They should change their name to "Tommyrot and Foolishness".
It is inconceivable that Paul would not have referred to the presence of one who was one of the foremost apostles.
It is not "inconceivable" at all. If you were a member of a tiny group persecuted by both Jews and Romans, would you put down on paper, which might fall into the hands of the authorities, the whereabouts of your critical leaders? I mean, come on, Paul wasn't stupid.
Indeed, the circumstances in Antioch were such that Peter was sternly rebuked by Paul, whose authority was much greater than Peter's. (Galatians 2:11).
Nothing in Gal 2 says that Paul's authority was "much greater than Peter's," or greater at all, in fact. Paul makes a big deal out of rebuking Peter for his bad conduct precisely because Peter's authority was recognized and important.
The Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and to Philemon were all written from Rome
Maybe they were, and maybe they weren't. Ephesians and Collossians refer to "fetters" and being an "ambassador in chains," and Philemon refers to imprisonment, but Paul was imprisoned in the Holy Land before going to Rome, so that proves nothing. Nor do we know that they were written before Peter's death, so that again proves nothing.
So if Peter was in Rome he enjoyed a immunity which was not accorded to Paul
Says who? He was a hunted criminal!
Not only does he never once mention Peter, but emphatically, at the last moment declares "Only Luke is with me."
And for all you or they know, Peter was already dead by then.
Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome.
A non-conclusion based on a non-argument fraught with wishful thinking. Mildly persuasive, except for the evidence. Except for the writings of the fathers, in particular, Ignatius, who knew both Peter and Paul, and who mentions them as commanding the church in Rome in his letter to the Romans. Except for the writings of Eusebius, who is the most authoritative historian of the early church, far more authoritative than a bunch of Protestant pampleteers in London. And except for that troublesome tomb on Vatican Hill, and the words on it: Petros eni ... "Peter is here".
Since there became 2 copies of Ignatius' Epistles (one set where there is no mention of the Catholic church), which ones are you referring to???
Nothing in Gal 2 says that Paul's authority was "much greater than Peter's," or greater at all, in fact. Paul makes a big deal out of rebuking Peter for his bad conduct precisely because Peter's authority was recognized and important.
I agree with you. This is a very poor argument.
And for all you or they know, Peter was already dead by then.
Of course tradition has it, and it is generally accepted, that they were crucified on the same day.
Catholic Encyclopedia - here
".... Except for the writings of Eusebius, who is the most authoritative historian of the early church, far more authoritative than a bunch of Protestant pampleteers in London. And except for that troublesome tomb on Vatican Hill, and the words on it: Petros eni ... "Peter is here"."
I would not claim Peter was never in Rome. We simply don't know. I published the timeline to show it is highly unlikely he was there for any significant period of time.
Are you suggesting the latest discovery of Peter's tomb is finally the correct one? No more? This is it?