I fail to see the comparison in the two statements. I did not “blast” you for blasting me, rather I said if you are going to go after me for something, do not then omit other relevant material.
As for the question at hand. St. Iraneus, is used as the basis in every subsequent chronology of popes as having listed Peter as the first bishop of Rome.
You are moving the bar, as so often happens.
Originally you claimed that there was no mention of Peter in the excerpt, but as I showed, in the very paragraph previous to your quote, there is Peter.
Paul has never been referred to as the Bishop of Rome, though we that he was there with Peter and that he was martyred there.
What does that tell you?
You can’t say the Church is making this stuff up, as I have pointed out to you that this was common and accepted belief as early as the second century.
Paul has never been referred to as the Bishop of Rome, though we that he was there with Peter and that he was martyred there.
What does that tell you?
Of course I never said that Paul was ever listed as a Bishop of Rome.
That Paul, with Peter, originated the Church of Rome or that he was martyred in Rome is tradition as opposed to documented history.
Bear in mind I make no claim that Peter was never in Rome or that he was not martyred there. I simply say there is no historical proof.
You can’t say the Church is making this stuff up, as I have pointed out to you that this was common and accepted belief as early as the second century.
It was also a common and accepted belief for hundreds of years that Earth was the center of the Universe.