Yet you did not use that expression, you wrote "Wrong, as the church of Rome simply did not exist as a visible church in the NT," and what you wrote was false as I proved from the scriptures. There was a church in Rome in the time period of the New Testament. It was catholic in that it had the same faith as the other catholic churches that the Apostle wrote about knowing the faith of the church of Rome.
What do catholics and the Clintons have in common?
parsing words.
You do understand context do you not? Do you honestly really think that in responding to the assertion that "the Church that brought you the Bible and even the FIRST English translation" then i, who am well aware book of Romans, was thinking of and referring to the church at Rome? Do you???
Moreover, "church of Rome" is a common handle for the RCC, due to the historical location of its headquarters, and even its affinity with the nature of imperial Rome. And to be precise, in Scripture no church is ever named as being the church of a city, but are said to be the church of the people who dwell there (as in "church of the Thessalonians").
As in another case, I apologize for not making it clear enough (for either the ignorant or some hungry fault-finding RCs). Never presume what should be obvious will be.
No. You are wrong.
It was the church IN Rome.
Not the church OF Rome -ie Catholicism.