How can you assert, in the face of the mountain of evidence that Peter was in Rome, that he was not 2000 years later?
"How can you assert, in the face of the mountain of evidence that Peter was in Rome, that he was not 2000 years later?"
_________________________
It's hard to have a discussion when things are misstated.
I have no reason to believe that Peter didn't visit Rome. I have ample evidence to disbelieve that Peter alone founded the church in Rome; that Peter was the Bishop in Rome for 27 years; that Peter was crucified upside down by Nero; and that Peter was a "super Apostle" and only those who followed through him are the one and only leaders of Christians.