MERGED: Where are these 40,000 plus Protestant denominations

[tqualey]

Now, hold on Tomster, you’re off the mark on that one!

Ginger2 has a post where there are at least 160,000! Now, at first I though she had got a spasm in her right hand ring finger, hitting so many 0’s - but, no, she wrote back and said this was the number! And, in no time at all it would hit 200,000!

So, even though the thread lists 40,000 … and your post addresses 44,000 … I think we should go with Ginger2’s estimate. Far be it from me to short her on developing denominations!

God bless

You know e-man, when you stop to think about, it can be safely said that the number of Protestant denominations far exceeds the 44,000 mark.

Given the heretical Protestant dogma of private judgment, each individual Protestant is free to interpret Scriptures as he or she sees fit. That being so, each individual Protestant is a church unto himself/herself. There is no authoritative, binding, teaching authority within Protestantism. Oh, there are suggestions as to what one should believe, but, each individual within Protestantism is free to believe what they will and still be a member in good standing with their particular ecclesial communion. Or, if they don’t like what they are hearing in one particular sect, they are free to move on and either start their own sect or just latch on to another one or end up sitting under a tree somewhere trying to figure out what the Bible really says. It’s basically do it yourself Christianity.

Ah, the fatal flaw of Protestantism, private judgment. Every individual is a pope unto themself.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ric,

Sounds like you have had a rought day… “Scrap(ing) the Lord’s words…” would be an exceptionally bad idea. In my opinion, if you look at what the Catholic Church is doing in the baptism of infants and children and adults - and then what follows - I think you will see the Hand of God moving and guiding His Church.

God bless

Perhaps we should scrap the Lords words then, as they have no meaning today as you all point out.
Perhaps we should re write the doctrine of repent and be baptized.

Ric

 

[Ginger2]

Now, hold on Tomster, you’re off the mark on that one!

Ginger2 has a post where there are at least 160,000! Now, at first I though she had got a spasm in her right hand ring finger, hitting so many 0’s - but, no, she wrote back and said this was the number! And, in no time at all it would hit 200,000!

So, even though the thread lists 40,000 … and your post addresses 44,000 … I think we should go with Ginger2’s estimate. Far be it from me to short her on developing denominations!

God bless

LOL Too funny!!! But I really can’t take the credit as I got those numbers from a Catholic’s Post. Just glad I could keep you updated on the current Catholic count of Protestant Denominations!

Please do use those latest numbers.

 

[jmcrae]

Sorry to butt in, but when you say it is in the Bible can you please provide thew reference. Thanks,

Luke 17:11-19

Jesus heals them in their bodies, and then instructs them to go and show themselves to the priest, for spiritual healing. Leprosy was thought to have been caused by sin.

 

[Ginger2]

Luke 17:11-19

Jesus heals them in their bodies, and then instructs them to go and show themselves to the priest, for spiritual healing. Leprosy was thought to have been caused by sin.

So they went to the Jewish priest for spiritual healing?

Thank you for that one reference, but I was referring to all the comments as I Riccardo asked all questions referencing whether or not they are in the Scriptures.

 

[Todd520]

Luke 17:11-19

Jesus heals them in their bodies, and then instructs them to go and show themselves to the priest, for spiritual healing. Leprosy was thought to have been caused by sin.

JM, I question if you have the right context.

Jesus spoke to the sick men on the road and told them to go see their priests. I’m guessing he wanted to demonstrate a miracle to the local priests. Notice he was peturbed that only one came back to praise God and thank him (all the spiritual healing he needed, he had)

Net, what Jesus said here has no direction for Christianity beyond "your faith has made you well"

 

[jmcrae]

So they went to the Jewish priest for spiritual healing?

Yes, just as today we continue to go to Christian priests, for the same reason.

Thank you for that one reference, but I was referring to all the comments as I Riccardo asked all questions referencing whether or not they are in the Scriptures.

I’m not quite sure what you mean.

Jesus established the Sacrament of Reconciliation on the Cross.

Jesus appointed the Apostles as priests and Bishops, for the purpose of administering the Sacraments, and to oversee His Church. It’s hard to pick out a verse here or there - this is the story of how the Church came into existence, and is the theme of the whole New Testament.

 

[jmcrae]

JM, I question if you have the right context.

Jesus spoke to the sick men on the road and told them to go see their priests. I’m guessing he wanted to demonstrate a miracle to the local priests. Notice he was peturbed that only one came back to praise God and thank him (all the spiritual healing he needed, he had)

Net, what Jesus said here has no direction for Christianity beyond "your faith has made you well"

The incident can also be understood as an allegory of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and many of the Early Fathers used it in this way.

