|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Posted on 11/13/2014 6:49:41 PM PST by Heart-Rest
How Many Protestant Denominations Are There?
Partial List of 5000+ Protestant Denominations by Name
How Many Protestant Denominations Are There? The 20,000 / 30,000 numbers and David Barrett's statistics
"The Facts and Stats on "33,000 Denominations" The 20,000 / 30,000 numbers and David Barrett's statistics
Part II
(Above links derived from here) ===> ("How Many Protestant Denominations Are There?")
⛪⛪⛪⛪⛪⛪⛪⛪⛪⛪
There are many, many more Protestant denominations out there, not just those reflected in the links above. How many? Well, nobody really knows for sure exactly how many Protestant denominations exist at any given point in time, because after you get done counting the first forty or fifty thousand, several thousand more new ones pop up here and there all over the place, like popping pop corn! :-)
We Catholics love all our Protestant brothers and sisters (no matter how many denominations or "non-denominations" they belong to), and we simply want to share the fullness of the truth with them, so that they can find the precious jewel (the "pearl of great price") that we have already found (by the Grace of God). With that in mind, the following song is dedicated to all our beloved Protestant brothers and sisters, and their ever-increasing number of distinct and ever-changing denominations with contradictory, mutually-exclusive, incompatible teachings. (And, no, that is not a bunch of cardinals singing that song!)
☺
(Song -- "Bless 'em All!")
(This song is a tribute to all our beloved Protestant brothers and sisters, no matter what denomination -- or "non-denomination" -- they are currently in.)
"I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment." (1 Corinthians 1:10)
All religion is false, including Catholicism, because man cannot reach God through religion.
Acts 17:11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
Paul says they were. I'll take his word for it.
Nice little Catch 22 they have there.
Don't be hypocritical.
First the apostle taught them. They could check if his quotations from the scriptures were found there, whether he quoted accurately or not. They could not judge if his teaching were true or false. They were unqualified to judge apostolic teaching. They could believe, or not believe. I think you know Luke wrote Acts, not Paul (although Paul is quoted frequently).
Incorrect. Jerome didn't "compile" the Bible, he translated from the Hebrew and Greek texts into Latin, fixing the previous botched attempt of the Vulgate:
The translation was largely the work of St. Jerome, who, in 382, was commissioned by Pope Damasus I to revise the Vetus Latina ("Old Latin") collection of Biblical texts in Latin then in use by the Church. Once published, it was widely adopted and eventually eclipsed the Vetus Latina and, by the 13th century, was known as the "versio vulgata" [1] (the "version commonly-used") or, more simply, in Latin as vulgata or in Greek as βουλγάτα ("Vulgate").
It was made the Catholic Church's official Latin Bible as a consequence of the Council of Trent (1545–63). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate
If you are right and there wasn't a recognized "Bible" until the late fourth century, then why do so many early church leaders write about and refer to those specific books as all being sacred Scripture? How did Jerome even know what books TO retranslate into Latin? What was Jesus talking about when he referred to "the Scriptures" or "the law and the prophets"? Why continue to make assertions when you have been correct repeatedly? Do you not bother to ever read?
My questions remain unanswered:
What is the Biblical teaching on birth control? Give me the verse which explains it? If you can’t provide one, then please tell me how Protestants - using the Bible alone - opposed birth control for almost 400 years and now - using the Bible alone - say it is okay. The Bible did not change. What did?
“I just showed you were it does and provided the Greek support for it.”
False. You never once posted even a single verse that shows the use of Bible (a proper noun). It was inevitable you would fail, of course.
With some people, it's all a game - preset like a trap for anyone who attempts to answer presuming a question is asked honestly. It seldom is. Instead, it only serves as a chance to belittle, mock and insult an opponent all so the challenger can feel smug in his/her superiority. Hardly an attitude a Christian should have especially on a website Religion Forum where anyone can read the exchange.
Challenging someone to find a Bible verse that uses the word "Bible", for example, is this kind of trap. Yes, you posted verses that used the word biblios (the Greek for book/books) and, yes, it IS used referring to the sacred Scriptures IN the Scriptures. But...that's not, presumably, what is asked for. You MUST show a passage IN the Bible that specifically says "Bible", else you are wrong. Perhaps certain people don't deserve an answer, since past experience shows they never wanted one in the first place? Having fun yet???
“As soon as you show the word Trinity in scripture.”
Why would I have to do that when I’m not the one espousing the heretical doctrine of sola scriptura? You are.
“Run down those rabbit trails on your own.”
You’re the rabbit, the trail is all yours, and the rabbit hole is heretical Protestant doctrine.
“The term *mother of God* isn’t in the Bible either, but Catholics insist on using it.”
Because it’s valid and true.
“Don’t be hypocritical.”
