Well, its been 2,000 yrs of the same Church, so something must be right. lol.<quoted text>
IMO - you are. Looking at all the ways of the wordl from one aspect and only one. You rebuke other ways, because you can. It doesn't mean that what you say is true. It isn't.
You have multiple times.
You and your counterparts have still yet to post where "God" specifically labels certain texts inspired and others not.
So, without diverting, where is this written, expressed, scribed, etc.?
How many times do I have to say it, I don't follow men. Following men requires me to be a participant in their theology or theocracy.
Please tell me which men I follow?
Correction - the men you follow are successors to SOME OF THE APOSTLES. Remember, you only accept less than six of the original 13 Apostles. Please make sure you specify this in future claims, it shows you are being honest.
"All men fall short of the glory of God".
- thus - they are not protected.
- your conclusion, as it seems, was devised by men, not "God".
- But yet you want to false claim "infallible".
a. You don't believe in all of Jesus' teachings
b. Jesus never stated this
c. This is Catholicism speaking, nothing to do with what Jesus taught.
Besides, the so-called "Apostolic Succession" had already been debunked.
Have fun. I betcha - he isn't going to be around your bedside when you die.
The successors of the Apostles in Catholic understanding, is not limited to the few that documented the faith in writing. Jesus started a Church; a hierarchy of authoritative Bishops and Priests to safeguard truth for generations to come.
Your arguments do not hold up for 5 seconds when stacked against the Church.
Frankly, I have no idea where your spacey form of 'some sort of religion' stands on anything. I think you use some of our Bible. But I'm not sure what texts you say are inspired.
It seems you use a gospel of Thomas that is debunked by every theologian I've ever read. It doesn't even sound inspired. But hey, believe what ya want... you're goin to anyway.