Please Provide Historical Proof That Peter Was The First Pope.

[Quijote]

That which cannot be proven to be absolutely certain should not be taught as though it were absolutely true.

Keeping that in mind concerning Peter's so-called Bishoprick being in Rome, there are three primary methods by which one can look at a particular thing like Peter's so-called Bishoprick in Rome and determine the veracity or lack thereof of this.

The Scriptures. Historical documents. Church tradition.

I have looked through all of the 'proof' provided on this thread and have determined that none can absolutely prove historically that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. They may lean in favor of Peter being in Rome or preaching there, but one must also remember that Paul states that Peter was made the Apostle to the circumcision and he, Paul was made the Apostle to the uncircumcised(Gentiles). So Peter could very easily have been preaching to the Jews in Rome.

What the RCC and others rely upon is tradition, plain and simple, to support their contention that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.

A.)

There is scriptural proof that Jesus Christ lived and rose victoriously from the dead.

There is historical proof that Jesus Christ lived, and some of these documents are before 125 A.D.

B.) There is church tradition that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, and only a few historical documents to show that he might have preached at Rome, but no proof of this is found within the scriptures.

there is no historical proof, before A.D. 125, that I have seen, which proves Peter as being the first Bishop of Rome.

Relying on tradition, which has nothing before the third century A.D. to show that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, is pretty much relying on what could easily be called hearsay.

Feel free to believe amongst yourselves that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, but don't trot this out as fact when facts are lacking to sustain this belief.

Remember, that which cannot be proven to be absolutely certain should not be taught as though it were absolutely true.

Interesting. Why, may I ask is the year A.D. 125 so important for your theory? After all, if one were to follow what you said in the first part of your post, there is plenty of historical evidence that St. Peter was in Rome and was the First Pope/Bishop.

So, you cannot have an objective procedure (historical documents) be superseeded by subjective motives (Peter was never in Rome).

Cheers

 

[ProAmerican]

How do you know that the bible is absolutely true? The Koran claims divine inspiration far more often than Scripture does, so why don't we follow the Koran?

By faith I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God.

Have you ever heard of the scripture: "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."?

One gets their faith to believe that God's word is true, and the primary message within it that Christ is risen from the dead, by hearing or reading it.

"By faith then are ye saved."

Romans 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess Jesus Christ as Lord and shalt believe in thine heart[by faith] that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

I have read no scripture that says that I must believe in church tradition by faith.

Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Faith does not come by hearing, and hearing by church tradition.

 

[ScottBot]

By faith I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God.

Have you ever heard of the scripture: "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."?

One gets their faith to believe that God's word is true, and the primary message within it that Christ is risen from the dead, by hearing or reading it.

"By faith then are ye saved."

Romans 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess Jesus Christ as Lord and shalt believe in thine heart[by faith] that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

I have read no scripture that says that I must believe in church tradition by faith.

Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Faith does not come by hearing, and hearing by church tradition.

So you demand absolute, objective empirical evidence for some things, but take other things on faith? You are your own worst enemy.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Would you accept the word of the Church of Antioch that Peter was indeed the first Bishop of Rome? How about the Church of Alexandria or Jerusalem?

He was indeed called "Father" in Rome, which in Latin is "Pope".

The argument has never been was he the first Bishop, but rather what that meant as far as authority goes.

Peter was first the Bishop of Antioch, then moved to Rome.

These Churches still exist today and have not lost their history.

Forgive me...

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, ProAmerican

Thanks for this thread it has certianly raised some question that I have not thought about. The lack of historical proof that Peter was th "bishop" of Rome is quite telling. What do you feel as to the historical proof that Peter was the bishop of Antioch before Ignatius.

I would say the only historic proof of the Bishop of Rome is seen here:

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; we do this, I say, by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also by pointing out the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority -- that is, the faithful everywhere -- inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate....But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried on earth a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time -- a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics....There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles." (Against Heresies, 3:3:2-4)

Paul and Peter built the church and gave it to Linus. There is nothing here to comple any one to think that Peter or Paul gave up any thing.

Time to crack open Justin.....

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[ProAmerican]

Interesting. Why, may I ask is the year A.D. 125 so important for your theory? After all, if one were to follow what you said in the first part of your post, there is plenty of historical evidence that St. Peter was in Rome and was the First Pope/Bishop.

