And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.Yes, St. James appears to be presiding over the Jerusalem Council. Not surprusing, given that he was the Bishop of Jerusalem. There is nothing though that indicates any disputation with Peter over the matter of treatment of the Gentiles, and the divine inspiration that the dietetic law of Moses should be lifted was given St. Peter.(Acts 15:7)
There was an instance where St. Paul contradicted St. Peter, over his not sharing meals with the Gentiles. Yes, a similar level of disagreement, and in fact quite larger is possible today with respect to the pope. Besides, there is no indication that St. Peter was pope at the time Galatians (or Romans) was written. In fact, your own timeline shows St,. Peter in "Babylon" in AD 66, full 15 years later. That Babylon was code word for Rome, not the ruins of Babylon in Mesopothamia, which no one had any business visiting.
The two letters of St. Peter are intended for the entire Christian ecumen. In fact, he finishes the Second Letter with a reference to the Letters of St. Paul, which shows that he was apostle to all, not just the Jews. Peter early indicates awareness of his divine commission and his intention to pass it down through generations in his Second Letter:
11 For so an entrance shall be ministered to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 12 For which cause I will begin to put you always in remembrance of these things: though indeed you know them, and are confirmed in the present truth. 13 But I think it meet as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance. 14 Being assured that the laying away of this my tabernacle is at hand, according as our Lord Jesus Christ also hath signified to me. 15 And I will endeavour, that you frequently have after my decease, whereby you may keep a memory of these things.16 For we have not by following artificial fables, made known to you the power, and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ; but we were eyewitnesses of his greatness. 17 For he received from God the Father, honour and glory: this voice coming down to him from the excellent glory: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. 18 And this voice we heard brought from heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount. 19 And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.
Peter ADDRESSED the council, he did not oversee it. If there was a common understanding that HE was the leader of the new church and infallible, no one would have questioned him, and certainly he would have been the one in charge of the 1st church council.
In fact, your own timeline shows St,. Peter in "Babylon" in AD 66, full 15 years later. That Babylon was code word for Rome, not the ruins of Babylon in Mesopothamia, which no one had any business visiting
Now if as Protestant says Babylon the great in Revelations there is a huge outcry, are you saying that Babylon in scripture IS Rome?
Eusebius relates that by Babylon Peter meant Rome " but that cannot be proved, nor is there any reason be given why the proper name of the place should be concealed, and a figurative one expressed.
Babylon in Assyria,was the metropolis of the dispersion of the Jews . Peter was the apostle to the circumcision, so it would seem in obedience to God that is where he should have been. This area of the world contained may of the "purest Jews" . It was a place of learning with Universities there .
There is nothing to indicate that Peter was in Rome when Paul wrote that letter. He certainly would not have left the name of the POPE out of his greeting. He certainly would not have planed to catechize the church in Rome if peter had been there.
While it is true that the epistles were circulated throughout the church, the ones to whom it was first sent is clearly stated under the operation of the Holy Spirit. All the disciples preached to whomever had ears, but God had divided the work of the church and there is no indication that it was ever changed.
Paul felt called to go to Rome because his call was to the Gentiles. (The Jews had been sent out of Rome)
There is no evidence that Peter was ever in Rome except folk lore that has never been proved historically, as there is no contemporary work to verify that.