[DouglasKC]

I think I've made my point sufficiently clear. Namely, you have no evidence from Scripture or other historical sources to support your claim that Peter was never in Rome. The historical evidence, on the other hand, is unanimous in placing St. Peter in Rome.

Since the biblical Peter was never in Rome (at least scripturally) and you say there is historical evidence of Peter in Rome, the have you considered the possibilit that it may have been a Peter other than the biblical Peter?

[InterestedQuestioner]

"you say there is historical evidence of Peter in Rome, the have you considered the possibilit that it may have been a Peter other than the biblical Peter?"

Do you have any evidence of a 1st century individual named Peter, other than the Apostle who was named Peter by Christ?