[Resolute Conservative]

This would make it an older established church than the ones in Macedonia and Rome who claim primacy.

[magisterium]

You're forcing-in a point that is simultaneously self-evident and non-applicable. It's self-evident, in that, of course there were local churches somewhere in the world that pre-date the two you cite. Who denies this? No one claims the "first church" was in Rome! Actually, the "real" First Church was the Upper Room in Jerusalem.

Your point is also non-applicable to the issue at hand, insofar as this church (if, in fact, it turns-out to have been a church at all) proves nothing one way or the other regarding issues of primacy. It would have been a "local church" where Christians gathered, nothing more. And, at any rate, this church would only be capable of forcing a "tie" for the oldest church building: there were doubtless several "churches" (ie: buildings where the Christians gathered) scattered around the Middle East in the first few years after the Church was established at Pentecost in AD 33. This one happens to have been found, there are certainly others just as old.

[dangus]

As a Catholic, I’d be quite surprised taht Rome has the OLDEST church. The primacy of the Church in Rome is that Peter was established the see, not that it’s the oldest church.