Why are there 33,839 different Christian denominations?

[Zzyzx]

If Christianity is based upon the Bible, and if the Bible is “the infallible word of god” (or even the fallible word of god) why are 33,830 different Christian denominations recognized by the World Christian Encyclopedia?

Supposedly these denominations are all worshiping the same god from the same (or similar) ancient text. How can one god be “infallibly correct” in 33,830 different ways?

If there are at least 33,000 different “interpretations” of “god’s word”, it seems as though any interpretation can be just as valid as any other and words can be “redefined” to mean exactly the opposite of their common meaning.

[arayhay]

And yet I insist on being humble enough to say I need a yardstick to verify that my interpretation is not a heresy. You proudly proclaim that YOU know when someone contradicts The Scripture. The question is do we contradict The Scripture or your private interpretation of it? Forget not:
Jas 4:6 God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.

arayhay;
NO THE QUESTION IS; WHY DO YOU TRUST THE TRADITIONS WHEN YOU CAN'T YOU BUILD A BRIDGE BETWEEN THE APOSTLES, THE SCRIPTURES AND YOUR TRADITIONS ???? I'll begin with the first and fore most reason this bridge can't be built. Because its not to be found anywhere outside of this warped and hatful orthodoxy. No I don't 'proudly' proclaim anything. You just fail to see the REASON in what I am saying, so you label it pride. Your PRIDE is showing in spades, AND ITS BLOCKING YOUR VIEW OF THE TRUTH. Blotting out the Son.

arayhay
Here the Messiah deflates your 'so called necessity' for traditions plainly.

Mat 5:19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 15:9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'"

Mat 19:17 And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments."

Mat 22:40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."

Joh 14:15 "If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

Joh 14:21 Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him."

Joh 15:10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.

Mar 7:5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?"
Mar 7:6 And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, "'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;
Mar 7:7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'
Mar 7:8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men."
Mar 7:9 And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!

arayhay
You also fail to show HOW traditions make the Scriptures easier to understand, or do. They can but traditions can cross a line separating usefulness and overreaching, so as to ADD to the Scriptures something not only unintended in the first place, but worse, they can override Scripture as to annul its very purpose.

Deu 12:32 "Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it.

arayhay
So you've stated that traditions are equal to Scripture, and then you tear down Scripture without fouling up your traditions. How can this be. When I challenge this oddity that's when, you attack me personally. But when the Messiah contradicts you, you point the accusatory figure at me as if I am on my own. LOL. You should be sued for lack of support. LOL. How do you reconcile this ??? I haven't a clue. Oh yeah, you don't, but you try to blame your wiping boy heretic. in fact its your kind that have accused the so called Heretic, and manifested this false challenged to what Jesus has said, [begining with a half truth is begining with a lie] to create the meaning that you want from His words. Then these pretend meanings can invent support from what is your departure from Scripture, trying to convey a the resulting and faulty conclusion. The heretic is there, but not in the form you put him in. This then is where the misplacement of the truth drops them [the orthodox of this ilk] through a crack so that they lose what they claimed to be seeking all the long, the fulfilment of The Gospel God made with the Nation of Israel. But ignorance does not make you free from catching the resulting disease and death. This is quite a uninformative way of thinking. There is no safety net to catch you. No foundation to be built upon. Your self serving, and falsely created traditions, and the fervor it generated, only results in displacement of the truth of God's word. The fact is, You/and your kind have actually 'mangled' what His words plainly mean to suite a vile hatred for the Jewish people. Resulting in an unwitting separation from the Nation of Israel, and the necessary truths He states about them. You condemn your-SELFS with heresy's you can't support when challenged and seem to think that they don't need support or defence. This line of thinking confines you in the abis created by your abuse of the Scriptures. But your accusation is pointless from its beginning, because these verses can not be changed beyond recognition in a reasonable mind at all. They survive intact without you or your traditions. So you must attempt to contradict the Messiah with the phantom heretic and phantom conflict of your own making otherwise your lies don't appear legitimate. Thus your NEED for a heretic, in this case of Jewish description serves a dual purpose for you. One it allows for hatred of the Jews. and Two it creates a conflict between the Messiah and the Jews that was not there. Yes there is a conflict between the Messiah ans SOME Jews. But it is exaggerated by this kind of christian reasoning so as to exile the Jews from the covenants. But your obtuse circular reasoning never finds its mark because its aim is SELF contained and self-destructive. A bind of contradictions that results in making the errors YOUR OWN. That is, orthodoxy shoots its-self in the foot by attacking the Jews. Not recognizing their need for inclusion in Israel. Orthodoxy loses sight of this truth, and a proper perspective of its-self by taking this wrong approach to foundational landmarks. One that they don't realize is OUTSIDE looking in, not inside looking out. To reiterate; this point is fatally lost on them, for they think they are aiming at something OUTSIDE of the truth, but their beliefs are what is outside of the truth. And they don't see their own bombs going off all around them. But their bighting off their nose to spite their face is very apparent when one considers that they have in fact abandoned truth and reason from a Biblical framework. Not presenting any facts that could be corroborated as evidence, [outside their own framework]. You've sold out to these traditions of mans making.

That's dishonest. You've accepted and are promoting a LIE.

your flagrantly void of any compunction. Which I find deplorable.




Deu 30:11 "For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off.
Deu 30:12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?'
Deu 30:13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?'
Deu 30:14 But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.

how could God give man something incomplete and expect us TO DO IT,or figure it out ?? You fail to address this crucial point.

Smersh
So the question arises if there are so many fakes is there an original? Clearly there has to be original otherwise what would they model fakes on.

How do we identify the original? Simple - authenticity.

I would argue that Apostles have retained the true essence of The Teaching of Christ. Because they lived very close in terms of time and space.

Therefore he is not a Christian who doesn't obey and recognize the rules of Apostles.

He is not a Christian who doesn't recognize and obey decision of The Seven Ecumenical councils and specifically The Symbol of Faith the concentrated belief of The Church:

arayhay
Your premise is correct, the original is where we find authenticity. The Apostles are a great place to start. But you've failed to show any true link from the Apostles to your traditions. But your huge leap from the Apostles to these councils is merely monologue. It fails any true test of authenticity. You've abandoned Scripture as any prof of a link because Scripture contradicts your claims.
All the 'prof' you claim that links the two is faulty rhetoric unsupportable by Scripture. Jumping over hundreds of years and pointing an accusatory figure at the very people sent by God to be a light to the world is self destructive. Your orthodox approach is nothing more than a reproach to God and His truth as set forth in Scripture.

Luk 6:26 "Woe to you, when all people speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.
Luk 6:27 "But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
Luk 6:28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.


Thus the need for your TRADITIONS are to support something contradictory to what God has put in place. And because your traditions end up undermining the very words of God the Father and the Messiah, Your foundation is exposed as quicksand.

Smersh
There cannot be variations and different interpretations of The Truth. It is either truth or it is not.

arayhay
YOUR CREED IS TRUE, BUT THE WAY YOU USE IT CONTRADICTS THE SCRIPTURES THAT MESSIAH SPEAKS DIRECTLY TO THE SITUATION AND YOU SUPPORT IT WITH THE TRADITIONS OF MAN SO AS TO BETRAY THE VERY TRUTH YOU CLAIM TO UPHOLD.


[

b]Mt 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. [/b]

This is why YOUR gospel is a false gospel. For if Jesus Christ / Yeshua HaMessiach is not the Messiah of Israel, He's not the Messiah at all. He said that He came TO SEEK AND SAVE THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL.

Gal 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel--
Gal 1:7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

The orthodox gospel is not a Gospel at all. Until You can show a link between traditions and what Scripture says, you've failed to establish any cognitive reason to follow your premise.

arayhay
Who or why would you, or anyone want to relish a god who says one thing to the Jews and one thing to the church, and call himself CONSISTENT ?? Why would anyone want a god who has a double standard when it comes to how he deals with mankind ?? This is the slippery slope that christian's found when they implemented their impatiently constructed and obstructive doctrines in opposition to The Torah.

arayhay
Rev 2:9 I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

Luk 1:5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah. And he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.
Luk 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord.
Luk 1:7 But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were advanced in years.



Would you say you are a Jew Like these two ?? Or not ?? Here Jesus is saying; ONE MUST BE A TRUE JEW.

Luke 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stoniest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

35 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.[/quote]

THE OPERATIVE IS UNTIL. He will return to Yerusalam for Israel AS A WHOLE NATION some day.