There is someevidence that leans in favor of Peter being in Rome, or preaching there but none conclusively that he was the first Bishop of Rome, as most historians will attest to. Further, since he was the Apostle to the circumcised, as stated by Paul the Apostle, he could have been just preaching to the Jews living there.

The only theory that I can see is the theory(a good name for church tradition) that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.

Yes, that would be a good thing to call Peter's Bishoprick of Rome. A theory.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

There is someevidence that leans in favor of Peter being in Rome, or preaching there but none conclusively that he was the first Bishop of Rome, as most historians will attest to. Further, since he was the Apostle to the circumcised, as stated by Paul the Apostle, he could have been just preaching to the Jews living there.

The only theory that I can see is the theory(a good name for church tradition) that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.

Yes, that would be a good thing to call Peter's Bishoprick of Rome. A theory.

You speak as though all Churches have lost their entire history....

I am Antiochian... (The Church of Antioch mentioned in the book of ACTS), our headquarters is located on the street called Straight (ACTS 9) as it has always been (2000 years). Why would you believe that a Church that old would not remember it's beginnings?

Forgive me...

 

[ScottBot]

You speak as though all Churches have lost their entire history....

I am Antiochian... (The Church of Antioch mentioned in the book of ACTS), our headquarters is located on the street called Straight (ACTS 9) as it has always been (2000 years). Why would you believe that a Church that old would not remember it's beginnings?

Forgive me...

Do you have the documents to PROVE that Peter was officially the first bishop of Antioch. Consecration records, certificates of annointing, something like that?

 

[ProAmerican]

So you demand absolute, objective empirical evidence for some things, but take other things on faith? You are your own worst enemy.

No, I am not my own worst enemy.

There is no evidence of Peter being the first Bishop of Rome within the word of God, which I place my faith in, and from whence my, and every other Christian's faith comes from.

Why should I place my faith in RCC tradition that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome? Is faith in RCC tradition necessary for salvation? No it isn't. But if you believe ii is, then you are placing your faith in something which cannot even produce faith, which the scriptures say can come only from God's word.

Faith cannot come form church tradition, but from God's word alone.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

Name 560 of them? Do you know 200 of them? By name.

Time to get a check-up from the neck-up here and talk turkey.

You are off topic. I will be happy to refute your false claims in one of the threads that address the virginity of Mary. That is not the focus of this thread. There are several thread on this subject of the virginity of Mary, here is one: http://www.christianforums.com/t247...her-of-god.html.

 

[revduane]

No, I am not my own worst enemy.

There is no evidence of Peter being the first Bishop of Rome within the word of God, which I place my faith in, and from whence my, and every other Christian's faith comes from.

Why should I place my faith in RCC tradition that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome? Is faith in RCC tradition necessary for salvation? No it isn't. But if you believe ii is, then you are placing your faith in something which cannot even produce faith, which the scriptures say can come only from God's word.

Faith cannot come form church tradition, but from God's word alone.

 

[ScottBot]

No, I am not my own worst enemy.

There is no evidence of Peter being the first Bishop of Rome within the word of God, which I place my faith in, and from whence my, and every other Christian's faith comes from.

Why should I place my faith in RCC tradition that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome? Is faith in RCC tradition necessary for salvation? No it isn't. But if you believe ii is, then you are placing your faith in something which cannot even produce faith, which the scriptures say can come only from God's word.

Faith cannot come form church tradition, but from God's word alone.

You assume that the bible and church tradition are competitors. They are one in the same, two halfs of a composite whole, originating from the same divine well-spring, and serving the same purpose.

 

[ProAmerican]

Good Day, ProAmerican

Thanks for this thread it has certianly raised some question that I have not thought about. The lack of historical proof that Peter was th "bishop" of Rome is quite telling. What do you feel as to the historical proof that Peter was the bishop of Antioch before Ignatius.

I would say the only historic proof of the Bishop of Rome is seen here:

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; we do this, I say, by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also by pointing out the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority -- that is, the faithful everywhere -- inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate....But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried on earth a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time -- a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics....There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles." (Against Heresies, 3:3:2-4)

Paul and Peter built the church and gave it to Linus. There is nothing here to comple any one to think that Peter or Paul gave up any thing.

Time to crack open Justin.....

Peace to u,

Bill

I have to go for today. Time has caught up with me, but I do thank you(and others) for this input. It has been enlightening to me also. I hope that I have caused others to think as well.

See everyone tomorrow.

