[doc1019]

Willful blindness! I think not, just a strong desire for facts not hype or fable. If historical fact is not forthcoming then I must conclude that the events in question are still in question.

Rather than make light of my question how about giving me some historical proof. I accept nothing with blind faith. I accept much by faith (not blind) based solely on biblical pronouncements. The Bible puts Paul in Rome but says nothing about Peter being there. I can find nothing in either archeology or contemporary documentation that puts Peter in Rome. I’m not saying he was not there; just that nothing of historical value puts him there.

[wmfights]

"I’m not saying he was not there; just that nothing of historical value puts him there."
___________________________

If he had been there for 27 years as the Bishop of that church wouldn't it be fair to expect to see some evidence of that?

He may have been there for short periods, but where is the evidence he alone founded the church, instructed it's members and died there.