different roofs?

I prefer to worship with people who share my beliefs rather than worshiping with people who don’t.

The FACT is there is more likely to UNITY of belief under a roof of Protestant church than a Catholic church.

Who is more likely to believe in the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, or the Deity of Christ: A Catholic or Protestant?

**
Eighty-five percent (85%) of Catholics believe Jesus rose from the dead along with 86% of Protestants and 97% of Evangelical Christians.

Eighty-nine percent (89%) of Catholics also think Jesus was the son of God. That view is shared by 90% of Protestants and 97% of Evangelical Christians.

Finally, 87% of Catholics, 95% of Protestants and all Evangelical Christians surveyed believe that Jesus Christ walked the earth.**

rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/holidays/april_2009/79_believe_jesus_christ_rose_from_the_dead

The pollsters reported that:
"Despite the Roman Catholic Church’s historical emphasis on the theological importance of Mary, Catholics in the poll were somewhat less likely than Protestants to believe in thevirgin birth. Theologians attributed this to the doctrine in many Protestant churches that the Bible must be accepted as literal truth."
**
read it again it case you missed it.**

religioustolerance.org/virgin_b7.htm

from a conservative Catholic April 2009

" Church-going Catholics are far more likely that Church-going non-Catholics (almost all Protestant) to accept immoral behavior.
I do not find this surprising. Other polls I have seen over the years reveal similar patterns.
Why?
The failure of catechesis over the past two generations is one of the principal reasons. Making felt banners does not help produce a reverence for God and the moral law. Catechesis may have improved in the schools, but fewer Catholic children are going to Catholics schools or to religious education classes. Instead they are picking up their attitudes from their poorly-catechized parents, among whom are prominent politicians.
But this still does not fully explain the difference. Why are Church-going Protestants better able to resist accepting prevalent secular attitudes to morality? Catholics once submitted to the teaching authority of the Church; many Catholics, even those who regularly attend church, have clearly rejected that, and have nothing to replace it except the standards of American society. Perhaps** Protestantism, built upon a veneration of the Bible, has been better able to resist the moral acids of secularism**. Catholics claim that the living authority of the magisterium is better able to meet moral challenges, but this does not in fact seem to be the case. Roma locuta est, but very few Catholics are listening. When the Bible speaks, (and it does speak clearly on many issues) many Protestants listen.
-lee podles

podles.org/dialogue/183-183.htm

In EVERY survey or poll a protestant is more like to believe in a Biblical truth than a Catholic
look at table 2 here at

harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=982

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Its not that complicated there are three persons in the Trinity so more than one approach to come to God. The only thing that matters is does a church or path lead to Jesus or not?

These silly differences are not a biggy if one church says the Lord’s Supper happened and this other one it didn’t happen is that really worth fighting over?

How many heretics did the Roman Catholic Church destroy over what amounts to petter differences, how many Catholics died at Protestant hands I mean its not really an issue.

As for the number of denominations and churches its clear there cannot be a church of one, and a denomination assumes an organized structure of churches and a leadership. I’d rather say there are many roads that could be of one person winding his or her way to God through Jesus. To make the case what if a child was abandoned on an island alone for their whole life from age twelve and could read and there was a Bible, would their learning about God on their own not be legitimate if they were never given a path like being baptized Catholic is God that petty or demanding?

Rather his teacher would be the Holy Spirit alone if its good for the young man it should be as good for us.

Well, let’s see, the Ethiopian eunuch had scriptures, yet he didn’t understand what he was reading until Philip preached to him.

I believe all Christians are connected through our faith in Jesus. Protestantism came from the Catholic Church and those that left took the parts they believed. Since then, new Churches have started, but they only took another small part from the Church they split from, still those parts came from the Catholic Church. Where does scriptures teach that we only have to be in agreement on ‘essentials’? Why was it important for Paul to teach we need to be of the same mind and judgment?

 

[Lapey]

the point is IF you can understand what the current Pope is saying ( even when it is an ex cathedra statement) without an interpreter, why do you need an interpreter to tell you what the first Pope meant?

Come on Bert, are you serious? There are thousands of different views of the same scriptures and you want to use this to make your empty point? You are not living in reality.

By your example there should only be one denomination because all would know the one meaning for the scripture, to say different is contrary to what you said.

