Well, among other things,,the NT church as in seen in Acts onward, did not teach perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in the life of the church, nor did it have a separate class of believers distinctively called "saints" or distinctively titled "priests ," offering up "real" flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sin, which is to be literally consumed in order to obtain spiritual life. Nor is it otherwise Scripturally manifest in the life of the church as being the central, overarching priestly sacrament around which all else revolves, the "source and summit of the Christian faith," "in which our redemption is accomplished."
Nor is the NT church manifest as looking to Peter as the first of a line of exalted infallible popes reigning over the church from Rome (which even Catholic scholarship provides testimony against), and praying to created beings in Heaven, even beseeching them and prostrating before statutes, nor enduring postmortem purifying torments in order to become good enough to enter Heaven, and saying rote prayers to obtain early release from it, and requiring clerical celibacy as the norm, among other things. No wonder Catholics rely on amorphous "oral tradition," for under the premise of magisterial infallibility all sorts of fables can be channeled into binding doctrine, even claiming to "remember" an extraScriptural event which lacks even early historical testimony. , and was opposed by RC scholars themselves the world over as being apostolic tradition.
You’re just using historical facts and Scripture to support your position.
Yes; the LAST book that Rome compiled into the bible shows that the TEACHING going on in those 7 churches mentioned to John by the angel were pretty messed up.
I've been told they were Catholic churches by folks on FR.