Papacy is Unbiblical

Thanks Pro.1. Rebuttali. ON THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN"It is clear that my opponent conceded on my stance about the keys of the kingdom of Heaven."I haven't conceded anything. Rather, Pro has failed to put forward an argument on this point. As such, I have no disagreement with what was said.ii. ON SIMON AS PETER"I do not misunderstood Roman Catholic dogma here. I just explained my stance explicitly."Good. Then Pro understands that here too, our stances align. Again, nothing in this section was provided as evidence against papacy being Biblical. I take no issue with the idea that the Church was created by and is owned by Christ. As stated previously, I completely agree.iii. ON THE SUB-APOSTOLIC CHURCH AGAINST PAPACYPro continually fails to provide source links in this section for the quotes that he inserts. We shouldn't be expected to take Pro's word on these quotes, I think it is only fair to be provided with source links (as I provided when I gave quotes of my own.) Furthermore, Pro uses this section to ask and answer his own question. This seems meaningless to me given the structure of the debate.iv. ON THE FIRST CENTURY CHURCH POLITY AGAINST PAPACYFirst century Church polity had Jesus Christ as the creator/owner of the Church, St. Peter as the Vicar of Christ (the head of the Church on Earth), and various bishops/priests according to geographic need. Comparably, the 21st century Church has Jesus Christ as the creator/owner of the Church, Pope Francis as the Vicar of Christ, and various bishops/priests according to geographic need. Again, look to the link I provided (I will provide it again at the bottom of this page for convenience) for evidence of the unbroken chain of apostolic succession from St. Peter to Pope Francis.2. In Support of Papacyi. Biblical SupportIn an attempt to refute the Biblical evidence that I provided in support of papacy, Pro simply spent his time arguing that there is no correlation between the Old Testament and New Testament verses that were provided. I think that the correlation couldn't be more clear when looking at the Biblical text from an unbiased perspective. Pro then accused me of "blasphemy" for saying that both David and Peter were shepherds of their respective peoples. There are several Biblical examples of leaders (other than Christ) referred to as shepherds. I even provided an example in my last argument, but this was apparently overlooked by Pro. Here it is again:"I will save my sheep so that they may no longer be despoiled, and I will judge between one sheep and another. I will appoint one shepherd over them to pasture them, my servant David; he shall pasture them and be their shepherd. I, the LORD, will be their God, and my servant David shall be prince among them. I, the LORD, have spoken." -Ezekiel 34:22-24ii. Historical SupportIn an attempt to refute the historical evidence that I provided in support of papacy, Pro merely throws out an assertion that New Testament Christians did not affirm the authority of leadership, but rather only through apostolic writings. Here again, the sources I provided seem to have been overlooked by Pro. I have provided several quotes (more can be find in the link posted in my sources section) from early Church writings affirming the authority of the pope. These quotes include:"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189])."Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3)."Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there..." (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312])."You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).3. SummaryIn summary, Pro has failed to bring forward a single argument in support of his assertion that papacy is unbiblical. As such, Pro has thus far been unsuccessful in carrying his share of the burden of proof. I have demonstrated support for the concept of papacy through both Biblical passages (see last round) and historical evidence (unbroken chain of apostolic succession and quotes from the writings of early Church fathers.) None of this evidence has been sufficiently refuted by Pro, as he has instead spent his time arguing that I am a blasphemer whilst blatantly ignoring the scriptural and historical quotes that I have provided in support of my position. I would invite Pro to bring forward at least one reasonable argument in favor of his initial claim- that papacy is unbiblical- in the next round.Thanks, back to Pro.Sources:http://www.newadvent.org...http://www.vatican.va...http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com...