“I have yet to see, other then the current RCC, made that claim. None of the Apostles writings and none of the very early church fathers show that.”
Show me a list with the bishop of Rome with Linus first. Have at it.
“That’s nonsense. Jesus was talking about God the Father as the Rock.”
Then you can explain to me why Hippolytus put Apostle Peter first among the Apostles. Good luck.
“How does listing someone first make them the head?”
It’s an argument for primacy. Right there in the list. Peter comes first.
“Besides, all the Apostles are listed in the 12, then in his list of Bishops the Apostles who were Bishops are mentioned again but no mention of Peter.”
That’s because he’s listing Apostles first, and bishops second. From your dishonest citation, we would never have figured this out. Going back to the source shows us that he’s giving Peter primacy as the first among the Apostles. Which explains why he’s not on the bishop list, because he’s already listed as an apostle.
“So you claim that Peter was Bishop of Rome when Paul wrote to the Romans?”
I claim that Apostle Peter was the first bishop of Rome. Show me a list with Linus as first.
“Paul would surely have mentioned him when writing to Rome and didn’t.”
Zzz, argument from silence.
You snore at an argument of silence about who you claim to be the most important Apostle who was head of the “church” who completely goes unmentioned yet you use a happenstance position on a list as evidence of superiority? Seriously?