There can obviously be more than one interpretation of scripture. Many times, that is OK. Many scriptures have multiple meanings, and are intended to be of use in different ways. However, obviously some questions only have one answer. That doesn’t mean we need to know that answer.
As an example, what is the EXACT interrelation involved in the Trinity? Although there are a number of verses that apply, God didn’t give us that answer. Therefor, it is a bad question to ask - although many in the church have done so, with many bitter disagreements.
This is an example of the sinfulness of man, not the imperfection of the Word.
The Eucharist - literally flesh and blood, or spiritually flesh and blood? I think the interpretation is very obvious - he is speaking spiritually, just as he was when talking about how he who eats and drinks will not hunger or thirst. I also think a literal interpretation is contrary to ‘do this in remembrance of me’, and it encourages the belief that we sacrifice Jesus many times. But the point of scripture is that we need to observe it, not try to understand every part of it in a philosophical manner.
One of the great errors of the young church was to fall prey to philosophy - trying to make God understandable, when no human can do so.
Some things are pretty clear cut. Are we supposed to focus on Mary, and call her Queen of Heaven and pray to her? Nope! Jesus made that very clear in Luke 11. He made it clear every time he addressed her...”Woman”. The Apostles made it very clear by making no mention of her at all - none. Zero. Not a single line in any epistle mentions her in any way. Meanwhile, many verses make it clear that we are to approach JESUS with confidence. We don’t need a mediator to Him. Jesus doesn’t meed Mary to explain human needs to Him. God is the King, and Mary isn’t His Mother or Spouse. She isn’t “Mrs God”. In a physical sense she was His mother, but not in a spiritual sense - Jesus existed before the world began.
Catholics say they do not worship Mary, but having read the declaration of her feast day, I’d like to know - if that isn’t worship, what is? If a woman crying, “Blessed are the breasts that nursed you” was misguided, and focusing on the wrong thing, then what is “Let all, therefore, try to approach with greater trust the throne of grace and mercy of our Queen and Mother, and beg for strength in adversity, light in darkness, consolation in sorrow; above all let them strive to free themselves from the slavery of sin and offer an unceasing homage, filled with filial loyalty, to their Queenly Mother. Let her churches be thronged by the faithful, her feast-days honored; may the beads of the Rosary be in the hands of all; may Christians gather, in small numbers and large, to sing her praises in churches, in homes, in hospitals, in prisons. May Mary’s name be held in highest reverence, a name sweeter than honey and more precious than jewels; may none utter blasphemous words, the sign of a defiled soul, against that name graced with such dignity and revered for its motherly goodness; let no one be so bold as to speak a syllable which lacks the respect due to her name. 49. All, according to their state, should strive to bring alive the wondrous virtues of our heavenly Queen and most loving Mother through constant effort of mind and manner. Thus will it come about that all Christians, in honoring and imitating their sublime Queen and Mother, will realize they are truly brothers...”?
Purgatory is another doctrine that isn’t optional. It isn’t that it just isn’t mentioned in scripture, it contradicts the very basis of our salvation. If God’s forgiveness is only partial, then the sacrifice of Jesus wasn’t whole. We might as well go back to killing goats.
The concept of indulgences is another. Forgiveness for sale? One might as well bottle the wine used in the Eucharist, and offer it for sale...buy the BIG bottle, if your sins are many!
Now, about the 30,000 denominations - they don’t exist. The guy who developed that number used a definition of denomination not shared by anyone else. He says there are 8,196 Protestant denominations, and 2,942 Roman Catholic denominations. In his counting, a lot depends on how ‘jurisdiction’ is defined. Since each church in the Southern Baptist Convention is autonomous, every church in my denomination is considered a denomination of its own...and when you use a standard like that, 30-40,000 may be possible.
Yet if you took the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith to a Baptist Church, perhaps 80-90% would agree to it. The only major split I know of among Baptists is free will vs predestination, and the large majority of Baptists I’ve known had no real opinion on either.
However, you might notice that the numbers for Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox don’t add up anywhere close to 30,000 - that figure includes many faith traditions that have nothing to do with Christianity.
You just made my point; you are your own pope. There can be only one Truth and one interpretation of that particular truth. The Eucharist IS literally flesh and blood. How dow we know? Because our Lord told us so. John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.
Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).
His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).
Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. His listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction? On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.
And what was their reaction? In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. John 6:66 tells us that "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically. But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood."