Anfauglir's got the nail on the head, right there...though I don't buy into the Catholic church's miracles or idea of Apostolic Succession, so they're out, to my reckoning, too. My crowd wasn't, and isn't, trying to establish anything new at all, it's trying to get back to the original principles and teachings of Christ and the apostles. That's why we reject anything that's un-scriptural.
New translations, etc, may swing one way or the other, but that isn't the demesne of those who originally penned the words. We fairly well know what those New Testament books say, and their meaning and intent is clear enough with an earnest search. (Even the mistakes and errors in the handing down of the New Testament have their own branch of scholarship; see the book "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart D. Ehrman.)
While I realize that the c of C considers itself not a denomination, but simply the church, from that POV it took around 1800 years for someone to get the worship of Jesus, etc. right. Presumably everyone had been doing it wrong prior to that, or a new way of doing things wouldn't have been needed.
In the actual, self-identified as a denomination department, where most christians run around and worship, there are tens of thousands of variations. You have your multitudinous Catholic spinoffs, your pre-Lutherans, various Reformed, Calvinists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Congregationalists, Lutherans, Baptists, Anabaptists, Adventists, Pentacosts. And I'm just getting started.
But your crowd has managed, despite all the pressures, all the prior scholarship, all the conflicting opinions from others who also follow the same Jesus, to get it right. The c of C is batting 1000% and the rest of them are out of your league.
My intent here isn't to attack just the c of C. I'm attacking all of you. This plethora of pious polymorphs is unable to explain itself. And to me, the consistency of this inconsistency amongst religious groups is a sure sign that the whole thing is made up rather than being something based on any actual word of an actual god. Christianity suffers from this multiple-personality disorder for a reason. Any god worth revering would be competent enough to do it right. And the idea of spinoffs would be an alien idea rather than the norm.
Of course, that last statement is me making up yet another version of god. Which is amazingly easy to do.
So while you are able to explain/justify/rationalize the strange lack of a 1:1 relationship between the number of gods and the number of churches, those of us who diss the whole concept look at it as yet another proof that there is no god at all. That you, via scholarship and indoctrination, can argue any point cogently is beside the point. Whether or not you know it, you are merely expressing an opinion on an idea that was once a fiction in someone else's head. And you and your chameleony christian brethren haven't a clue.
So while screwtape loves arguing scripture, I am one who looks at the big picture and says you gotta be kidding me. The intensity, the detail, the excuses, the rationalizations. This biblical view of itself is so far from being a mirror on reality, and so close to being mass schizophrenia, that it scares me. Well, at least the groups that burn me at the stake scare me.
The rest of you are just plain being silly. Though scripturalism is not a rich source of comedic material. So you're not even good at being silly.