I see. What you are saying is that all the biblical evidence has been presented to you and you doubt its veracity.
I see why you can't read Scripture for understanding, since you can't even read my posts for understanding.
All you're doing here is IMPLYING that there is Biblical evidence for those teachings (spoiler alert: there isn't), and then personally attacking me by falsely suggesting I reject the Bible.
I will present arguments that do not attack Protestantism, and simply support the Catholic position but I suspect you have heard them all.
I have heard them all, and NONE of them teach Romanism.
I will answer the first item on your list. "1) The papacy;"
Peter's preeminence is supported by scripture. Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13
You need to actually DEMONSTRATE that they allegedly teach "Peter's preeminence".
If you're simply going to make bald assertions without exegesis, then I've already read those passages hundreds of times, and they don't teach anything of the sort.
Btw is that what your priest does at mass? Simply yell out Bible citations, without any explanations? No wondere you never learn anything at mass.
Peter spoke on behalf of the others. Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69
Again, all you're doing is quoting random citations, without any exegesis.
Do you really expect me to do your work for you?
If you want to learn how to debate, watch some of James White's debates against Sungenis, Matatics, Michuta, Pacwa, Stravinskas. While they didn't make very good arguments (IMO), at least they were able to quote verses and try to explain how they though the text supports their position. I was especially entertained by the Boston College debate with White and Zins against Bob Sungenis and Scott Buttler.
On Pentecost, Peter preached to the crowds. Acts 2:14-40, he worked the first healing in the Church age Acts 3:6-7.
So preaching to crowds makes you a pope?!
Whaddya know? I'm a pope!
Luke 22:32-Peter will strengthen his brethren.
Where does it say he ALONE will strengthen the brethren?!
You are REALLY reaching here.
You are the one who clearly doesn't have any
edit per mod
John 21:17- Peter made shepherd over Christ's flock.
That's not what it says.
This doesn't raise Peter "above" the rest of the Apostles.
It merely RESTORES Peter to the level of the other Apostles after he FELL by thrice denying Christ.
Acts 15- Peter leads the first council in Jerusalem.
Wrong.
It was clearly led by JAMES, not Peter.
So James was the first pope?!
I could list more but I have no doubt you know all the scripture well enough to see that my point is being logically made.
You "logically made" NOTHING.
You didn't even PRESENT any argument.
All you've done is ASSUME the papacy.
Edit per mod
I will not explain the argument for Matthew 6:18-19 and its immediate context.
Of course not.
Because it doesn't support your false claim.
You have heard it, and already made up your mind about it.
What a convenient excuse for refusing to present an argument.
Your argument was that Romanists cannot defend their Bankrupt Theology
And you have now proved I was right!
Thank you!
I have defended briefly, the papacy using scriptural references.
No, you have not.
You have simply cited random verses (some incorrectly, like "Matt. 6:18"), and ASSUMED a meaning without properly exegeting the text.
You made unsubstantiated ASSUMPTIONS.
That is NOT a "defense".