 

[Ginger2]

I’m not quite sure what you mean.
QUOTE]

Riccardo had a list of “this is” and This isn’t" in the Bible. You responded to them all and I was asking for references for all of them.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ric,

It does not look lke this day is getting any better for you! Here, let me see if I can help.

Repent and be baptized is not my action?

No, these are the inspired words of Scripture. Baptism makes us adopted Children of God - so that God is our Father and Christ is our Brother and the Holy Spirit dwells within us.

Let’s look at this in human terms: If you were to go out and adopt a child - and that child did something wrong - and you forgave them them - you would not have re-adopt them! Actually, the bond we have with God is much stronger than that between a parent and a child! Humans can curse their children, disinherit them, and even murder them - God does not do anything like that. Through baptism we are permanently marked as one of His Children.

Go to confession is bible?

As a matter of fact it is! Go to John 20:20-22 and see where The Risen Christ, breathed on the Apostles and they received the Holy Spirit and Christ gave them the power to forgive (or not forgive) the sins of men

Go to the father is not bible?

Actually, the whole idea behind the NT is that Christ actually fulfilled the OT and made an entirely new covenant with us. We are now to go to the ordained priest with genuine contrition for having offended God, to physically (as opposed to meantally) confess our sins to the priest and then receive the absolution and penance from the priest.

Go to Christ is not bible?

This part is so truly beautiful, Ric, when you think about how much Christ loved us that He gave us His Body and Blood to eat so that He could be with us always. Not only that, but, He commanded us to eat His Flesh if we are to have life in us! There are some who just think God is limited or was laying about this - but, you read John 6 and see how he multiplied the loaves and fed 5,000 men, how he calmed a storm and walked on water - all demonstrating that He was God and had power over nature! Yes, God can do all things - even ‘hide’ under the appearance of Bread and Wine! He gave us His word - look at what Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote about the Last Supper: “Take and eat THIS IS MY BODY” Do** you **think He lied?

But go to the priest is?

yes, Ric, read all of John 20 so there is no problem understanding the context and power of Christ’s wrods!

My God have mercy on you.

Actually, Ric, may He have mercy on all of us!

God bless

Gal 1:6-9

 

[elvisman]

I took a couple early quotes and a few specific Scriptures that clearly state every thin necessary for manking concerning God is written down. Yes there are some things Jesus did that are not written down, but the Bible says everything necessasary for our salvation is written.

And I noticed you couldn’t find even one thing to dispute that fact! So what if you come up with a verse that says "hold fast to the traditions whether you learned that orally or from the written Word. It doesn’t say there are things not written anywhere that are ONLY passed along orally. Instead it says everything necessary IS WRITTEN down for us.

Obviously the oral tradition he was speaking of are an oral transmission of the written Word.

WRONG, Ginger.

The verses you provided - and others concerning the necessity to adhere to the Scriptures are mostly about the OLD Testament as I already pointed out to you.
Paul doesn’t speak to the sufficiency of the NEW Testament because - as I ALSO pointed out - most of the NT hadn’t even been written yet.

**Most of what the Epistle writers were referring to was the Old Testament. They were telling the early Church that they could learn from Jesus in the OT because THERE WAS NO NT YET. **

This historical fact obliterates your argument and bolsters, instead - the Catholic position about Oral Tradition.

 

[elvisman]

You should have read the thread before you accuse me of not answering something. I am not going to take the time to find each specific post for you.

However, I will give you a point to start from and you can scroll down and read each of my posts until you see all that I have said on this specific point

Start at post #320

*Be sure to pause read post #321 and others by jmcrae, also

You didn’t debunk anything in those posts - you just disagreed.

 

[jmcrae]

jmcrae;7108754:

I’m not quite sure what you mean.
QUOTE]

Riccardo had a list of “this is” and This isn’t" in the Bible. You responded to them all and I was asking for references for all of them.

All of it is answered in the same passage of Scripture, which according to St. John Chrysostom and other Early Fathers, can also be understood as an allegory of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, as well as being an account of one of the things that Jesus did.

 

[Riccardo]

I’ll stick to the bible if you dont mind.

Not one pasage have you brought to me that states all the questions i asked.

Flesh and blood forgives my sins then? God has nothing to do with it, as he has left to man to decide, a sinful man at that.