And btw, I was employing a little absurdity to illustrate your absurd assertion that there are only hundreds of denominations and that the non denoms are not considered a denomination. This argument is weak and pointless; I don’t care what the dictionary calls it. It only matters what reality is. If a pastor breaks away from the denom in which he doesn’t agree with and forms another, it is a new denomination. Doesn’t really matter if it fits your definition.

A split is a split; there are tens of thousands of splits in the Church.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

and back to the OP

Its easy to point out the different denominations of the Protestant church:

What’s better; different beliefs under one roof ore different beliefs under different roofs?

I prefer to worship with people who share my beliefs rather than worshiping with people who don’t.

The FACT is there is more likely to UNITY of belief under a roof of Protestant church than a Catholic church.

Who is more likely to believe in the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, or the Deity of Christ: A Catholic or Protestant?

**
Eighty-five percent (85%) of Catholics believe Jesus rose from the dead along with 86% of Protestants and 97% of Evangelical Christians.

Eighty-nine percent (89%) of Catholics also think Jesus was the son of God. That view is shared by 90% of Protestants and 97% of Evangelical Christians.

Finally, 87% of Catholics, 95% of Protestants and all Evangelical Christians surveyed believe that Jesus Christ walked the earth.**

rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/holidays/april_2009/79_believe_jesus_christ_rose_from_the_dead

The pollsters reported that:
"Despite the Roman Catholic Church’s historical emphasis on the theological importance of Mary, Catholics in the poll were somewhat less likely than Protestants to believe in thevirgin birth. Theologians attributed this to the doctrine in many Protestant churches that the Bible must be accepted as literal truth."
**
read it again it case you missed it.**

religioustolerance.org/virgin_b7.htm

from a conservative Catholic April 2009

" Church-going Catholics are far more likely that Church-going non-Catholics (almost all Protestant) to accept immoral behavior.
I do not find this surprising. Other polls I have seen over the years reveal similar patterns.
Why?
The failure of catechesis over the past two generations is one of the principal reasons. Making felt banners does not help produce a reverence for God and the moral law. Catechesis may have improved in the schools, but fewer Catholic children are going to Catholics schools or to religious education classes. Instead they are picking up their attitudes from their poorly-catechized parents, among whom are prominent politicians.
But this still does not fully explain the difference. Why are Church-going Protestants better able to resist accepting prevalent secular attitudes to morality? Catholics once submitted to the teaching authority of the Church; many Catholics, even those who regularly attend church, have clearly rejected that, and have nothing to replace it except the standards of American society. Perhaps** Protestantism, built upon a veneration of the Bible, has been better able to resist the moral acids of secularism**. Catholics claim that the living authority of the magisterium is better able to meet moral challenges, but this does not in fact seem to be the case. Roma locuta est, but very few Catholics are listening. When the Bible speaks, (and it does speak clearly on many issues) many Protestants listen.
-lee podles

podles.org/dialogue/183-183.htm

In EVERY survey or poll a protestant is more like to believe in a Biblical truth than a Catholic
look at table 2 here at

harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=982

But we still have the problem of the scriptures. They don’t teach that the Bible is the only authority and they don’t teach that we should interpret them for ourselves. These are man made traditions that are not Biblical.

Jesus never wrote anything, with the exception of something He wrote in the sand, and we don’t know what that was. He never ordered anything scribed and commissioned the Apostles to go out and PREACH the Gospels.

Why does the inspired word of God tell us that the Church of the living God is the pillar and ground of truth, instead of scriptures?

Why does the inspired word of God tell us that the manifold wisdom of God maybe made known through the Church instead of scriptures?

Why did Jesus teach us to take disputes to the Church instead of scriptures?

Now, we move on to Paul’s teaching that we should be of the same mind and judgement; of the same accord. Where does he teach the different Churches different truths or even support that thought?

Yes, all Christians are connected in their faith in Christ, but there are many differences. Where can we see in scriptures those differences that are acceptable? It’s important as we’re working out our salvation with fear and trembling, also as Paul taught us to do.

 

[RedBert]

and so easily interpreted–and the Holy Spirt leads every Christian to interpret if for themselves,then why are there over 32,000 Prostestants denominations, and millions of indivodual Prostestants,all interpreting the Bible differently and Jesus started one Church.