[Okieshowedem]

It is a fact that they can not all be right.
Which makes it another fact that the TRUE teaching of the Hebrew Scriptures are not found in any of them.
The confusion comes from the translators.
Many men have found a few truths and built those denominations on these truths.
The English translation are not faithful to the Hebrew Scriptures.
The Bible is not the Hebrew Scriptures it is a translation of the Scriptures.
It is mixed with righteousness and evil.
The Hebrew Scriptures teach one FAITH from Gen.1:1 to Rev.22:21.
I would be glad to share facts that you can check out for yourself if you like.

Okieshowedem

[arayhay]

It is a fact that they can not all be right.
Which makes it another fact that the TRUE teaching of the Hebrew Scriptures are not found in any of them.
The confusion comes from the translators.
Many men have found a few truths and built those denominations on these truths.
The English translation are not faithful to the Hebrew Scriptures.
The Bible is not the Hebrew Scriptures it is a translation of the Scriptures.
It is mixed with righteousness and evil.
The Hebrew Scriptures teach one FAITH from Gen.1:1 to Rev.22:21.
I would be glad to share facts that you can check out for yourself if you like.

Okieshowedem

I agree, rather than translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, we have what I would call a bias-lation of the original text into something that consistently contradict's or warps what is intended in the text. Then its used to support something foreign to or better than Torah. Sometimes its put forth in the context of ' love thy neighbor as thy self' as the greatest commandment of the new testament. But the association to the verse in Leviticus is to archaic for most Christian sensibilities. Often times when twisting a statement in verse to support some likable doctrine or belief, one is trying to legitimize a jumping off point. So when translators mingle these passages with doctrines, or beliefs of men, while taking them from script to english, they pollute the message with inaccurate and erroneous support for their conclusions. Translation is needed today, because most people don't speak Hebrew, but it is almost always convoluted by these bias's. And any attempt to expose the falsehood of this approach as dishonest, even one article at a time, is a uphill and most times a loosing battle. The saturation point is so high that reasoned arguments are met with a strong resistance. Most often if the NEW or FRESH starting point is omitted a challenge is easily put aside. And any PROF of one misaligned approach fragmented idealogy is easily brushed aside into the pile of the insignificant. Sometimes a salient point hits home, but because of all the available choices for christians, they just move their beliefs to the left or right.

Case in point; Christians seem to think that Lev 19:18 Thou shalt not3808 avenge,5358 nor3808 bear any grudge5201 against (853) the children1121 of thy people,5971 but thou shalt love157 thy neighbor7453 as thyself:3644 I 589 am the LORD.3068 is a new testament concept when it was ESTABLISHED a long time before the first century. Christians don't seem to realize, or care for that matter, that ANYTHING they want or try to support as true HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED IN THE TORAH FIRST. The so called old testament must be the foundational platform for EVERYTHING in the Apostolic writings, or they, the new testament writings, are de-bunked on the spot as unsubstantial and/or foreign. Once one deviates from the practical succession of the Scriptures, they lose the only support they could hope fore their beliefs by segregate fact, truth and reality from the matrix of God's established currency [timeliness]. So when Christians claim this as THEIR OWN, or as something NEW. They do so by undermining the consistency and faithfulness God started and planed from the days of old. And then spiral out of control.

So in conclusion, all these variations become a forum for subjective self-sufficiency.

[arayhay]

It is a fact that they can not all be right.
Which makes it another fact that the TRUE teaching of the Hebrew Scriptures are not found in any of them.
The confusion comes from the translators.
Many men have found a few truths and built those denominations on these truths.
The English translation are not faithful to the Hebrew Scriptures.
The Bible is not the Hebrew Scriptures it is a translation of the Scriptures.
It is mixed with righteousness and evil.
The Hebrew Scriptures teach one FAITH from Gen.1:1 to Rev.22:21.
I would be glad to share facts that you can check out for yourself if you like.

Okieshowedem

I agree, rather than translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, we have what I would call a bias-lation of the original text into something that consistently contradict's or warps what is intended in the text. Then its used to support something foreign to or better than Torah. Sometimes its put forth in the context of ' love thy neighbor as thy self' as the greatest commandment of the new testament. But the association to the verse in Leviticus is to archaic for most Christian sensibilities. Often times when twisting a statement in verse to support some likable doctrine or belief, one is trying to legitimize a jumping off point. So when translators mingle these passages with doctrines, or beliefs of men, while taking them from script to english, they pollute the message with inaccurate and erroneous support for their conclusions. Translation is needed today, because most people don't speak Hebrew, but it is almost always convoluted by these bias's. And any attempt to expose the falsehood of this approach as dishonest, even one article at a time, is a uphill and most times a loosing battle. The saturation point is so high that reasoned arguments are met with a strong resistance. Most often if the NEW or FRESH starting point is omitted a challenge is easily put aside. And any PROF of one misaligned approach or fragmented idealogy is easily brushed aside into the pile of the insignificant. Sometimes a salient point hits home, but because of all the available choices for christians, they just move their beliefs to the left or right.

