Your question has nothing to do with Taylor. It's about Your supposition that you don't think you have to prove anything you proffer as fact.
I asked that question because you cited her in a previous post as part of your documentation. Now you are avoiding it. You've been exposed and you can't deal with it.
You claim that Peter was in Rome then refuse to back it up with facts. Instead you give us references from books that are considered dubious and give us other unproven claims to bolster the original.
So is it your position that Eusebius is a liar?
So, are you going to keep up with attempts to change the subject?
I am on the subject, you are the one dodging questions. You also never answered my question regarding who was the first person to dispute that Peter was never in Rome. That shouldn't be hard to answer. And it also will demonstrate what a false premise you base your argument on.
I mean I understand we're in phase 3 now for you. That change the subject thing. Let me know when phase 4 arrives.
You're worse off than I thought, now you're talking to yourself.
I would never call anyone a liar, but I can't understand why Eusebius claimed that Christ wrote "The Legend of Abgar", or the portrait of Christ called "The Holy Face of Edessa", which he knew that Hannan, the archivist at Edessa and the painter to King Abgar had painted the picture, still he allowed it to be claimed that Christ painted it him self, and it became an object of general veneration.
Either your history is wrong, or he had a completely different set of standards then we do today.
And I gave you an answer once. Is the answer supposed to change because you repeat yourself in a quest to change the subject?
So is it your position that Eusebius is a liar?
Hey, was Eusebius with Peter in the 1st century? Thought not. Eusebius is heresay. And not very accurate heresay I might add. I've pointed out the significant discrepancies between historic fact and his version of Constantine in prior threads. How quickly we forget. So, is he somehow more accurate reporting a few hundred years after the fact when he couldn't get the facts straight about a contemporary? LOL. Try something reliable - or does that not exist?
I am on the subject, you are the one dodging questions. You also never answered my question regarding who was the first person to dispute that Peter was never in Rome. That shouldn't be hard to answer. And it also will demonstrate what a false premise you base your argument on.
Nice attempt to shift there. I asked a simple question a thread ago. You guys still can't give me a solid answer that isn't dependant upon questionable sources or other unproven claims. But you want to tell me I'm dodging questions - that's just too rich. And is there some point in our near future regarding who first disputed Peter was ever in Rome? It has zero bearing on the argument. I asked for facts, not a history lesson on who first asked the question I asked you guys. How about facts supporting your claims?
You're worse off than I thought, now you're talking to yourself.
No. Just predicting how it all comes out. I've been pretty darned accurate for two steps of it. I just haven't yet seen the final one come about where you all break down and call me a Catholic Basher and a Bigot. Or perhaps I missed that one.
For those in the Cheap seats, I asked them a thread ago to prove that Peter was ever in Rome. This is a basic issue that goes to the authority of the Bishop of Rome in the long run. I've been given suppositions, other unproven claims, quotes from books that pretty much all but Catholics view as spurious. And I've even been told that it's a reasonable claim that we can all just take their word for because no one has disproved it. There, I think that pretty well catches every one up. Anyone trolling for details need only go back a single thread for a full view.
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. So where is the proof. In 2000 years there must be something that can prove it. Where is it? I mean for crying out loud, I saw a documentary not too long ago where secular scientists said, we know Jesus was a real person. If they can say that from the evidence they have from the times, One would think there would be proof positive of one of his Apostles being in Rome - other than Paul who we know was in Rome. summoning the old woman again Where's the proof?