Actually, I refused to continue that discussion because the list you provided (not to mention the argument itself, and the methodology used to create both) was so laughably bad and so fraught with error, that I decided it just wasn't worth my time trying to help you salvage a legitimate and viable argument out of it, just so you could hurl it anew at me. I much prefer the Nerf-tipped spears that you're currently using.
Ok, well putting aside your ad hominems, you are now admitting that there are at least 2 denominations on my list that are clearly Protestant, and yet doctrinally different right?
Or not? If not, then explain how 2 denominations on my list are the same, doctrinally speaking.
Or, say that none on my list are Protestant, or only one, and then I’ll laugh at you. :) You see, whether you realize it or not, you are in a catch 22 of your own construction. Either you must admit that at least 2 of the denominations on my list are Protestant, and therefore admit that this “invisible church” is nonsense, or, you must deny that there are at least 2 Protestant denominations on the list, and therefore, demonstrate an ignorance of historical Protestantism on your part.
Of course, you have a third option, and claim that my argument is weak (as you just did) which I suppose would make YOURSELF feel better, but trust me, it doesn’t make you look like a winner to any rational lurker.