It seems to me that the historical evidence is quite clear. Peter was in Rome, and Peter died in Rome. Paul didn't go to Rome right away because he "didn't like to build on another's work".
Paul's letter to Rome indicated that he had a desire to go there. He would not have written a doctrinal treaties and stated a desire to go there if Peter had been there, because as you point out he did not want to build on another foundation.
Romans 1:11 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end you may be established.Is it your position that Peter spent 16 years there and the church is still not established?
There was a time when with great fan fare it was announced that Peters very bones were discovered in Rome, only later to find out the bones actually belonged to three people, one of them a woman, and from a variety of barnyard animals. There is no evidence of truth in this "tradition", it indicates the spiritual danger of building ones faith on tradition and not the word of God.
Yes, the first time I read the entire NT, I was amazed at what I found. Who would have thought that the Catholic Church was the true Church established by Christ? But there is was. And it is corroborated by ancient testimonies of the men who were there. People who disapprove of the evidence are just refusing to see what history presents - that the Catholic Church is the continuation of the seed planted by Christ, the mustard seed that grew into the largest of bushes
Did you read it for yourself under the guidance of the Holy Spirit or under the teaching of the church Magistrum ?
The evidence is quite clear, if you care to read the many writings of the men who were writing during the same period of time. It is unanimous among ancient authors that Peter died in Rome. No one suggests anything other than Rome. It is only Protestant fantasy that even hopes that Peter didn't die in Rome. The same men also universally list Peter as the first bishop of Rome. This is undeniable by anyone who is aware of the historical evidence.
Romans 1:11 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end you may be established.Is it your position that Peter spent 16 years there and the church is still not established?
Peter did not spend his entire time in Rome. There is quite a bit of evidence that he came and went to other places throughout the known world, such as England. It is not my position that Paul was writing a letter to an "church that was still not established". That is ridiculous logic. The word "established" obviously has a different meaning - probably established into the fullness of Christ.
There was a time when with great fan fare it was announced that Peters very bones were discovered in Rome, only later to find out the bones actually belonged to three people, one of them a woman, and from a variety of barnyard animals
Considering Peter was buried under a bascilica altar, an active Church, I don't find much merit in that. No one has disproved the finding of Peter in the late 1940's right where the Church said he was.
Did you read it for yourself under the guidance of the Holy Spirit or under the teaching of the church Magistrum ?
They move in the same direction. Isn't that obvious?
Regards
You evidently have not been reading the many posts that jo kus and I have been making regarding St. peter's presence and martyrdom in Rome. We have presented *Protestant* testimony to the veracity of our contention as well as quotes from early Christian sources as close as only 30 years after St. Peter's death, all indicating his Roman ministry and martyrdom. You will not accept anything, apparently, unless it is in the New Testament itself. If that is your reference standard, how do you "know," and how will you "accept," the supposition that St. Peter and the rest of the Apostles ever even died at all? It's not recorded in Scripture! You box yourself into logical absurdities like this with the position you hold. I'm afraid there is no reasoning with you.