[malakhi]

They must be liars or truth tellers, there is no grey area.

As I told allend, this is a false dichotomy. They could be writing in a style that you misinterpret. Or, they could simply be wrong. Sincerely repeating something you believe to be true, but which is in fact incorrect, is not a lie. And none of this argues against their love for God and desire to do His will as they understand it.

[vmatt]

"They could be writing in a style that you misinterpret"

If the bible is agreeably reliably interpreted in only a few of the stories presented, but they are not true stories, then we are all the silliest of fools.

[OLD REGGIE]

I renew my single question. Where is a single, solid uncontravertable piece of evidence that places Peter in Rome? This is a tall claim having nothing to do with our ability to be saved or not. So this is not something required to be taken on faith. The Bible doesn't put Peter in Rome. Catholicism makes the claim. ------------------------------------------------------------

Forgive me if the subject has been previously covered; but, I fail to see whether Peter was ever in Rome is germane to the validity of the Papacy. Peter could been in Rome. He could have been the first (or second) Bishop of Rome. He could have died in Rome. Any, or all, of this could be true and it still doesn't have any bearing on whether Christ actually established a Papacy. Does it?