Case in point; Christians seem to think that Lev 19:18 Thou shalt not3808 avenge,5358 nor3808 bear any grudge5201 against (853) the children1121 of thy people,5971 but thou shalt love157 thy neighbor7453 as thyself:3644 I 589 am the LORD.3068 is a new testament concept when it was ESTABLISHED a long time before the first century. Christians don't seem to realize, or care for that matter, that ANYTHING they want or try to support as true HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED IN THE TORAH FIRST. The so called old testament must be the foundational platform for EVERYTHING in the Apostolic writings, or they, the new testament writings, are de-bunked on the spot as unsubstantial and/or foreign. Once one deviates from the practical succession of the Scriptures, they lose the only support they could hope fore their beliefs by segregate fact, truth and reality from the matrix of God's established currency [timeliness]. So when Christians claim this as THEIR OWN, or as something NEW. They do so by undermining the consistency and faithfulness God started and planed from the days of old. And then spiral out of control.

So in conclusion, all these variations become a forum for subjective self-sufficiency.

Please add the word 'or' to the earlier post. ty.

[Catharsis]

Septuagint

The Septuagint (a name derived from the Latin word for "seventy", also referred to as the LXX) is a 3rd century B.C. translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. It is the canonical Old Testament of the Orthodox Church.

History

The translation of the Septuagint undertaken in Alexandria at the behest of the Egyptian King, Ptolemy, who wished to expand the celebrated library of Alexandria to include the wisdom of all the ancient religions of the world. Because Greek was the language of Alexandria, the Scriptures therefore had to be translated into that language.

The Letter of Aristeas, the oldest known source we have for the origin of the Septuagint, details how Ptolemy contacted the chief priest, Eleazar, in Jerusalem and asked him to send translators. Six were chosen from each of the twelve tribes of Israel, giving us the commonly accepted number of seventy-two. (Other accounts have the number at seventy or seventy-five.) Only the Torah (the first five books) was translated initially, but eventually other translations (and even compositions) were added to the collection. By the time of our Lord, the Septuagint was the Bible in use by most Hellenistic Jews.

Thus, when the Apostles quote the Jewish Scripture in their own writings, the overwhelmingly dominant source for their wording comes directly from the Septuagint (LXX). Given that the spread of the Gospel was most successful among the Gentiles and Hellenistic Jews, it made sense that the LXX would be the Bible for the early Church. Following in the footsteps of those first generations of Christians, the Orthodox Church continues to regard the LXX as its only canonical text of the Old Testament. There are a number of differences between the canon of the LXX and that of Roman Catholic Church and Protestant Christians, based on differences in translation tradition or doctrine.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Septuagint

[Okieshowedem]

I would tend to think that the God of this world had a great deal to do with giving the world the English translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.
So, who is this God?


http://www.yahweh.com/Booklets/Whois/Whois.htm


Okieshowdem

[Catharsis]

Dead Sea Scrolls

With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the mid twentieth century many examples have been recovered of the Old Testament in Hebrew from the time of Christ and the Holy Apostles and earlier. Scholarship during the past half century based upon these Dead Sea discoveries has revealed a close agreement between the LXX and pre-Masoretic Hebrew texts. In a review of some of this scholarship, Hershal Shanks[1] notes that ”…many Hebrew texts [are available] that were the base text for Septuagintal translations…”. Further he notes that what ”…texts like 4QSama show is that the Septuagintal translations are really quite reliable” and ”…gives new authority to the Greek translations against the Masoretic text”. Quoting Frank Moore Cross (a co-author of the book under review), Hershal continues ”We could scarcely hope to find closer agreement between the Old Greek [Septuagintal] tradition and 4QSama than actually is found in our fragments”.

The scholarship based upon the new information provided in the Dead Sea Scroll thus supports the millennial old tradition on use of the Septuagint by the Orthodox Church.

