Now, of course this is all smoke and mirrors, and I'm wondering when this presbytarian guy is going to defer back to anthropology again to "prove" his silly contention. He had a better shot at it with science than with history. But for now, let's take a look at the bigger picture.
Anti-Catholics, like this member of a church which blesses homosexual unions, will try to rewrite the historical record by claiming that Peter was never in Rome. By this sham they hope to prove that Peter, thus, was never Pope. But whether Peter went to Rome or not is unimportant in this particular argument, because if Peter was indeed the first Pope then Jesus conferred this position on him long before he left for Rome to be martyred with Paul. Here is what Ignatius wrote about Peter in the first century:
In his "Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.
Now, for purposes of exposing this charleton presbytarian who would sweep the historical record under the rug to play the shell-game of "Peter was not Pope because he was not in Rome", I will now send this creep back to kindergarten, where I hope he will listen to his teacher.
Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” He then says the two departed Rome, perhaps to attend the Council of Jerusalem (A.D. 49). A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.
Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s 'Ecclesiastical History', the first history of the Church. Clement wrote: “When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.”
Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that “When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–68), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.”
Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.”
Peter himself tells us that he was in Rome in the Bible, when he refers to Rome as "Babylon". “The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13).
Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way six times in the last book of the Bible and in extra-biblical works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1).
If you insist that all churches that bear the "presbyterian" label must be lumped together, even if they are different organizations,
then
You must be prepared to accept all churches that use the word "catholic" in their label.
That will provide some interesting doctrines that you all believe in, won't it?
I live in Cincy. The Archbishop here just admitted guilt in the priest paedophilia to our prosecutor. They have agreed to a 3 million dollar fine.
Is it fair -- even within the same organization -- for me to lay the sin of a few on the reputation of the many? Of course it isn't.
If you are going to debate OP, then avoid the ad hominem attacks. It ruined your response for me in the very first few lines.
You skipped Clement of Rome in your second response; I'll address the matter anyway. Clement, of course, in speaking of great Spiritual heroes, says only that Peter and Paul were martyred (doesn't say where). Some Roman Catholics propose that because Clement, who was in Rome, mentioned Peter and Paul, that therefore both Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome.
Well, you can believe that if you want to, but Clement doesn't say that. I'll grant Paul, given that the Bible has him sitting on death row in Rome when we see him last, but the Bible does not tell us where Peter was martyred -- neither does Clement. In fact, Clement simply mentioned the two greatest martyred Apostles who probably meant most to the Gentiles (James would be high on the list also, but not so much with Gentiles; whereas John was likely still alive for several years more at the probable date of Clement's Epistle), those being Peter and Paul.
This is doubly true in the case of Corinth -- to whom Clement was writing. Both Paul (certainly) and Peter (almost certainly) ministered in Corinth -- we know Paul for sure, and the Bible gives two strong (albeit indirect) references to Peter's ministry in Corinth. So of course Peter and Paul would be mentioned in an Epistle to their beloved Corinthians -- no matter where either of them were martyred.
In his "Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.
No, it simply means that Peter and Paul were Apostles, whereas Ignatius was not. Paul directly commanded the Romans by Epistle (and also by personal residence), and Peter's general Epistles likewise were commandments unto the whole Church (including Rome).
Think about it -- the guy was writing under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he was allegedly the Bishop of Rome for (nobody knows, apparently) so many years, he's alleged to be the first "Pope" of the entire church... and yet where are Peter's Epistles not accepted as canonically Scriptural? ROME!!
Pretty freaky...
As to the rest, Irenaeus does say that Peter preached in Rome (doesn't say he was martyred there), although he is writing 140 or so years after the fact, and the rest of your citations are at least 200 or more years after the fact... plenty of time for George Washington to have chopped down the cherry tree, or not (legends develop); and like I said, neither as early nor as concrete as the Jerusalem ossuary.
best, OP