[Uncle Chip]

I'll take this as your concession that you have no evidence to support your assertion that Peter was never in Rome. That is to say, you have neither Scripture nor historical evidence to support your claim.

Come on, Adiaireton8, send us your Part 2. I did my part, now you need to do yours. Quit sandbagging and stalling and send us those sacred words of the Holy Fathers. We'll be careful with them. Come on, Adaire

[InterestedQuestioner]

Uncle Chip,

I think I've made my point sufficiently clear. Namely, you have no evidence from Scripture or other historical sources to support your claim that Peter was never in Rome. The historical evidence, on the other hand, is unanimous in placing St. Peter in Rome.

Would you like to retract your claim that Peter was never in Rome?

An honest admission that you have zero evidence to support you claim that St. Peter was never in Rome coupled with an honest admission that your view is unanimously contradicted by a wealth of historical evidence would help you establish that you are in fact willing to participate in sincere and honest dialog, no?

[Running On Empty]

I've just been an observer, and am not speaking for Adiareton8--only for myself. It may be that he has chosen the better part and it won't be taken away from him.

His questioners have acted more like provocateurs than ones who would say "Come, let us reason together".

He has, as IQ reminded you in a post above, told you how he wanted to participate in this "discussion".

ROE