[metmom]

RnMom:That NT church had no mass, There was no priesthood, no altars. The Lords table was not considered a sacrifice in the early church, so there were no need for those things that one needs for a sacrifice. no “eucharist, no vestments , no confessions, no 7 sacraments, no priesthood, no pope, no immaculate conception , no assumption, no relics, no purgatory, no indulgences, no “holy water”, no such animal as “apostolic succession... nada... nothing ..... There was no Roman catholic church until the 300’s even then there was no “mass” no “sacrifice” , no purgatory , etc...

tc:>>The burden of proof is on you. Prove it.

Read the Book of Acts. Show us where any of that was practiced in the early church.

Please also provide Scripture instructing believers to perform those specific duties, and show us the Scriptural evidence of the doctrines of the immaculate conception, assumption of Mary, holy water, the confessional, for example.

In addition, it's not possible to prove a negative. Prove that they did have it.

Nobody is obligated to believe any claim of something having happened without proof of it. Say so doesn't constitute proof.

The mentality of *It's true until you prove it isn't because we claim it* is the last resort of those who have NO argument or evidence to support their claims.

Epic fail.

[rzman21]

Do what, read the Book of Acts with your sectarian bias as the start?

There’s ample extra-scriptural evidence for the Catholic-Orthodox perspective.

I’m not telling anyone to disprove a negative. The Book of Acts only tells part of the story.

[rzman21]

I have plenty of evidence, but the disproof of a negative comes in because you will reject any evidence I put forth.

Sola Scriptura rests on Occam’s Razor, not the Bible.