Actually I can but you don’t believe it.
Never met the person....or heard of him.
Not surprising. The first instance we have of anybody denying Peter was in Rome was from William Cave who was the chaplain to King Charles II. He first advanced this claim in his book “The Lives of the Apostles”.
Cave asserts that in the Greek original of Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History, (written about the year 320), there is no reference to Peter being Bishop of Rome. Boettner accepts this as sufficient “proof” that the apostle was never in the capital of the empire. Had he simply bothered to look at what Eusebius actually wrote concerning Peter’s whereabouts, he would have found in sections 2:25, 3:2, 5:8 and 6:14 exactly what Cave said was not there: Eusebius reports the testimony of the early Church that Peter indeed was in Rome and was martyred there in the year 65. (cf. Eusebius, The History of the Church, [New York: Dorset Press, 1984 ed.]
So my friend you have bought the blatant lie of William Cave, which was advanced by Boettner who, like you, didn’t bother to check the facts.
Actually, my friend, the first recorded instance of Peter not being in Rome are the scriptures themselves.
Jesus gave the "Twelve" the Great Commission. Rome was a Gentile city and Claudius had banished all Jews from the city in 50 A.D. In verse 6 he tells the "Twelve" to go to the lost sheep.
Jesus himself, when asked, says the same thing. The lost sheep did not reside anywhere near Rome.
Paul was designated Apostle to the Gentiles, not Peter, and Acts 15:9 gives the authority to Paul. If you notice, Paul has the divine authority to preach to both Gentile and Jew.....Peter and the "Twelve" did not. It is further magnified in Galatians 2:7.
Again, Paul specifically had been given the authority to preach to the Gentiles (read Rome) here and that it was Christ who had chosen him.
Paul tells us he will establish the Roman Church. This happens about 55 A.D. and Paul states emphatically that he would not build upon another's foundation. Does this sound to you like Peter had been in Rome, against divine orders, evangelizing?
At the end of the Book of Romans Paul greet about 28 different individuals.....Peter is never mentioned. Odd?
In Acts 28:15 Paul is greeted by some "brothers" who had heard of his arrival....no mention of Peter. Odd? This is about four years after he wrote to the Romans.
When Paul arrived in Rome he summoned the The chief of the Jews whom he expounded and testified to the Kingdom of God. Where is Peter...Odd? The Jews even say is verse 22 that they want to hear everything about "This New Sect". Remember....Peter was an Apostle to the circumcised.
At his second trial in Rome Paul says he was alone in his defense. Where was Peter? And as for now. Peter never was in .....or about Rome.