Papacy is Unbiblical

Thanks Pro.Rebuttal"To Corinthian church:1) Heal their schism2) Submit to hierarchical authority in their local church"I fail to see how these are examples of a church against papacy. I would ask Pro to please provide his reasoning for this in the next round."Refers to the Roman Church not specifically to the Roman Bishop."Again, this is not evidence of a church against papacy. It does not follow from there being a pope that therefore each and every letter must specifically refer to the pope. There are plenty of letters and writings even today that refer to the Church but do not specifically name the pope. These modern letters and writing certainly do not serve as evidence against papacy, so why should ancient ones? “Of these the greatest and most ancient is Rome.” It did NOT say “only” Rome but “of these” which highly implies other churches."I agree that this implies that the Church was present in other areas of the world than Rome. Who would disagree? In either case, it is irrelevant to the question of whether or not there was a pope. "Why would Polycarp not submit to the Pope?"I didn't see any evidence provided of Polycarp refusing to submit to the pope, so I'm not sure where the controversy lies here. "Why would Cyprian not submit to the Pope?SOURCE:http://www.christian-history.org...; I hardly think that this is a reliable source. Using this source to justify the claim against papacy is the equivalent of asking a man whether or not he is lying about something."Why would the church not submit to the Pope?"Again, no evidence is provided of the Church refusing to submit to the pope. I could ask "Why would the church submit to the pope?" And this question would have just as much standing as the one proposed by Pro."ANSWER:It is because there is no such thing as “singular” Pope who rules over other bishops in the early church." It must be convenient to answer one's own questions in a debate, but unfortunately I won't be able to settle with these sorts of answers unless some kind of evidence is provided as justification. "First Century Church PolityJesus Christ ( the only head)elders ( bishops)deacons (serves)Roman Catholic Church PolityPope ( Vicar of Christ)Bishops (overseers)Priests (ministers of the sacrament)deacons ( serves)"The structure of the first century Church and the structure of today's Church are identical, with the exception of added positions due to a larger Church body and geographic area (i.e. more bishops, more priests, etc.)First Century:Creator of the Church: JesusVicar of Christ (or leader of the Church on Earth): St. PeterBishops, Priests, etc.Today:Creator of the Church: JesusVicar of Christ (or leader of the Church on Earth): Pope FrancisBishops, Priests, etc.The difference between the church structure that I have proposed (namely, a structure that includes a pope) and the structure proposed by Pro is that my proposition is backed with evidence (both Biblical and historical) whereas Pro's is backed merely by his own unwarranted claims of knowledge about first century Church polity (and a blatant misunderstanding of Church hierarchy.)"the truth there is no correlation between the Old Testament and New Testament verses that were provided"I suppose we will each have to decide for ourselves whether we believe there to be correlation between the Old Testament and New Testament verses that I provided in my opening argument. I am very confident of the clarity of these correlations. Each of the refutations that Pro makes against the concept of a correlation are relative speculations, and thus I see no need to respond to them. Pro is perfectly welcome to his own interpretation of the Biblical text, but I think I'll stick with the interpretation that's most clear to me (and the heavy majority of Biblical scholarship) which is that there is a very obvious correlation between the Old Testament and New Testament verses."My opponent should know that a mere list of church leaders was not the 1st century New Testament pattern to follow in regards to preserving apostolic teaching. The apostolic writings was the only inspired possession of the church"I do not think it is wise (or fair) to simply ignore the unbroken chain of apostolic succession that has been in place for 20 centuries. This list is widely accepted and is not refuted by one individual's thinking that it "was not the pattern to follow." But, even if my opponent chooses to ignore this, he is still left to deal with the various quotes I have provided from early Church fathers and their apostolic writings, the very writings which Pro claims are "the only inspired possession of the Church." However, it seems Pro has decided to ignore these as well. Summary Pro has yet to provide any sort of evidence to support his claim that papacy is unbiblical. In each round, Pro has simply provided his relative opinion on the subject matter. It is vital to understand that though Pro's opinion may be enough to convince himself, it comes nowhere close to fulfilling the burden of proof of the claim that he has made. In order to justify his claim that papacy is unbiblical, Pro must provide evidence in order to give us some reason to accept his claim. Pro's personal opinion does not suffice. Pro has failed to put forward any sort of argument or reasoning to support his assertion, and thus it seems he has been unsuccessful in fulfilling the burden of proof.I have given several reasons, both Biblical and historical, to refute Pro's claim that papacy is unbiblical. First, I showed the correlation between the Old Testament scripture's referral to Jewish leaders as rock, steward, and shepherd, and Jesus' New Testament referral to Peter as rock, steward and shepherd. Next, I provided a list of the unbroken chain of apostolic succession, listing in detail the popes from St. Peter to the current Pope Francis. Finally, I provided quotes from the writings of early Church fathers that clearly support the concept of papacy.Sources: http://www.newadvent.org......http://www.vatican.va......http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com......