Ordinarily I understand all capital letters to mean you are yelling these words. Hmmm.
With regard to the claim, actually any normal reader would interpret the clear meaning of the text exactly as the believers in Christ do, rejecting Rome and embracing biblcal Christianity. That is, assuming God allowed. That is why Rome is stuck in the darkness...God has closed her ears and darkened her eyes, lest she turn from her sin and repent.
For example, there is no support for a "pope". Nonewhatsoever. The gang from Rome cooked this preposterous charade up to grasp power over the sheeple. No one has ever found a single passage of Scripture that supports even the remotest possibility of the monstrosity that the RCC has become. There were separate churches everywhere in the first century, all with their own teachers-elders. The independence of these congregations allowed for safeguards not available to the central government of the gigantus that Rome has forced upon the world.
Two thousand years of Scriptural teaching would have helped Rome recognize its own self-serving, self-aggrandizing, ego-maniacal superstition had it bothered to listen to the text it purported to provide. But, tradition supplants text. Repent Rome, if you can.
You wrote:
“For example, there is no support for a “pope”.”
Sure there is. Even some Protestants believe there is - some Anglicans and Lutherans, for instance.
“Nonewhatsoever. The gang from Rome cooked this preposterous charade up to grasp power over the sheeple.”
That’s logically impossible. If it was “cooked” up by a group from Rome then there would be no reason to expect to find belief in the papacy outside of Rome or believed by even Rome’s enemies - and yet that’s the case.
“No one has ever found a single passage of Scripture that supports even the remotest possibility of the monstrosity that the RCC has become.”
Actually there’s evidence for the papacy, but there’s no evidence that the Catholic Church is a monstosity except in the twisted rantings of bigots.
“There were separate churches everywhere in the first century, all with their own teachers-elders.”
No. They formed ONE Church. That’s why an Apostle like Paul could enjoy communion with one after the other and they taught and believed the same doctrine and were expected to do so. They certainly had their own leaders - just as diocese have their own bishops to this day. But it was ONE Church.
” The independence of these congregations allowed for safeguards not available to the central government of the gigantus that Rome has forced upon the world.”
The Church forced nothing. Christ sent the Church.
No, it's for emphasis, sometimes that's easier than bold or italics.
With regard to the claim, actually any normal reader would interpret the clear meaning of the text exactly as the believers in Christ do, rejecting Rome and embracing biblcal Christianity.
You obviously define "normal reader" as being anyone who agrees with you. Everything else you wrote is nothing more than another recitation of bigoted talking points that you agree with and most Christians reject.
Tertullian, is that you?
I will happily grant that there is no support for a pope in your own personal interpretation of Scripture.
So what?
Catholics are Biblical Christians. Not clear what "rejecting" the capital city of Italy would have to do with that, but, whatever...
Two thousand years of Scriptural teaching would have helped Rome recognize its own self-serving, self-aggrandizing, ego-maniacal superstition had it bothered to listen to the text it purported to provide. But, tradition supplants text. Repent Rome, if you can.
Yes Rome, capital municipality of Italy, repent, and come home to the Catholic Church founded by Christ!