[InterestedQuestioner]

Uncle Chip,

So you concede you have no evidence that St. Peter was never in Rome? Are you also conceding that the historical record is unanimous in placing St. Peter in Rome?

[Uncle Chip]

Need I remind you again of the topic of our thesis for which you have failed to supply your part: 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)

Post those words from the Fathers that you think put Saint Peter in Rome for any length of time. Put your sacred words on the screen for the entire congregation to judge. Maybe I will be right and maybe I will be wrong, but we won't know until you show us the evidence.

You do have evidence for that Bishopric, don't you? Or are you now backing off of that and all you really can find in the words of the Fathers is that Peter was in Rome for maybe a hamburger and no more?.

Are you now backing off of that magnificent legend in the face of a little scrutiny now?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

So you concede you have no evidence that St. Peter was never in Rome?

I haven't seen any evidence he wasn't in Cleveland, either.

The burden of proof is on the affirmative.

[proud_2_B_texasgal]

....you have no evidence that St. Peter was never in Rome?....

I have no evidence that YOU were never in Rome, does that mean that you were? I don't understand the argument that if you can't prove something DIDN'T happen, then that means it happened. Anybody else see the problem with this reasoning.

You have no evidence that I was never in Tahiti, so I must have been there. Maybe for 25 years! (Should have took pictures, I don't seem to remember.) **scratching head**