Is this why the Pope is called by the CC “our Lord God the Pope”, and another God on earth. The NY Catechism calls him "Vicar of Christ, the head of the entire church…Infallible ruler, the founder of dogams…universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the suupreme judge of heaven and earth…God himself on earth. So this man has the power to forgive me my sins?

Provide me the scriptures for this?

Ric

 

[jmcrae]

I’ll stick to the bible if you dont mind.

Not one pasage have you brought to me that states all the questions i asked.

Flesh and blood forgives my sins then? God has nothing to do with it, as he has left to man to decide, a sinful man at that.

It’s not “instead of.” God has appointed the man to do this. Should he disobey God? Should we?

Is this why the Pope is called by the CC “our Lord God the Pope”, and another God on earth.

This is not true.

The NY Catechism calls him "Vicar of Christ, the head of the entire church…Infallible ruler, the founder of dogams…universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the suupreme judge of heaven and earth…God himself on earth.

I don’t read the NY Catechism. What does it say in the Universal Catechism?

So this man has the power to forgive me my sins?

From God, yes.

Provide me the scriptures for this?

Matthew 16:18-19; John 21:15-19. Jesus appointed Peter to be the head of the Church, gave him the protection from all error, the authority to make decisions for the Church, and gave him command over all of His followers.

Our Pope today is Peter’s successor, in a direct and unbroken line.

 

[Dokimas]

You won’t find anything at all on the subject of the canonicity of the Bible, in the Bible - and yet, you accept it - while at the same time rejecting every other teaching of the people who put the Bible together.

Either trust them in all things - the Bible, the Sacraments, the disciplines of the Church, Mary, and everything - or don’t trust them in anything, and throw out the Bible along with Mary and the Sacraments and the disciplines of the Church, and everything else.

It makes absolutely no sense to say that the Bible is true, but that none of these other things are true, unless there is some other way to know what the Bible is, other than by listening to the Church. (There isn’t. People have tried.)

I disagree with your logic. That’s like saying Paul, Peter, James and the other writers of the letters of the NT has to be perfect in all their life or the Bible can’t be without error. Wrong logic IMO.

In-other-words it makes sense that the Bible is true and the other stuff may or may not be true.

 

[Dokimas]

I’ve4 already responded to that specific comment. I get tired of repeating myself. So, instead of my reposting my answer, why don’t you go through and read what I’ve already responded to that comment… while you’re at it, you might also want to look at what jmcrae (Ithink that’s who it was) has said.

I understand exactly what you mean. Let me give you a mathematical example.

What’s 2 + 2? Answer: 3 +1.

Response: you didn’t give an answer.

Reresponse: I sure did give a true answer. Just because you don’t like my answer, doesn’t mean it’s not a real, viable answer.

 

[Dokimas]

Please point me to your post where you addressed this.

Ginger, seems to me Elvis wants you to do his homework.

 

[jmcrae]

I disagree with your logic. That’s like saying Paul, Peter, James and the other writers of the letters of the NT has to be perfect in all their life or the Bible can’t be without error. Wrong logic IMO.

Not at all. But one has to assume that everything they believed about Jesus was really true, right?

In-other-words it makes sense that the Bible is true and the other stuff may or may not be true.

You would then need a different way of knowing that the Bible is true, though, and that all these other things are not true.

If we say, how we know that the Bible is true is that the Pope made an infallible declaration based on the findings of the Council of Carthage, who examined the Holy Tradition and found it to be so, then what you are saying is that how we know it’s true, is that the Pope is infallible, first, and that the Councils are reliable.

But, if you say that the Pope cannot be infallible, and Councils are sometimes unreliable, then you have to have a third criteria, to show that although the Council of Ephesus was wrong about Mary, the Council of Carthage had to be right about the Bible, and that although Pope Pius was wrong about Mary and was wrong to make an infallible declaration based on the findings of the Council of Ephesus with regard to what the Holy Tradition says about Mary, Pope Innocent I was right about the Bible, and the Council of Carthage proves it because of what the Holy Tradition gives us with regard to the Scriptures.

Where is your third criteria?

What makes the difference between an infallible proclamation based on the findings of the Council of Ephesus, and an infallible proclamation based on the findings of the Council of Cartthage?

 

[Dokimas]

It has been my experience in the past that Ginger2 sometimes has to consult her pastor or another person to get her facts straight, you know, she has to get the oral tradition “of the day” from her current pastor’s menu.

Where do you go to get your answers; to the writings of the CC, correct? Seems you’re really laughing at yourself on this one.