How does this prove Peter wasn't in Rome? All it says is he was at a council in Jerusalem and in Antioch with Paul.
When Paul wrote to the Romans (about 58 A.D.) He never mentions Peter....but Greets 27 other individuals. If Peter were the Bishop this would be highly unlikely.
Could it be he addressed the head of the Church in separate correspondence? Because that would actually make sense. Still, the fact that Peter isn't mentioned is not proof of any kind.
Once again, you fall into the same trap of trying to prove a negative as implicit of fact. e.g. Scripture doesn't indicate that Paul was a heterosexual, therefore he was gay.
But let's just throw out secular history, too. Because secular historians going back to the time of Christ were known for just making up crap to get on "Oprah".
LACTANTIUS:
"When Nero was already reigning Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked . . . he converted many to righteousness AND ESTABLISHED A FIRM AND STEADFAST TEMPLE TO GOD. When this fact was reported to Nero . . . he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter he fixed to a cross, and Paul he slew" (The Deaths of the Persecutors, 2, 5 [A.D. 316]).
OPTATIUS:
"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome THE EPISCOPAL CHAIR WAS GIVEN FIRST TO PETER; the chair in which Peter sat, THE SAME WHO WAS HEAD--that is why he is also called Cephas--of all the apostles; the ONE CHAIR IN WHICH UNITY IS MAINTAINED BY ALL" (The Schism of the Donatists, 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
DAMASUS I:
"In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed apostle Paul, who contended and was crowned with a glorious death along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero . . . . They equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the whole world. THE FIRST SEE, THEREFORE, IS THAT OF PETER THE APOSTLE, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus, 2 [A.D. 382]).
So, here we have several positive identifications of Peter not only being in Rome, but ruling the Church from Rome as well. Yet, because the Bible (which John the Apostle declared an utterly incomplete historical document) does not say "PETER WAS IN ROME", he wasn't in Rome? Hmmm... let's see. Who was the ruler of Rome at the time?
Ahhh, yes! Nero!
And what was Nero famous for?
Persecuting Christians!
In fact, Nero was fond of turning Christians (that would include especially someone like Peter) into human torches.
In fact, Nero has long been accepted as "THE BEAST" referred to in Revelation.
Now. You tell me whether or not it would be a good idea to publicize the established presence of Peter as the ruler of the Catholic Church, spreading the Christian faith in Nero's Rome. The situation was so bad, John wrote to fellow Christians in apocalyptic prose to conceal his identity and the identity of those he was writing to after HE HIMSELF ended up getting exiled to Patmos.
I mean, you open up yourself to SO MUCH error by ignoring accepted facts, based on human history, which support the teachings of the Church. You know, the Bible says nothing about dinosaurs. Therefore, dinosaurs didn't exist? If the Bible doesn't say it's okay to make a right turn on red, are you stuck at every red light?
We know for a fact that Peter was crucified in the Circus Maximus. How the heck do you think he got there? Because he was never in Rome?
Babylon means Babylon.
Babylon was Christian code for the Romans who were persecuting them and feeding them to lions and such.
If you would like to believe Peter was in Rome that is fine....but I know from scripture that Peter was appointed Apostle to the circumcised. Rome was Gentile. The scriptures do not have Peter in or anywhere near Rome. Do you think this odd if he later would be your "Rock"?
You base your assumptions entirely on Tradition....I base mine on the Word of God.