Why there are so many denominations

[GreatArye]

[quote='Christian' pid='274718' dateline='1334809098']
Simple answer Drich. Its all for money. When you feel one denomination is not profitable, jump ship to another. That is why I left my Church and now non-denominations and the true son of Christ. You don't need a group of people to worship Lord. It can be done alone, in the confines of our own house.

Worshiping God from your house is not excluded in biblical Christianity. As we are told where ever two or more gather together "there I am as well." Just remember not to forsake the assembling of ourselves one to another.

---

Drich, if you are using Matthew 18:20 to validate your claim that worship of God in ones owns home is supported by Christian Scripture, then you have not made your case. 

Look around any informal religious argument and you will find zealots that will defend any attacks against their book by claiming that the verse was taken out of context or that the verse is taken too litterally and does not represent "true Christianity" (whatever that means), but those same zealots have no problem supporting their own views with cherry-picked verses.

If you have read the chapter with any bit of neutrality and skepticism, you would see that "wherever two or more are gathered 'I am there'" was meant to justify any church authority to exile or banish heretics or heathens (cf. Mat 18:15-20). If anything you only shown that an accuser needs more than 1 witness, which is nothing new or extraordinary. This is only one example of misinterpretation, but it is ample to show to why so many self-proclaimed speakers of god claim what they say is just and right.

Why are there vast amounts of denominations? I would argue that it is because of secularism that we have this phenomena of an overwhelmingly vast religious pluralism within one religious umbrella. Denominations just have the freedom to express their own beliefs. 1 Cor 1:12 illustrates that early on there were factions within the churches. Heck, there was division even before Jesus allegedly picked up the cross. We have Paul vs Peter, Paul vs James and a plethora of other individuals, but in a larger scale, the first century for Christianity was a tug-of-war for religious-political power, the Jewish Christians vs Gnosticism vs proto-orthodoxy (they won by the way). 

One question I have been asked, "if there was many different groups in early Christianity, why is there only one unified book"? The answer is because the proto-orthodox burned the opposing books, persecuted the heretics in order to stay in power and kept the masses in the dark. The proto-orthodox eventually became more commonly known as the Catholic church. Also, Christian scripture is also not very unified but thats a different story.

[Minimalist]

Actually, what was mainly found after the original 7 scrolls were piles of fragments which were painstakingly...and hopefully accurately... reassembled by scholars in the ensuing 50 years.

They are categorized here.

http://paolo-deadseascrolls.blogspot.com/


But for now we are mainly dealing with xtian wet dreams and here the DSS throw decidedly cold water on the hopes of those looking for some hint of their godboy at Qumran.

In fact about 20% of the scrolls were soon published, but the remainder were held out for 35 years, this gave some scholars the impression that important truths were hidden in the Scrolls, so important that the Vatican was trying to avoid the publication.
This Theory was very soon declared false, when the Scrolls were finally published, and at the end the Scholars arrived to the conclusion that there is nothing in the scrolls to show that Christianity came from Qumran.

[radorth]

KichigaiNeko's creed:

"Fables should be taught as fables, myths as myths, and miracles as poetic fancies. To teach superstitions as truths is a most terrible thing."

Don't pick on Jesus-mythers like that man.

If they want to believe in the miraculous collusion of at least 10,000 early Christians to hide the facts, without a single one saying it was a myth, let them. But then as one atheist told me, after being asked why nobody said anything, "They must have burned the evidence."

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

KichigaiNeko's creed:

"Fables should be taught as fables, myths as myths, and miracles as poetic fancies. To teach superstitions as truths is a most terrible thing."

Don't pick on Jesus-mythers like that man.

If they want to believe in the miraculous collusion of at least 10,000 early Christians to hide the facts, without a single one saying it was a myth, let them. But then as one atheist told me, after being asked why nobody said anything, "They must have burned the evidence."

I smell a strawman. I've never gotten the idea of a "collusion" the way you picture it from what I've read of the myth position so far. Anyone who's better familiar than me with the myth position care to explain to this guy why he's wrong?