Have a good one, all.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Do you have the documents to PROVE that Peter was officially the first bishop of Antioch. Consecration records, certificates of annointing, something like that?

Proof? I'm sure it exists... but since it isn't part of scripture... it would be of no use to argue it here.

http://www.antiochian.org/667

1 45-53 The Episcopacy of St. Peter, the Apostle, in Antioch.

2 53 The Episcopacy of Eudoius in Antioch.

3 68 The Episcopacy of St. Ignatius (d. 107) in Antioch.

4 100 The Episcopacy of Heros in Antioch.

5 127 The Episcopacy of Cornelius in Antioch.

6 151 The Episcopacy of Heros II in Antioch.

7 169 The Episcopacy of Theophilus (d. 181/182) in Antioch.

8 188 The Episcopacy of Maximianus (d. 190/191) in Antioch.

9 191-212 The Episcopacy of Serapion in Antioch.

10 212-218 The Episcopacy of Aslipiades in Antioch.

11 218-231 The Episcopacy of Philetus in Antioch.

12 232 The Episcopacy of Zebinus (a.k.a. Zenobius) in Antioch.

13 240 The Episcopacy of St. Babylas in Antioch.

14 253 The Episcopacy of Fabius in Antioch.

15 256 The Episcopacy of Demetrian in Antioch.

16 263 The Episcopacy of Amphilochius in Antioch.

17 267 The Episcopacy of Paul of Samosata in Antioch.

18 270 The Episcopacy of Dmonus in Antioch.

19 273 The Episcopacy of Timaeus in Antioch.

20 277 The Episcopacy of Cyril in Antioch.

21 299 The Episcopacy of Tyrannion in Antioch.

22 308 The Episcopacy of Vitalius in Antioch.

23 314 The Episcopacy of Philogonius in Antioch.

24 324 The Episcopacy of Paulinus in Antioch.

25 325 The Episcopacy of Eustathius in Antioch.

26 332 The Episcopacy of Paulinus in Antioch.

27 332 The Episcopacy of Eulalius (5 months) in Antioch.

28 333 The Episcopacy of Euphronius in Antioch.

29 334 The Episcopacy of Placentius in Antioch.

30 341 The Episcopacy of Stephanus in Antioch.

31 345 The Episcopacy of Leontius in Antioch.

32 350 The Episcopacy of Eudoxius in Antioch.

33 354 The Episcopacy of Meletius in Antioch.

34 354 The Episcopacy of Eudoxius in Antioch.

35 357 The Episcopacy of Annias (a.k.a. Ammianus) in Antioch.

36 360 The Episcopacy of Eudozius in Antioch.

37 370 The Episcopacy of Dorotheus in Antioch.

38 371 The Episcopacy of Paulinus in Antioch.

39 376 The Episcopacy of Vitalius in Antioch.

40 384 The Episcopacy of Flavian in Antioch.

41 404 The Episcopacy of Porphyrius in Antioch.

42 408 The Episcopacy of Alexander in Antioch.

43 418 The Episcopacy of Theodotus in Antioch.

44 427 The Episcopacy of John in Antioch.

45 443 The Episcopacy of Domnus II in Antioch.

46 450 The Episcopacy of Maximus in Antioch.

See elevated to dignity of a Patriarchate by the Council of Chalcedon in 451

47 459 The Patriarchate of Basil in Antioch.

48 459 The Patriarchate of Acacius in Antioch.

49 461 The Patriarchate of Martyrius in Antioch.

50 465 The Patriarchate of Peter the Fuller in Antioch.

51 466 The Patriarchate of Julian in Antioch.

52 474 The Patriarchate of Peter the Fuller in Antioch.

53 475 The Patriarchate of John II in Antioch.

54 490 The Patriarchate of Stephen II in Antioch.

55 493 The Patriarchate of Stephen III in Antioch.

56 495 The Patriarchate of Callandion in Antioch.

57 495 The Patriarchate of John Codonatus in Antioch.

58 497 The Patriarchate of Palladius in Antioch.

59 505 The Patriarchate of Flavian II in Antioch.

60 513 The Patriarchate of Severus in Antioch.

61 518 The Patriarchate of Paul II in Antioch.

62 521 The Patriarchate of Euphrasius in Antioch.

63 526 The Patriarchate of Ephraim in Antioch.

64 546 The Patriarchate of Domnus III in Antioch.

65 561 The Patriarchate of Anastasius the Sinaite in Antioch.

66 571 The Patriarchate of Gregory in Antioch.

