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.
Try opening your Bible. It's called 1 Peter and 2 Peter.
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.
Another reason somebody might say something without citation would be because he thought it wasn't controversial. Mere absence of citation seems equivocal to me. As is silence.
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.Are you going to make me get out of my chair, find my crutches and then root around until I find my Tacitus, if I even have it still? I don't recall his saying very much at all about Christianity. So his failing to mention the whereabouts of Peter doesn't strike me, with my imperfect memory, as indicative of anything at all. For it to be meaningful I'd need for him to say a lot about Christianity in Rome so that it would be clear that he cared, knew a lot, and then didn't know that Peter was there.
I just don't see that anyone who wasn't a Christian would have cared a whole lot.
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?
And here you seem to suggest a very different idea of the early Church from the idea I have. I don't tink there was a job description of Boss Apostle, complete with a list of expectations and provision for year-end review. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as we believe, these guys are making it up as they go along.
supposed magnificent Bishopric
I'm sorry, that just seems to me to be tendentious, if not flat out dishonest. Who attributes magnificence in any normal use of the word to Peter's ministry?
There was no evidence of a triple tiara or a papal sedan chair. I stipulate that eagerly (untroubled by my complete ignorance of what there is and isn't evidence for) but that to me says nothing either way about whether Peter was in Rome and what he might have done there. It seems to me that the argument would first have to show that we expect evidence before its absence is shown to be remarkable.