Many of the denominations have do to with the STYLE of worship

In Protestantism, if I and enough others prefer a service in Latin, then we can start one
If I prefer to hear a service with an electric guitar and others want a service with an organ. ,
I want to worship on a Saturday night , and others say it has to be Sunday
If I want to be “still and know the Lord” and others want to” make a joyful noise” ,

from Saint Augustine:
On the essentials , unity
on the nonessentials , liberty,
and in all things, charity.

Romans 14
1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. **2One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. …**5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. …

13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin

 

[RedBert]

Come on Bert, are you serious? There are thousands of different views of the same scriptures and you want to use this to make your empty point? You are not living in reality.

; I don’t care what the dictionary calls it. It only matters what reality is. If a pastor breaks away from the denom in which he doesn’t agree with and forms another, it is a new denomination. Doesn’t really matter if it fits your definition.

A split is a split; there are tens of thousands of splits in the Church.

too funny:

“I DON"T CARE WHAT WORDS MEAN!”

 

[RedBert]

But we still have the problem of the scriptures. They don’t teach that the Bible is the only authority and they don’t teach that we should interpret them for ourselves. These are man made traditions that are not Biblical.

Jesus never wrote anything, with the exception of something He wrote in the sand, and we don’t know what that was. He never ordered anything scribed and commissioned the Apostles to go out and PREACH the Gospels.

Why does the inspired word of God tell us that the Church of the living God is the pillar and ground of truth, instead of scriptures?

Why does the inspired word of God tell us that the manifold wisdom of God maybe made known through the Church instead of scriptures?

Why did Jesus teach us to take disputes to the Church instead of scriptures?

Now, we move on to Paul’s teaching that we should be of the same mind and judgement; of the same accord. Where does he teach the different Churches different truths or even support that thought?

Yes, all Christians are connected in their faith in Christ, but there are many differences. Where can we see in scriptures those differences that are acceptable? It’s important as we’re working out our salvation with fear and trembling, also as Paul taught us to do.

Please note that Paul; has to correct Peter and the Church ( the Pillar of Truth ) in his letters: within a few few years after being founded.

Note that Jesus himself had to correct 5 of the 7 churches in Revelation.

did God’s chosen people ( the Jews) go off course?

 

[Lapey]

and back to the OP

Its easy to point out the different denominations of the Protestant church:

What’s better; different beliefs under one roof ore different beliefs under different roofs?

I prefer to worship with people who share my beliefs rather than worshiping with people who don’t.

The FACT is there is more likely to UNITY of belief under a roof of Protestant church than a Catholic church.

Who is more likely to believe in the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, or the Deity of Christ: A Catholic or Protestant?

**
Eighty-five percent (85%) of Catholics believe Jesus rose from the dead along with 86% of Protestants and 97% of Evangelical Christians.

Eighty-nine percent (89%) of Catholics also think Jesus was the son of God. That view is shared by 90% of Protestants and 97% of Evangelical Christians.

Finally, 87% of Catholics, 95% of Protestants and all Evangelical Christians surveyed believe that Jesus Christ walked the earth.**

rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/holidays/april_2009/79_believe_jesus_christ_rose_from_the_dead

The pollsters reported that:
"Despite the Roman Catholic Church’s historical emphasis on the theological importance of Mary, Catholics in the poll were somewhat less likely than Protestants to believe in thevirgin birth. Theologians attributed this to the doctrine in many Protestant churches that the Bible must be accepted as literal truth."
**
read it again it case you missed it.**

religioustolerance.org/virgin_b7.htm

from a conservative Catholic April 2009

" Church-going Catholics are far more likely that Church-going non-Catholics (almost all Protestant) to accept immoral behavior.
I do not find this surprising. Other polls I have seen over the years reveal similar patterns.
Why?
The failure of catechesis over the past two generations is one of the principal reasons. Making felt banners does not help produce a reverence for God and the moral law. Catechesis may have improved in the schools, but fewer Catholic children are going to Catholics schools or to religious education classes. Instead they are picking up their attitudes from their poorly-catechized parents, among whom are prominent politicians.
But this still does not fully explain the difference. Why are Church-going Protestants better able to resist accepting prevalent secular attitudes to morality? Catholics once submitted to the teaching authority of the Church; many Catholics, even those who regularly attend church, have clearly rejected that, and have nothing to replace it except the standards of American society. Perhaps** Protestantism, built upon a veneration of the Bible, has been better able to resist the moral acids of secularism**. Catholics claim that the living authority of the magisterium is better able to meet moral challenges, but this does not in fact seem to be the case. Roma locuta est, but very few Catholics are listening. When the Bible speaks, (and it does speak clearly on many issues) many Protestants listen.
-lee podles

