On the contrary, the historical record begins with the Bible, since the Bible itself is an historical record from apostolic sources. If the Bible refutes your position, which it does, ... then we are done.
>>The Bible never claims to be a complete historical record. Show me the exact verse where it does.
Stop begging the question.
This does appear to be the default answer.
I never said the Bible contains a complete historical record. But what it contains is sufficient. If there was something of importance, it would be in there. I am not talking specific words (I'm tired of the trinity cop out), but theological doctrine.
My point is that the primacy of Rome (which is certainly the most or one of the most important doctrines in RCism) would be in the Bible if it was important. And I mentioned that Revelation does not support an assumed Roman primacy for any of the churches in Revelation; nor does Christ even address the church at Rome or the supreme pontif (whoever it was in 95 AD).
You would think Jesus Christ would have something to say to the vicar of Himself if He had something to say to these 7 churches in Asia.
I guess I'm not really expecting an answer.