Where does the claim of 30,000+ protestant denominations come from and what exactly defines a denomination?

Stella1000 said:
But even if you reject that the papacy is that authoritative body serving the universal Church, where is that facility today in Christianity?
In Jesus Christ and the holy, inerrant word of God.
It didn't work. I went to the bible and found the Real Presence "this is my Body. This is my Blood". You went to the bible and found a somewhat version of the Real Presence. Your fellow Carm NC's went to the bible and found a mere symbolic presence. Some found an historic and no longer relevant analogy. Your claim of an authoritative body for unified belief, has no teeth.
 
Yes, Catholics do add to what is in the Scriptures, though in a different way than the Mormons. Catholicism goes beyond what is written. It adds doctrines and teachings found nowhere in Scripture--like the 4 Marian Dogmas; Purgatory; Indulgences; celibate, unmarried clergy; salvation by grace thru faith plus our works....the list goes on.
Those teachings aren't added to the Scriptures. They are taught by the Scriptures.
 
See the role the other apostles played? Especially Paul? Who else was considered a pillar in the early church? James, right? Who made the final decision in Acts 15? Peter or James? James, right?
Absolutely! And there you see the biblical basis for the episcopacy. The apostles in union with Peter taught the Faith and headed the Church.
Oh, that is a load of nonsense! You are just reading into the passages what you want to see, not what is really there. After Paul's conversion, the rest of Acts focuses mostly on Paul and HIS works.
And this has to do with anything how?
Seems to me, HE would be a better candidate for popehood than Peter, if popes were biblical. But they are not.
Peter and Paul were the twin pillar apostles. Peter was the apostle to the Jews, Paul to the gentiles. But only one could be pope and that was Peter's role, despite Paul's very important role.
 
Absolutely! And there you see the biblical basis for the episcopacy. The apostles in union with Peter taught the Faith and headed the Church.

And this has to do with anything how?

Peter and Paul were the twin pillar apostles. Peter was the apostle to the Jews, Paul to the gentiles. But only one could be pope and that was Peter's role, despite Paul's very important role.
Yep there is leadership in the NT but we are not to follow false leaders, sexually immoral leaders etc. I mean your pope is an example of who not to follow, your leaders became part of those sexually immoral leaders by not exposing the sin. This means your institution should be replacing its bad leaders and it doesn't.
 
Yep there is leadership in the NT but we are not to follow false leaders, sexually immoral leaders etc. I mean your pope is an example of who not to follow, your leaders became part of those sexually immoral leaders by not exposing the sin. This means your institution should be replacing its bad leaders and it doesn't.
The RCC is a self-sustaining, self-protecting organization, so it will not replace its leaders. Anyway, there is no guarantee that the replacements will be any better! ?

--Rich
 
It didn't work. I went to the bible and found the Real Presence "this is my Body. This is my Blood". You went to the bible and found a somewhat version of the Real Presence. Your fellow Carm NC's went to the bible and found a mere symbolic presence. Some found an historic and no longer relevant analogy. Your claim of an authoritative body for unified belief, has no teeth.
That's because you ignore the context and take literally what is said in that one verse taken out of context of the passage from 6:40 to where Jesus say to the disciples that He was speaking spiritually. But you won't accept Jesus's words because you have preconceived rcc notions. Scripture ALWAYS explains itself but you would rather listen to the lies of your apostate leaders who lie and tell you that only they have authority to interpret scripture. They DO NOT want you to read and understand scripture because then you would know your leaders to be the liars they are. Rcs think we correct them because we hate catholics, but nothing can be further from the truth. We see that the most ungodly doctrines of the rcc are leading ya'll to an eternal hell, and believe it are not, we CARE for your lost souls!!
 
I've read, on these very threads, the claim that protestantism is a mass of disunity comprised of 30,000+ denominations. I'm curious what a denomination is defined as. Is it a self governing church? Is it a church that maintains a jurisdiction (semi-autonomous)? I'm just seeking what rc's define as a denomination to justify the claim there are 30,000+ protestant denominations. Now, that said, if we can get past that question, what statistical data base do rc's refer to when they claim there are 30,000+ protestant denominations. There must be an authoritative resource that has compiled such data and I'm curious to see just who/what that is for rc's and how dependable it is as a resource.
I believe that number was started by the Roman Catholic Church and is a lie used to promote their idolatrous church IMO.
 
Why is this thread in the Roman Catholicism forum? It has nothing to do with Roman Catholicism. Shouldn't it be moved to a more general forum on Protestantism? The claim about many denominations comes from many sources, not just Catholics.
 
Why is this thread in the Roman Catholicism forum? It has nothing to do with Roman Catholicism. Shouldn't it be moved to a more general forum on Protestantism? The claim about many denominations comes from many sources, not just Catholics.
The 30,000 denominations nonsense is a common debating tactic of RC’s to claim falsely they are the one true church. The thread is exactly where it belongs.
 
Back
Top