[KichigaiNeko]

@ radorth...

---

You didn't read the rest of my sig radorth.... the quote is from Hypatia You know, that intelligent, accomplished "slut" that was butchered by Jesus freaks.

[Reforged]

You do understand that each translation is not a re interpretation of the last? so your dates mean nothing as far as the content of the next bible is concerned. Each translation is literally taken from the oldest manuscript with the greatest provenance. One that has been under girded and confirmed with other copies of itself. No translation is a copy or reinterpretation of the preceding translation. Even the most modern copy of the bible is still taken from the originals.

Otherwise how is it you think I can go back and illiterate the original words in the Greek and Hebrew? Like the whole bit on Benevolence where i show God does not offer unconditional love He offers Agape' Love.

Agape' is a one of the 4 Koine Greek terms describing a very specific type of love. Which by it's definition is conditional. I know this because We have bibles still in the original Greek to look at and analyze. Then on top of that we have concordances and lexicons that break down each and every word and it places them side by side with the original and a break down of the intended use of the word and meaning.

I did not wake up one morning and decided to come here and start arguements as some have suggested. I have been working on the exegessis of the bible for the last 10 or more years. I am here because I am in a position to give what some of you are looking for.

Keeping in mind you just put entire paragraphs into attempting to convince that the current version of the Bible is almost exactly the same as the original and therefore should be regarded as the word of God...
How do you feel about stoning unruly children and womens rights?
Don't be shy now. :-)

(Laptop broke, finally found a replacement.)

[Drich]

You do understand that each translation is not a re interpretation of the last? so your dates mean nothing as far as the content of the next bible is concerned. Each translation is literally taken from the oldest manuscript with the greatest provenance. One that has been under girded and confirmed with other copies of itself. No translation is a copy or reinterpretation of the preceding translation. Even the most modern copy of the bible is still taken from the originals.

Otherwise how is it you think I can go back and illiterate the original words in the Greek and Hebrew? Like the whole bit on Benevolence where i show God does not offer unconditional love He offers Agape' Love.

Agape' is a one of the 4 Koine Greek terms describing a very specific type of love. Which by it's definition is conditional. I know this because We have bibles still in the original Greek to look at and analyze. Then on top of that we have concordances and lexicons that break down each and every word and it places them side by side with the original and a break down of the intended use of the word and meaning.

I did not wake up one morning and decided to come here and start arguements as some have suggested. I have been working on the exegessis of the bible for the last 10 or more years. I am here because I am in a position to give what some of you are looking for.

Keeping in mind you just put entire paragraphs into attempting to convince that the current version of the Bible is almost exactly the same as the original and therefore should be regarded as the word of God...
How do you feel about stoning unruly children and womens rights?
Don't be shy now. :-)

(Laptop broke, finally found a replacement.)

If I was an OT Jew then I would be all for it. as I am not and because I claim allegiance to Christianity, I follow the example Christ sets before us as per John 8. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...rsion=NKJV (Which is sourced from the Bible, and as we all know: is almost exactly the same as the original and therefore should be regarded as the word of God... )

[FallentoReason]

Which is sourced from the Bible, and as we all know: is almost exactly the same as the original and therefore should be regarded as the word of God...

It's always good to look up the original Greek word from time to time though, as the word sometimes is used in a completely different context to what it is in English.

[NoMoreFaith]

If they want to believe in the miraculous collusion of at least 10,000 early Christians to hide the facts, without a single one saying it was a myth, let them.

Also, while they're at it, if they want to believe in the miraculous collusion of at least 100,000 Scientologists to hide the facts, without a single one saying it was a fiction, let them.

You see what I did there...

[Thor]

If I was an OT Jew then I would be all for it. as I am not and because I claim allegiance to Christianity, I follow the example Christ sets before us as per John 8. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...rsion=NKJV (Which is sourced from the Bible, and as we all know: is almost exactly the same as the original and therefore should be regarded as the word of God... )

I love it when Bible thumpers disavow half of their own book....