It is only indisputable to those who have no historical evidence that he was ever there. Contrast that with all the evidence that Paul was there --- the Book of Acts, the letters that he wrote from there, people who met with him there, ...
First, Peter's Epistle was written from "Babylon". That has always understood to be a reference to Rome...and Revelations shows clearly that "Babylon" was identified by the early Christians with Rome, not the OT Babylon, which by that point was defunct as a civilization.
Rome was not termed "Babylon" until after John's Book of Revelation began to circulate at the beginning of the 2nd century.
Clement's letter to the Corinthians, ca. A.D. 90 contains reference to the martyrdom of Peter and Paul in a context which strongly suggests they were in Rome.
He never mentions "where" either Peter or Paul were martyred.
Eusebius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, Lactantius all said Peter was in Rome.
And their accounts all disagree with each other. They provide no source for their statements. The reader is left to having to accept them at face value, and yet the magisterium of the church does not accept everything that these writers said at face value.
Furthermore, there is no competing tradition of him dying anywhere else.
Did you ever hear of Dominus Flevit???
Everyone assumed from the earliest days of Christianity that Peter died in Rome.
Everyone??? Did Josephus, Tacitus, Justin Martyr, and a whole array of other church patriarchs and historians??? The first we hear of it is Irenaeus in the late 2nd century and his account is not accepted verbatim by the later writers and the magisterium. If he was so factual, why don't later writers accept his words at face value??? Instead each writer adds a little more and a little more to the legend.
And then the archaeological evidence.
The bones found under the Vatican turned out to belong to man shorter and younger than Peter the Apostle, and three out of four of Paul VI's archeologists admitted that they could not be those of Peter the Apostle.
There are inscriptions around the grave suggesting it was believed to be Peter in there, and one (unfortunately damaged) inscription which some scholars have reconstructed "Petros eni" = "Peter is here." That last one is disputed however, as some of the letters are missing.
"Peter" was a common name in Rome, especially amongst sorcerers who were buried in that pagan graveyard under the Vatican.
Contrast that with the ossuary with the bones of a 6'2" 85 year old man inside, buried at Dominus Flevit in Jerusalem with the name "Simon Bar Jona" on it. Where does the evidence point to and away from???
When people talk about no precise details, they mean not that he wasn't there, but that we don't know precisely how long he was there, if he went elsewhere, or what he did there.
No --- they have no details of his Roman sojourn --- no evidence that he was ever there, just mere assumptions and wishful thinking. Once again contrast that with the details available for Paul's visit to Rome ---- the Book of Acts, Paul's letters to and from Rome, visits from others who met him there. There is undeniable documentation for Paul ---- but nothing for Peter.
There are apocryphal stories about Peter's disputes with Simon Magus at Rome and before the Emperor Nero, etc....but they are not always historically reliable.
All those are fables that some later writers, like Hippolytus, fell for. We should all take a lesson.
Which is exactly what that sentence you posted was saying: as Petronski already noted, you wrenched the second half of it out of context.
No ---I quoted the second half verbatim, and it is the true part of that sentence.
Where on earth are you getting that? The fact is, it WAS used to refer to Rome in 100 *in the New Testament.* That's solid, concrete evidence it was already used by Christians of the 1st century. And their accounts all disagree with each other..
But they don't disagree on the most important detail, do they, that he was in Rome?
They provide no source for their statements. The reader is left to having to accept them at face value
They are passing on something that was universally known. If I asked someone who was President before Bush, they'd say Clinton, and if I said "what's your source on that?" I'd be an idiot. Common knowledge doesn't get a source.
The bones found under the Vatican turned out to belong to man shorter and younger than Peter the Apostle, and three out of four of Paul VI's archeologists admitted that they could not be those of Peter the Apostle.
But I didn't bring up the bones. I brought up the archaeology of the building itself, that in the 3rd century Constantine went through this massive trouble to put the basilica PRECISELY in this spot.
All those are fables that some later writers, like Hippolytus, fell for. We should all take a lesson.
Yeah fables. Hippolytus, who lived at Rome in the 3rd century, only knew "fables" of what happened there...which, coincidentally, happen to be the same fables that all the other Roman clergymen knew. Uncle Chip, living in 2007 in the United States of America....yeah, HE knows if Peter was in Rome or not during the reign of Nero.