[Uncle Chip]

And there's more. But I think any reasonable reader should be able to see that it was the common belief that Peter resided in Rome...and was martyred there.

Nice avoidance of the issue put before you. None of those quotes say that Peter was Bishop of Rome for a day, or a year, much less 25 years. Furthermore, residing somewhere does not make one a bishop --- otherwise we could all assume that title.

All those quotes do is demonstrates the evolution of the legend of Peter in Rome --- with later writers adding their own little touches to the legend from apocryphal literature, culminating with Eusebius who can't find anybody to cite for his outrageous statement except the blue sky over Rome.

Where is this great legend in the early writings of Josephus, Tacitus, Justin Martur, Clement of Rome. How do you get any kind of Roman Bishopric for Peter out of what Irenaeus said. And neither Tertullian nor Hippolytus say anything about Peter being the Bishop of Rome. The legend of Peter grew out of the apocryphal literature of the time, showing that even church fathers were often incapable of separating fact from fiction.

There is more evidence that Simon Magus had the 25 year bishopric in Rome leaving a Christian cult behind when he died than there is that Simon Peter was there at all, much less a bishop there.

[GCC Catholic]

I don't have all day to refute you on this, so I'll be brief.

From Tertullian's quote as posted by markomalley:

For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind.

From this statement, we see that an Apostolic See was planted in Rome by St. Peter. Only the Apostles or their successors (the bishops) could consecrate a bishop. We do know that St. Clement regarded himself the successor to St. Peter in this regard based upon his writings.

There is more evidence that Simon Magus had the 25 year bishopric in Rome leaving a Christian cult behind when he died than there is that Simon Peter was there at all, much less a bishop there.

Yet modern historians (many of whom have no reason to support mainstream Christianity) seem to have missed this point; very curious indeed.