Oh, and I nearly forgot this, so I must back up and address it. This statement of yours needs a scoop and broom. I bit on your citations. I bothered to read them. Anyone in here can look up ALL THREE books that you cited on the web and get date information on them and read the commentaries and in some cases the books themselves. And I would heartily recommend that everyone do so. If anyone needs help finding the material, I'd even be happy to look it up and provide links to the material. No problem with it at all.
It isn't that I dismiss anything you produce out of hand. It's that I dismiss it unless the source is credible. Vastly different than your broad swipe. I dismiss the apocryphals as having no real weight, I still checked the sourcing on those that you proffered and blew them flatly out of the water for that which they were offered up on. Again - as can anyone caring to read the material. It's not a matter of my opinion. It's plain as day.
Perhaps you should let someone else pick up where you dropped the ball. Maybe someone who can research and present something that doesn't waste all our time. If you screw up, the idea is to admitt it and move on with proving your point, not attack the other side and try to make it look like they're the one being shoddy.. unless you're waging a propaganda war anyway..
I will say this for the third time so try to pay attention. I acknowledge the fact you do not accept any documentation that Catholics offer so I am through discussing this with you. In other words, I agree to disagree. If it makes you feel better you can attack me, my scholarship, my research, my references, or even imply I screwed up. I just doesn't matter. Anyone who has done serious research on this knows Peter was in Rome and was martyred and buried there.
So when your citations are found to be bunk, rather than address it and stay on topic, you resort to attacking Peter's second book - quickly retreating from I Peter 5 argument, to save face maybe? At any rate, another Change of Topic.
I will repeat this for the second time. I am not attacking 2 Peter. Read my post 25 again. I am asking you to back up your statement " And I can debunk them pretty quickly with modern parallels. And with parallels of the day. "
And just in case you missed it, I agree to disagree regarding the Peter in Rome issue. If you keep asking me to stay on Topic I will repeat this again.