[Uncle Chip]

Syriac Fathers say Peter was Bishop of Antioch for 30 years That makes more sense as Antioch was part of the old Assyrian Empire where the Israelites had been taken captive...and many remained there during the first century. Peter, being an Apostle to the circumcised, would naturally go there.

But you see, the Roman Church simply ignores the words of these Syriac Ante-Nicene Fathers and can't produce the words of any other Ante-Nicene Father to rebut this claim. Where's their evidence that Peter was not the Bishop of Antioch? Two can play that game.

[1000 silverlings]

Peter got around. He went Ireland where they called him "Patrick" (no doubt from Pater and Bishopric) where he chased all the snakes out. From there he went to Scotland where he was called "Paddy" and they named wagons after him. Gold tablets found in the Americas reference... well you get the picture.

[Diego1618]

Where's their evidence that Peter was not the Bishop of Antioch?

I'll bet the Vatican knows!

[Campion]

Where's their evidence that Peter was not the Bishop of Antioch?

There's no evidence for that from the Bible, either, is there. :-0

However, not only do we not wish to provide any evidence that Peter was not the Bishop of Antioch, we'll positively insist that he was the Bishop of Antioch ... before he turned over that See to another man, and went to Rome.