I don’t believe in sola scriptura so it is literally impossible for me to be hypocritical on this score. Only those who believe in sola scriptura could be hypocritical in this matter and they, of course, always are.
That's just it, RCs don't NEED to show where a term, word or doctrine is found in Scripture since their church can decide on its own what is the truth and they have authority over the Scriptures. It's sola Scripturalists that insist doctrines be based on Scriptural warrant - most of the early church fathers did as well, but they don't count either unless they have to be taken from a shelf and dusted off to prove some point RCs at the time declare is "tradition". Does the word "scam" seem appropriate?
Show me where it is prohibited in scripture. Or can you not explain it without using church traditions as a reference? I gave you my reply on the matter. Your church practices it but of course they don’t call it that. They simply call it natural family planning. Call it what you may the end result is the same. The natural family planning method is used to prevent conception and that is a fact. We just disagree on the methods that’s all.
“Show me where it is prohibited in scripture.”
I don’t have to. Protestants until the 1930s always said it was prohibited by scripture. So, if the Bible hasn’t changed, what did change?
“Or can you not explain it without using church traditions as a reference?”
It doesn’t matter if I can or can’t explain it since the teaching must logically be the same as it always was in any case. You have to ask yourself what does the Bible teach and what has it always taught on the subject and why are all Protestants now doing differently than what their ancestors always believed that the Bible taught. None of this - in that regard - is my problem in any way, shape or form since I don’t believe in sola scriptura.
“I gave you my reply on the matter.”
You didn’t even come close to answering the questions - proving I was right all along: sola scriptura does not work.
“Your church practices it but of course they don’t call it that. They simply call it natural family planning.”
No. Birth Control is not NFP. Only someone ignorant of NFP would say that short term use of NFP for grave reasons is birth control.
“Call it what you may the end result is the same.”
Clearly it is not. All the Catholic families I know which follow orthodox teachings have between 5 and 13 children. A friend of mine just had her 7th child. She turned 30 in May. Her sister in law, who is 36, just had her 8th child.
“The natural family planning method is used to prevent conception and that is a fact.”
No, actually it’s used to space them, not indefinitely prevent them (as shown by my friends mentioned above). But my how you are running from your seemingly inability to answer the questions I put forward.
“We just disagree on the methods that’s all.”
Nope. Birth Control is wrong. This isn’t about “method”. The very fact that you can’t even use the correct terminology shows you are out of your element to say the least. I guess the sola scriptura heresy isn’t helping you much now is it?
Whatever.
Wow. What a curious thing to write, considering what some people have written on this thread. When the other side does it, it's a "trap" and a "game".
The Romanists conflate Elizabeth's greeting to Mary in Luke 1:43 to derive this relationship they like to frighten their constituents with.
And yes, it's important that you pointed out that we whose allegiance is to Christ, when discussing Scripture, should always keep in mind that they reserve to themselves the sole authority say what the Scripture means, robbing Scripture of its obvious ability to speak for and certify itself.
Applying a literal, grammatical, historical, cultural, contextual hermeneutic (method of interpretation) makes sense to us, but not to them because they have abandoned such a limiting method.
They, when they came across Scripture passages they were not able to understand yet could not acknowledge their ignorance, long ago adopted their own allegorical methodology which allows them to make out of any Scripture passage what they wish.
Recognizing that, we should not be discomfited by the strange interpretations they come up with.
One such case is the non-Scriptural device of attributing Mary with being the mother of God (the same God who existed before humans and created them), by stretching Elizabeth's salutation.
The reason Scripture doesn't work when debating Romanists is that they do not allow Scripture--The Glorious Word of The God, unadorned by extrabiblical tradition--to have its majestic rulership over their "faith," as boatbums has indicated, all created beings (including Mary) should.
The word which we translate as "bible" or "book" is found in the New Testament, if you read it in the Koine, as it was initially written, and it is the first word of the NT (the second in English).
* * * * *
G976
βίβλος
biblos
Thayer Definition:
1) a written book, a roll, a scroll
Part of Speech: noun neuter
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: primitive root
Citing in TDNT: 1:615, 106
* * * * *
G976
βίβλος
biblos
bib'-los
Properly the inner bark of the papyrus plant, that is, (by implication) a sheet or scroll of writing: - book.
* * * * *
Found in the New Testament:
βίβλος = the very first word of the NT, in Mt. 1:1
Mk. 12:26; Lk. 3:4, 20:42; Ac. 1:20, 7:42: 19:19; Php. 4:3; Rev. 3:5, 13:8, 20:15, 22:19
(Found three times in Rev. 22:19)
* * * * *
Also found in the NT:
G974
βιβλιαρίδιον
bibliaridion
bib-lee-ar-id'-ee-on
A diminutive of G975; a booklet: - little book.
G975
βιβλίον
biblion
bib-lee'-on
A diminutive of G976; a roll: - bill, book, scroll, writing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.