[Goat]

Dead Sea Scrolls

With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the mid twentieth century many examples have been recovered of the Old Testament in Hebrew from the time of Christ and the Holy Apostles and earlier. Scholarship during the past half century based upon these Dead Sea discoveries has revealed a close agreement between the LXX and pre-Masoretic Hebrew texts. In a review of some of this scholarship, Hershal Shanks[1] notes that ”…many Hebrew texts [are available] that were the base text for Septuagintal translations…”. Further he notes that what ”…texts like 4QSama show is that the Septuagintal translations are really quite reliable” and ”…gives new authority to the Greek translations against the Masoretic text”. Quoting Frank Moore Cross (a co-author of the book under review), Hershal continues ”We could scarcely hope to find closer agreement between the Old Greek [Septuagintal] tradition and 4QSama than actually is found in our fragments”.

The scholarship based upon the new information provided in the Dead Sea Scroll thus supports the millennial old tradition on use of the Septuagint by the Orthodox Church.

There are some important differnces when it comes to translations into the english and latin.

Little words like K'aros, Almah, and a few other things have been mistranslated to be more christian.

[Catharsis]

>>There are some important differnces when it comes to translations into the english and latin.<<

Yes, and that's the point. The Orthodox Church uses the Septuagint.

The oldest version of the Old Testament that we have was written in the third century B.C. in Greek (Septuagint). Although Christ spoke in Aramaic, it is the text of this version that Christ often quotes from in the New Testament, and not the Hebrew text of the Old Testament which was written down by the Non-Christian Jews in the tenth century A. D. Their Hebrew text is significantly different in a number of places. Similarly all the oldest original surviving texts of the New Testament are written in Greek.

The Protestants used the tenth century Jewish text of the Old Testament for their translation, rather than the far older Greek translation. It is not surprising to learn that the Protestant Reformation was encouraged and even financed by Jews, especially in Holland (the same ones whose descendants later financed Cromwell's civil war). The common enemy was after all inquisitorial Catholicism. Hardly surprising either to discover that in Protestant countries they describe the West as 'Judeo-Christian'.




Thus, when the Apostles quote the Jewish Scripture in their own writings, the overwhelmingly dominant source for their wording comes directly from the Septuagint (LXX). Given that the spread of the Gospel was most successful among the Gentiles and Hellenistic Jews, it made sense that the LXX would be the Bible for the early Church. Following in the footsteps of those first generations of Christians, the Orthodox Church continues to regard the LXX as its only canonical text of the Old Testament. There are a number of differences between the canon of the LXX and that of Roman Catholic Church and Protestant Christians, based on differences in translation tradition or doctrine.

[arayhay]

>>There are some important differnces when it comes to translations into the english and latin.<<

Yes, and that's the point. The Orthodox Church uses the Septuagint.

The oldest version of the Old Testament that we have was written in the third century B.C. in Greek (Septuagint). Although Christ spoke in Aramaic, it is the text of this version that Christ often quotes from in the New Testament, and not the Hebrew text of the Old Testament which was written down by the Non-Christian Jews in the tenth century A. D. Their Hebrew text is significantly different in a number of places. Similarly all the oldest original surviving texts of the New Testament are written in Greek.

The Protestants used the tenth century Jewish text of the Old Testament for their translation, rather than the far older Greek translation. It is not surprising to learn that the Protestant Reformation was encouraged and even financed by Jews, especially in Holland (the same ones whose descendants later financed Cromwell's civil war). The common enemy was after all inquisitorial Catholicism. Hardly surprising either to discover that in Protestant countries they describe the West as 'Judeo-Christian'.




Thus, when the Apostles quote the Jewish Scripture in their own writings, the overwhelmingly dominant source for their wording comes directly from the Septuagint (LXX). Given that the spread of the Gospel was most successful among the Gentiles and Hellenistic Jews, it made sense that the LXX would be the Bible for the early Church. Following in the footsteps of those first generations of Christians, the Orthodox Church continues to regard the LXX as its only canonical text of the Old Testament. There are a number of differences between the canon of the LXX and that of Roman Catholic Church and Protestant Christians, based on differences in translation tradition or doctrine.

Thank you for your thoughtful input, it clearly defines part of the problem. I don't have an issue with the LXX, rather my problem is with the bias of the translators. As you or someone else has pointed out, when christians read a verse that appears to be Messianic to them, its not viewed the same way by Jews. I am not going to go into the validity of one view over the other. My focus is more on the different views that cane be excepted from the same verse and then carried over into english from the Hebrew or Greek. When one leans towards, or present the Script as saying what they 'hear' it say, as apposed to what it really says, one loses the validity and credibility of their message..