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.
You wrote:
“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.”
First of all, when and where did I ever claim that Linus was APPOINTED bishop? I never said any such thing, EVER. Again, we see you’re completely making things up that I never, EVER said.
“That made no sense at all and was just lying to avoid the plain language of Eusebius. Typical.”
The lying here is saying I said Linus was APPOINTED. Care to make up anything else and then claim I said it when I never did?