Strangely the bible makes no mention of Peter ever being in Rome.
Or him being crucified “upside down”.
Don't be bringing facts into this conversation, mister.
/s
It doesn’t. He was crucified in Rome according to Christian tradition.
Run away from the heresy of sola sctiptura. It is not a doctrine of Christianity.
Nowhere does the Bible claim to tell you everything that happened to the apostles and everything they did even during the time it was being written, to say nothing of afterwards. It doesn't tell you St. John went to Ephesus, but he did. It doesn't tell you St. Thomas went to Iraq and then to India, but he did.
But it's not clear that the Bible knows nothing about Peter being in Rome. 1 Peter 5:13 refers to "she" (the church) "in Babylon". Babylon the city was a ruin when 1 Pt was written, and there's no memory or tradition of Peter going to Mesopotamia in any case. If the people there had been evangelized by Peter, they would not hesitate to tell you so. But the apostle who preached in there country was Thomas, not Peter.
So is "Babylon" a code word for "Rome"? Maybe.
Why is that "strange"?
It's "strange" only if one is working on the false premise that the Bible is a comprehensive record of everything which happened during the apostolic era. It isn't and the New Testament itself says so. See the end of John's Gospel.
Furthermore, the writers and compilers of the New Testament were not directing their thoughts and words to a group of skeptics who would appear 1500 years later. IOW, there was no compelling need to prove to anybody that Peter went to Rome because it was not a contentious issue in the first century AD....nor for another one and a half millenia!
The phrase..."it's not in the Bible" has to be one of the most vacuous and history-ignorant cliches in religious apologetics.
-—Strangely the bible makes no mention of Peter ever being in Rome.-—
There is strong evidence he was in Rome documented from relatively reliable early texts within 100 years of his death...
Paul’s letter to the church at Rome lists many saints he greets, but never mentions Peter by name...
I don’t find that conclusive either way..
Now whether or not Peter was the first Pope in a line of Popes is an entirely different matter...