I have point #1 for you:
If Peter wasn't ever in Rome, a whole lot of people are really screwed.
I have point #1 for you: If Peter wasn't ever in Rome, a whole lot of people are really screwed.
That is really true. That is why the future "Dr A8" and I have undertaken this great and exhaustive search for the truth regarding Peter in Rome. Because if he did not have that legendary bishopric there, then all the claims of the magisterium from Nicea to the present have been an absolute fraud and millions of people who have fallen for this fraud are now paying for it for an eternity.
That is the purpose of our thesis: to present the facts FOR that legendary bishopric of Peter in Rome that the magisterium have claimed give them the authority to pontificate their doctrines and perform their magic, and then let the people decide.
The magisterium claim that the magic that is on demonstration at every mass, the ability to change things from one substance into another, was passed down to their priesthood by a divine person who was in Rome from 42 AD until 67 AD. Was that Simon Peter or was that Simon Magus [aka Simon the Magician who went from Antioch to Rome at that time]?
So far we have found no facts, no documentary evidence of Simon Peter's legandary bishopric. But our search continues and we will turn over every stone and shake every tree in search of the real truth to remove the veil. As goes the Legend of Peter, so goes the Vatican and its myriad of useless pontifications.
At first, I thought that assertion was a bit overdone. But . . .
You could be right for those who put their faith and trust in man and organizations accordingly.
Our FAITH belongs IN CHRIST ALONE.