LOL!
She's not going to answer until you stop beating your wife ...
Personally I don't know. Why do you say "invent". Is there evidence to the contrary or what? I mean real evidence, not Dan Brown evidence.
I say "invent" because when you look at where and when it begins to grow it does so from the pen of Eusebius in the 4th century.
And he provides no citations for anything that he proclaims. He just says it as if by saying it it should then just become true. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that what he says on this matter cannot be trusted, but it was trusted for 1500 years by gullible church goers .
Is there evidence to the contrary or what? I mean real evidence, not Dan Brown evidence.
Sure, there is plenty of evidence. It is called "silence". Historians and early church fathers cannot testify against something that never happened and was never asserted until 200 years after their death. They just don't report on it because there was nothing to report on.
No details are ever provided by those who should have said something. Luke was there in Rome circa 60 AD and he says nothing about Peter being there, nor does Josephus, Tacitus, Justin Martyr, Clement of Rome, Hippolytus --- all those who should have said something as they wrote from Rome and about Rome and to Romans.
Where is there a record of Peter's decrees from that famous sacerdotal chair --- there are none. Weren't his words important enough to record? Or maybe he was silent for all those years and had nothing to say. And he must also have done nothing during all that time in Rome as well, because even the ante-Nicene writers provide no details of this supposed magnificent Bishopric --- only that he was there, according to them. And even of that they provide no details as if they themselves are not really sure.