67 594 The Patriarchate of Anastasius the Sinaite in Antioch.

68 599 The Patriarchate of Anastasius II in Antioch.

69 610 The Patriarchate of Gregory II, in Antioch.

70 620 The Patriarchate of Anastasius III in Antioch.

71 628 The Patriarchate of Macedonius in Antioch.

72 640 The Patriarchate of George in Antioch.

73 656 The Patriarchate of Macarius in Antioch.

74 681 The Patriarchate of Theophanes in Antioch.

75 687 The Patriarchate of Sebastian in Antioch.

76 690 The Patriarchate of George II in Antioch.

77 695 The Patriarchate of Alexander in Antioch.

78 742 The Patriarchate of Stephen IV in Antioch.

79 748 The Patriarchate of Theophylact in Antioch.

80 767 The Patriarchate of Theodore in Antioch.

81 797 The Patriarchate of John IV in Antioch.

82 810 The Patriarchate of Job in Antioch.

83 826 The Patriarchate of Nicholas in Antioch.

84 834 The Patriarchate of Simeon in Antioch.

85 840 The Patriarchate of Elias in Antioch.

86 852 The Patriarchate of Theodosius in Antioch.

87 860 The Patriarchate of Nicholas II in Antioch.

88 879 The Patriarchate of Michael in Antioch.

89 890 The Patriarchate of Zacharias in Antioch.

90 902 The Patriarchate of George III in Antioch.

91 917 The Patriarchate of Job II in Antioch.

92 939 The Patriarchate of Eustratius in Antioch.

93 960 The Patriarchate of Christopher in Antioch.

94 966 The Patriarchate of Theodorus II in Antioch.

95 977 The Patriarchate of Agapius in Antioch.

96 995 The Patriarchate of John IV in Antioch.

97 1000 The Patriarchate of Nicholas III in Antioch.

98 1003 The Patriarchate of Elias II in Antioch.

99 1010 The Patriarchate of George Lascaris in Antioch.

100 1015 The Patriarchate of Macarius the Virtuous in Antioch.

101 1023 The Patriarchate of Eleutherius in Antioch.

102 1028 The Patriarchate of Peter III in Antioch.

103 1051 The Patriarchate of John VI in Antioch.

104 1062 The Patriarchate of Aemilian in Antioch.

105 1075 The Patriarchate of Theodosius II in Antioch.

106 1084 The Patriarchate of Nicephorus in Antioch.

107 1090 The Patriarchate of John VII in Antioch.

108 1155 The Patriarchate of John IX in Antioch.

109 1159 The Patriarchate of Euthymius in Antioch.

110 1164 The Patriarchate of Macarius in Antioch.

111 1166 The Patriarchate of Athanasius in Antioch.

112 1180 The Patriarchate of Theodosius III in Antioch.

113 1182 The Patriarchate of Elias III in Antioch.

114 1184 The Patriarchate of Christopher II in Antioch.

115 1185 The Patriarchate of Theodore IV (Balsamon) in exile in Constantinople.

116 1199 The Patriarchate of Joachim in exile in Constantinople.

117 1219 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus in exile in Constantinople.

118 1245 The Patriarchate of Simeon II in exile in Constantinople.

119 1268 The Patriarchate of Euthymius II in exile in Constantinople.

120 1269 The Patriarchate of Theodosius IV in Antioch.

121 1276 The Patriarchate of Theodosius V in Antioch.

122 1285 The Patriarchate of Arsenius in Antioch.

123 1293 The Patriarchate of Dionysius in Antioch.

124 1308 The Patriarchate of Mark in Antioch.

Patriarchal See transferred to Damascus in 1342

125 1342 The Patriarchate of Ignatius II in Damascus.

127 1386 The Patriarchate of Pachomius in Damascus.

128 1393 The Patriarchate of Nilus in Damascus.

129 1401 The Patriarchate of Michael III in Damascus.

130 1410 The Patriarchate of Pachomius II in Damascus.

131 1411 The Patriarchate of Joachim II in Damascus.

132 1426 The Patriarchate of Mark III in Damascus.

133 1436 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus II in Damascus.

134 1454 The Patriarchate of Michael IV in Damascus.

135 1476 The Patriarchate of Mark IV in Damascus.

136 1476 The Patriarchate of Joachim III in Damascus.

137 1483 The Patriarchate of Gregory III in Damascus.

139 1497-1523 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus III in Damascus.

