You wrote:
“NO it doesn’t. It never even hints at that much less says it. Nowhere.”
Actually, it’s right there.
“It merely says Peter happened to be in Rome when martyred.”
No, it says more than that.
“Same thing it says about Paul. It never says Peter had anything more to to do witht the Church in Rome than Paul did. In fact tradition says Peter was leaving Rome (thus not the bishop) when God call him back to be martyred.”
No, actually that is not what tradition says. You seem to be confusing tradition with legend.
“If you have do such gymnastics to fabricate the argument for apostolic succession then the Catholic church is built on a foundation of sand. It was interesting to learn that’s all you’ve got.”
That isn’t all I’ve got, but it looks like - as usual - that the Protestant has to resort to lying. I fabricated nothing. Also, I never once claimed that the “the argument for apostolic succession” was built on anything Eusebius ever said. I merely corrected your false point about Eusebius. It is always so interesting how quickly Protestants resort to outright lying in these discussions. If I were to ask you to point out where I ever claimed what you just said, you would utterly fail. I know it. Every reader here knows it. Why? Because I made no such claim. And still Protestants resort to lying.
No you didn't. Eusebius specifically said Linus was the FIRST bishop of Rome and NEVER say Peter was ever a Bishop of Rome. You respoind that because Linus was appointed Bishop that proves Peter was first Bishop because Peter was in the city of Rome at the time he was mrytred. That made no sense at all and was just lying to avoid the plain language of Eusebius. Typical.