All of which were rebels against the magisterium, which, like Rome, thought of themselves above that which was written .
I deny everything you said.
I see. So like Rome, since you say it then it is True. Well then, explain how a holy man in the desert who ate insects, and an itinerant Jewish Prophet, both of whom were rejected by those who sat in the seat of Moses, and whom the former reproved in accordance with Scripture, were not rebels, as were the prophets and apostles which did likewise, against the magisterium which thought of themselves above that which was written? (Mk. 7:2-16)
And that Rome likewise thinks of herself above that which was written, under the premise that an assuredly (though conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for valid assurance of Truth and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith. (Jn. 14:16; 16:13; Mt. 16:18)
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.
I am waiting.
Unless the sole basis is because "you say so." Which by all appearances it is, and yet you were whining about "propoganda" earlier in the thread.
Typing out a bunch of words does not a substantive argument make. So keep waiting, because I don't see any point in responding to empty assertions with anything but the same. If you say "yip yip yip" the answer you can reasonably expect is "nop nop nop."