"After these things were ended, Paul purposed in the spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, 'After I have been there, I must also see Rome'".[Acts 19:21]
"And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul, for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also in Rome.".[Acts 23:11]
"For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established." [Epistle to the Romans written in Corinth Verse 1:11]
These are all evidence that as late as 57 AD, there has been no Apostle in Rome. If an apostle had been there, they would already have a spiritual gift, they would already be established, and God would not need to send Paul there to bear witness of Him.
We continue to examine the writings of Jewish historian Josephus, Roman historian Tacitus, Clement of Rome, and Justin Martyr. From them we hear no mention of Peter in Rome either. Surely someone saw something and wrote it down, or maybe they did and there was nothing to write down.
Ignatius continues to insist that Peter and Paul were there in Rome preaching once, perhaps between Paul's two imprisonments after which Peter returned to Asia Minor and on to Parthian Babylon where he wrote his two epistles and died. That is entirely possible.
But there is nothing thus far about a 25 year Petrine Bishopric in Rome or an upside down crucifixion under Nero. Thus far it is nothing but a tall Vatican tale by the masters of rhetoric.
And then there is Irenaeus who continues to insist that Linus was the first Bishop of Rome, not Peter. Even the threats of purgatory will not dissuade his testimony. The magisterium have their work cut out for them, and a lot of explaining to do.
The above took place during Paul's "third" missionary journey. Journey #1 was 46-48 A.D. [Acts 13] and took him through Antioch of Syria, Seleucia, Salamis, Paphos, Perga in Pamphylia and on to Turkish Antioch. To Iconium, Lystra [Acts 14] and Derbe and then they backtracked all the way back to Antioch where they had been two years before. Then back down to Perga and Attalia [Acts 14:24-25]. Then back to Antioch of Syria.
The council at Jerusalem was held in about 49 A.D. right before his second journey took place. [Acts 15:36]
#2 was 49-52 A.D. and started at Antioch in Syria and went on to Cilicia where he strengthened the Churches. After going to Derbe he met up with Timothy at Lystra [Acts 16:1-5] and continued northward through Phrygia and Galatia where he got sick [Galatians 4:13-14). This was southern Galatia and he was near Bithynia but the Spirit would not let him enter [Acts 16:6] as this was part of the assigned territory of Peter evangelizing the Israelites of the dispersion (721 B.C.) [1 Peter 1:1-2].
Paul and Timothy then went by Mysia and on to Troas [Acts 16:7-8]. It was at Troas where he had the vision of the man in Macedonia (Europe) [Acts 16:9] so on they went. Then to Philippi, Thessalonica and Berea [Acts 17:1-15].
Paul went on by himself to Athens and Corinth where he remained for a couple of years. It was here where he met Aquila and Priscilla who accompanied him to Ephesus.
His journey #3 is generally thought to have started here because of the length of time he stayed in Greece. This would have been 52 or 53 A.D. and he had yet to go to Rome. After spending some time in Antioch (Turkish) [Acts 18:23] he went through Galatia and Phrygia strengthening the disciples and then back to Ephesus and remained there three years and then back to Macedonia, Philippi, and on to Troas where he preached until midnight and the young man "Eutychus" was brought back to life [Acts 20:10-11].
[Acts 20:13-16 show him going through Assos, Mitylene, Kios, Samos, and Miletus and the final stage of Cos, Rhodes, Patara, Cyprus, and landing at Tyre in Syria. Then through Ptolemais, Caesarea and finally Jerusalem. It is now 56-57 A.D. and he has not been to Rome. Neither has Peter!