podles.org/dialogue/183-183.htm

In EVERY survey or poll a protestant is more like to believe in a Biblical truth than a Catholic
look at table 2 here at

harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=982

Excuse me but you can site all the polls you want but you will not have me believe that protestants are less likely to lead immoral lives. The world I live in is filled with protestants who lead immoral lives. There are Catholics as well who do not follow Jesus’ moral teachings. But this is not exclusive to Catholics and to say so proves you sources are flawed.

The Catholic Church wrote the New Testament and produced the canon, in which you describe as literal truth, but you reject its teachings, I guess you are the problem. You lead people away from the truth and cite statistics to prove you are right in doing so.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Please note that Paul; has to correct Peter and the Church ( the Pillar of Truth ) in his letters: within a few few years after being founded.

Note that Jesus himself had to correct 5 of the 7 churches in Revelation.

did God’s chosen people ( the Jews) go off course?

Did it take 1500 years for Protestants to bring it back on course?

Paul counseled Peter and Peter, as any good Pope would do, listened to his counsel and agreed with him. What’s your point and why the avoidance of all my questions?

 

[RedBert]

But we still have the problem of the scriptures. They don’t teach that the Bible is the only authority and they don’t teach that we should interpret them for ourselves. These are man made traditions that are not Biblical.
…
Why did Jesus teach us to take disputes to the Church instead of scriptures?

…

When Christ had to correct the Pharisees, he used SCRIPTURE.
When Christ confronted Satan , he used SCRIPTURE.
When the eyes were opened on the road to Emmaus , Christ used SCRIPTURE.
When someone shows the main and plain things in SCRIPTURE to a Catholic, the reply is “ that’s your interpretation”

 

[Lapey]

too funny:

“I DON"T CARE WHAT WORDS MEAN!”

It’s not that simple and you know this. A split is a split. You don’t want to use the term “denomination” that’s fine. What do you call the thousands of branches or factions within the Baptist church? Would all those branches be one denomination? I don’t think so.

We need to check our pride occasionally.

 

[RedBert]

The Catholic Church wrote the New Testament and produced the canon,

I’m out of here on that one!!!

 

[Lapey]

I’m out of here on that one!!!

Thought that would stir you up. People who built the Church as Christ designated be built on the rock wrote the New Testament. The same Church compiled the canon as you see it today. You cannot find historical proof to refute this statement. Notice I didn’t say reformed proof.

There is proof in historical writings and Church writings to back this statement up.

Please if you choose to grace us with your return, teach me how I err.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

When Christ had to correct the Pharisees, he used SCRIPTURE.
When Christ confronted Satan , he used SCRIPTURE.
When the eyes were opened on the road to Emmaus , Christ used SCRIPTURE.
When someone shows the main and plain things in SCRIPTURE to a Catholic, the reply is “ that’s your interpretation”

When Christ corrected interpretations, He used scriptures.

Mat 22:29 And Jesus answering, said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.

On the road to Emmaus, He preached to them and opened scriptures to them.

The problem in the Catholic view is the many private interpretations that do not agree. The Holy Spirit cannot lie and the Holy Spirit cannot tell different truths and it still be truth. If there are disagreements, that means some are unlearned, unstable or unwise. We can’t depend on your interpretation until you can satisfy us that your interpretation is the correct interpretation. How is that done?

**2Pe 3:15 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation: as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you:
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
2Pe 3:17 You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness. **

The eunuch had to have Jesus preached to Him to understand scriptures.

Nehemiah 8 shows there was always an authority over God’s word to explain the scriptures to the people and cause them to understand.

Scriptures does not teach people to interpret them for themselves. If it’s not in scriptures, it is a man made tradition that is not Biblical.