Catholics are in continuity with the Church of Jesus and the Apostles, while Protestants are not.

You said: "I am surprised that you have not made the argument as many Catholics claiming that the Roman Catholic church is the one true church and that is the one church Jesus was referring to when he said he would be back for his church." I did not bring this up because it isn't necessarily relevant to our discussion/debate. Yes, the Catholic Church is the one true Church, in the sense that it alone possesses the fullness of the faith. However, this does not mean non-Catholic Christians do not possess some elements of the truth. In fact, they do. But these true elements in non-Catholic communions came from the Catholic Church (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 816-819).You ask: "The Christian church is the Roman Catholic Church, so is this continuity also with the Eastern Orthodox?" Keep in mind, the Catholic Church is not simply the Roman Catholic Church because we also have around 20 different Eastern Catholic Churches in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. Technically, the Roman Catholic Church is known as the Latin Rite part pf the Catholic Church and it is only one part of the entire Catholic Church. As to the Eastern Orthodox, they maintain Apostolic succession, so their sacraments are valid, and they maintain the same faith as we do, so that isn't the issue between us. The issue between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches, is that they understand Papal primacy differently than we do (they do affirm Papal primacy, just differently than we do). It isn't necessarily a doctrinal difference as it is a difference in practice. This, however, is different from Protestants, who neither maintain Apostolic succession, nor possess the fullness of the faith.You said: "Most Popes during the early days after the separation did not think so. Pope Urban II did not think so and he jumped into war with the Seljuk Turks in an effort to reunite them. That was of course the first Crusade, in that crusade the Christians slaughtered many people, even innocent people many were Christian and others were Jewish. That does not sound divinely inspired or in continuity with the apostles." Popes in the Middle Ages, even unto the present, still recognize the Eastern Orthodox Churches are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, but this doesn't mean we rejected the fact that they maintain Apostolic succession and valid sacraments. As far as the Crusades, though this is greatly off topic, much can be said here as there is often alot of misinformation floating around on the Internet. I recommend you listen to this radio interview on the real story of the Crusades by scholar Dr. Steve Weidenkopf found here http://www.catholic.com... Lastly, as far as the Crusades detracting from the inspiration or continuity with the Apostles, two points much be made. First, much of what you have probably been told about the Crusades is historically false. Second, even though some Catholics did sin during the Crusades, this does not detract from the fact that the Church is in continuity with the Apostles through Apostolic succession, nor does this detract from the overall necessity of the Crusades, but that is a very different debate. Remember, abuse does not refute use. Also, we should keep in mind that Catholics, even Popes can sin and make horrible mistakes, but this does not detract from the infallibility of the Church, as this is strictly limited to teachings on faith and morals, not the practice of faith and morals. Remember, the Israelites were chosen by God and were His people, but they sure did mess up at times, but this didn't detract from the fact that they were divinely established. You said "If you choose to show succession wouldn't all protestants be a succession to the original protestant Martin Luther who was a Catholic priest who studied under other priests" Protestants do not have Apostolic succession because Apostolic succession comes from Bishops whose ordinations go back to the Apostles. Luther was only a priest, so, since he did not have the fullness of the sacrament of holy orders, he technically didn't have Apostolic succession. It would have been Luther's bishop who had Apostolic succession. Some Bishops who had Apostolic succession left the faith and joined the Protestant revolt, but they did not pass on their succession because they ceased to believe in the sacrament of holy orders and in the priesthood, which is essential for the passing on of Apostolic succession. Thus, Protestants do not have Apostolic succession, which Catholics do since they maintained the sacrament of Holy orders and the doctrine of the priesthood. In order for a sacrament to be confected, intent is required on part of the one administering the sacrament. Protestants lost Apostolic succession because they did not have the intent on passing on holy orders and the priesthood, since they denied these doctrines. As far as Luther, he was given plenty of opportunity to recant and when he obstinately persisted in heresy, he was excommunicated. He was proven to be in heresy, for example, by Johann Eck, who debated him in public and proved this. Luther was given plenty of refutations to his heresies, but this is also a different topic.You said: "The fact is that God has no favorites and shows no preference." God is no respecter of persons, with this I agree. It does not logically follow this means that you can belong to whatever denomination you would like. If you carry your logic out to its conclusion, this would mean you can belong to any religion you would like, but we know this is explicitly false according to Scripture, so your interpretation of that Scripture is incorrect. God is no respecter of persons insofar as we are all equally condemned before God apart from Christ Jesus, Jews and Gentiles. I agree God does not have a denomination. Catholicism isn't a denomination, it is the Church. So when Scripture speaks about the Church, it is the same thing as Catholicism, which simply means universal, that is, the universal Church. You ask: "So is it your claim that appointees made by successors even today carries the same weight as Jesus personally appointing them?" Jesus said He passed His authority to the Apostles, who themselves appointed successors with this authority. Jesus made it clear he gave the Apostles His authority when he said "he who listens to you, listens to me". You said: "The authority of the apostles was as church leaders much like today's leaders. However they far from have the same authority as Christ had, he never relinquished such authority." Simply saying this does not make it so. I provided Scriptures at the beginning of the debate demonstrating this, and you did not deal with them. You said: "Granted he is not walking on earth or with us physically, however his word and spirit is here to guide us." True, His Spirit is the one who guides us, but through whom? Catholics believe the Spirit guides the Church through the magisterium, so this does not refute the Catholic claim.You said: "His spirit that draws people into service is what determines whom Christ appoints not anyone who claims direct succession to the apostles." How do you know who the Spirit has chosen? What if I were to say the Spirit chose me and I were to start my own Church, how would you refute that without appealing to Apostolic succession? You said: "The Catholic Church claim to be the one true church and direct successors to the apostles therefore the only legitimate leaders of the Church of Jesus is arrogant and scripturally unsound." It would be arrogant if Jesus did not establish a Church, but since He did, the claim is well grounded.In conclusion, I don't think you have interacted with the material I have presented in a direct way, and have often strayed from the topic of the debate, please do so for the benefit of our readers.