Catholicism is not Biblical

Many thanks to leandro.sanchez for accepting this debate! I look forward to a fascinating discussion into the subject of Catholicism and how it relates to the Bible. As per the format of the debate laid out in round 1, I will go through my points one by one. Res. 1: The PapacyThe Pope is, according to Catholics, the head of the church, and a successor to Peter, who they claim was the first pope. Usually the passage they cite as the one in which God established the papacy is Matthew 16:18-19, where Jesus is speaking to Peter. The passage reads: "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." Thus, we have the teaching that Jesus ordained Peter as the first "rock" of the church. Mainstream Catholicism says that this rock is Peter because (1. he is referred to by Jesus as the rock on which Christ will build his church, and (2. Christ gave him the authority to bind and loose in heaven and on earth. A deeper analysis of this verse, however, proves otherwise.(1. To say that Jesus referred to Peter as the rock of the church is a misinterpretation of a concept taught throughout the New Testament. It is clear that Jesus is referring to Himself, not Peter. Had Jesus ordained Peter as the head of the church, then why would Peter refer to Jesus as such? In Acts 4:11, Peter calls Jesus the "chief cornerstone." It is widely accepted that this means the cornerstone of the church. The very next verse proves my point further: "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." If Peter was truly the head of the church, would he have said this? This clearly shows that he did not have the authority to forgive sins, which proves that he was not a pope. (2. The authority to bind and loose was not unique to Peter. In Matthew 18:18, Jesus gives this power to all of his disciples. Furthermore, consider how Matthew 16:19 is worded in the original Greek. The passive perfect statement is used (A.T. Robertson, 1934). Therefore, the verse literally means that whatever the apostles shall bind or loose on earth will have been bound or loosed in heaven.Res. 2: Mary's holinessThere is one main passage that Catholics run to when proving the holiness of Mary, John 19:25-27. In this passage, Jesus' mother is brought to the cross with the apostle John. Jesus says to John, "Behold your mother!" This is interpreted by Catholics to mean that Jesus is appointing Mary to a special role in Christianity, specifically a mother of sorts. However, the objective reader can clearly see that nowhere in this passage does anything suggest that Mary was given a special role. For one, Christ spoke this command to John- not to everybody present. Furthermore, John took Mary to his own home, which makes it clear that Jesus was telling John to tend to the physical care of his mother. Why did John not take Mary to a "Holy Shrine of the Blessed Virgin?" Res. 3: The Apocrypha The Apocrypha is the set of seven books that are included in the Old Testament of the Catholic Bible in addition to the "standard" 39. Catholics claim that these books are canonical texts and inspired by God. There are obvious reasons to reject these books as part of the Biblical canon, though. (1. They were never included in the Hebrew canon. One could argue their authenticity by stating the fact that they were found in the Septuagint, but given that the Septuagint was translated from the Hebrew canon, the books were very likely added to copies of it gradually and were not originally from the Hebrew. (2. They were rejected by early Christians and credible sources such as Josephus. In his work Against Apion, Josephus makes reference to a collection of books that he says are disagreeable and contradict one another. He then refers to 22 books of the Old Testament, which he says are "justly believed to be divine." He is referring to the 39 canonical books of the Old Testament. He numbers them as 22 because in his works, he combined many of the Old Testament books into one. Clearly, he acknowledges that the 39 "standard" books of the Old Testament are canonical and rejects the Apocrypha. Res. 4: Salvation Catholicism is among the many denominations of Christianity that teaches that salvation is through faith alone; that is, they teach that to be saved, one must declare Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and from then forward, that person is a Christian. Many refer to this as "accepting Jesus into your heart." I believe that this teaching ignores the commands of Jesus Christ, who explicitly commanded us to be baptized for our salvation (Mark 16:16). Those who claim that baptism is not necessary to salvation will often claim 1. that the thief on the cross was never baptized, yet he was saved by Christ, and 2. that baptism is merely symbolic of the fact that we have already been saved. (1. Not only did the thief on the cross obviously have no way of being baptized, his proclamation of belief in Christ occurred BEFORE Christ was buried! The church, which was purchased by Christ's blood, had not yet been established. Thus, it was possible for the thief on the cross to receive salvation without the act of baptism. Note also that this man was in the direct presence of Christ, unlike us today.(2. Where is the Biblical support for this claim? Nowhere does the Bible say that baptism symbolizes previous forgiveness. Without a doubt, the Bible states that baptism is a necessary part of salvation. Acts 2:38 "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Many people try to twist this verse around with other verses from the Bible, but it is still clear that baptism is a requirement for salvation. In the Great Commission, Jesus commands his disciples to go into the world and preach the gospel to every living thing, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Why would he command them to baptize if it is not necessary? It's simple as that. I look forward to my opponent's arguments for this round. Sources: A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek of the New Testament, 1934, pg. 361Flavius Josephus, Against Apion, 1.8 All Bible verses come from the New American Standard Bible.