[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?

[DouglasKC]

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.

Since the biblical Peter was never in Rome (at least scripturally) and you say there is historical evidence of Peter in Rome, the have you considered the possibilit that it may have been a Peter other than the biblical Peter?

[Uncle Chip]

Need I remind you of the topic of our thesis:

THE EVIDENCE for THE TWENTY-FIVE YEAR BISHOPRIC of SAINT PETER in ROME and His UPSIDEDOWN CRUCIFIXION under NERO

Part 1] Evidence From the Holy Scriptures: There is no evidence at all.

Part 2] Evidence From the Writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers: (coming soon from Adiaireton8 or InterestedQuestioner)

Your magisterium doesn't just claim that Peter was in Rome, they claim that he took up residence there as a bishop. Now post the evidence of such from the sacred words of the Ante-Nicene Fathers so that we can finish Part 2 and move on to the next step of our studies.