140 1523-1541 The Patriarchate of Michael V in Damascus.

141 1541-1543 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus IV in Damascus.

142 1543-1576 The Patriarchate of Joachim IV (Ibn Juma) in Damascus.

143 1577-1581 The Patriarchate of Michael VI (Sabbagh) in Damascus.

144 1581-1592 The Patriarchate of Joachim V in Damascus.

145 1593-1604 The Patriarchate of Joachim VI in Damascus.

146 1604-1611 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus V in Damascus.

147 1611-1619 The Patriarchate of Athanasius III (Dabbas) in Damascus.

148 1619-1631 The Patriarchate of Ignatius III (Attiyah) in Damascus.

149 1635-1636 The Patriarchate of Euthymius III in Damascus.

150 1636-1648 The Patriarchate of Euthymius IV in Damascus.

151 1648-1672 The Patriarchate of Michael III (Zaim) in Damascus.

152 1674-1684 The Patriarchate of Neophytos I in Damascus.

153 1686-1694 The Patriarchate of Athanasius IV (Dabbas) in Damascus.

154 1694-1720 The Patriarchate of Cyril III (Zaim) in Damascus.

155 1720-1724 The Patriarchate of Athanasius IV (Dabbas) in Damascus.

Separation of the Melkites. The Greek Patriarchs

156 1724-1766 The Patriarchate of Sylvester I in Damascus.

157 1766-1767 The Patriarchate of Philemon I in Damascus.

158 1767-1791 The Patriarchate of Daniel I in Damascus.

159 1792-1813 The Patriarchate of Euthymius I in Damascus.

160 1813-1823 The Patriarchate of Seraphim I in Damascus.

161 1843-1859 The Patriarchate of Methodius I in Damascus.

162 1850-1885 The Patriarchate of Hierotheos I in Damascus.

163 1885-1891 The Patriarchate of Gerasimos I in Damascus.

164 1892-1898 The Patriarchate of Spyridon I in Damascus.

Restoration of the Arab Patriarchs

165 1899-1906 The Patriarchate of Meletius II (Doumani) in Damascus.

166 1906-1928 The Patriarchate of Gregory IV(Haddad) in Damascus.

167 1928-1958 The Patriarchate of Alexander III (Tahan) in Damascus.

168 1958-1970 The Patriarchate of Theodosius VI (Abourjaily) in Damascus.

169 1970-1979 The Patriarchate of Elias IV (Muawad) in Damascus.

170 1979- The Patriarchate of Ignatius IV (Hazim, 1921- ) in Damascus.



How many of these can you find in the "Word of God"?

The very text you use as the Bible came from the Church.... only the Church can explain it in context.

Forgive me....

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

You assume that the bible and church tradition are competitors. They are one in the same, two halfs of a composite whole, originating from the same divine well-spring, and serving the same purpose.

Scott knows.....

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

For the most direct answer....

http://www.antiochpat.org/

Or I suppose we could just call them and ask them to supply the needed proof.. seeing as we don't even have that much faith.

Tel: +963 11 5424400 -1 -2 -3
Fax: +963 11 5424404

Forgive me....

 

[shinbits]

Wasn't Peter marrried?

And wasn't Peter martyred by being crucified upside down?

 

[stone]

funny, i'm not finding any biblical scripture?

 

[Melethiel]

Every protestant or Christian I have ever met would first question if peter was even in Rome, the scriptures say paul was in rome, not Peter.

I have no problem with the idea that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. I'm not RCC. Wow, who woulda thunk it?

 

[Quijote]

There is someevidence that leans in favor of Peter being in Rome, or preaching there but none conclusively that he was the first Bishop of Rome, as most historians will attest to. Further, since he was the Apostle to the circumcised, as stated by Paul the Apostle, he could have been just preaching to the Jews living there.

The only theory that I can see is the theory(a good name for church tradition) that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.

Yes, that would be a good thing to call Peter's Bishoprick of Rome. A theory.

1. Again, what is so magical about A.D. 125? The NT was not compiled as we have it today by A.D. 125. Why not use the date when the NT was compiled as your cut out date.

2. You speak about historians arguing whether Peter was in Rome or not and if so, what his role there was. One could say that Catholic/Orthodox/Oriental historians would have a bious for Peter being in Rome and some Protestant historians would have a bious against Peter being in Rome. So, why don't we then dispense of historians and look at primary sources? LIke, for example, the ones Shelb5 provided?

Cheers.