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.
>> “I guess I’m not really expecting an answer.” <<
.
Turn the crank, and the Jack-in-the-Box pops up - that’s all you get.
You keep begging the question and arguing from silence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
Your argument is illogical. Jesus said nothing about the Bishop of Rome, ergo the Roman primacy didn’t exist.
It is about as logical as the gay activists who say Jesus never mentioned “loving committed” homosexual relationships, so he doesn’t look down on them.
The Epistle of St. Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, regarded by tradition as the third Pope of Rome, was included by some early Christian writers as part of the New Testament for at least 400 years or more.
You can argue from silence all you like.