Replies

..Translation error...aside from St. PAUL'S words on taking a wife... and the Scriptural evidence I gave you of discipleship requirement from the Lips of Christ- your position is too weak to defend.... .
From Catholic Answers:

Those who disagree cite 1 Corinthians 9:5: “Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brethren of the Lord and Cephas?” (RSV-CE). This suggests that in his travels Peter (known as Cephas) journeyed with his wife. The issue is whether the RSV-CE and similar translations are correct. Should the underlying Greek be rendered as “wife” or as something else? I think the stronger case is with the something else. Image of Santa in a swimming pool In this passage Paul defends himself and the other apostles against charges from a few disgruntled people. He says he is giving “my defense to those who would examine me” (1 Cor. 9:3). He talks about a situation that applies to himself, not just to the others, yet he certainly was not accompanied by his wife, since he had no wife. We know from other testimony of his that he was unmarried. He does not speak of a theoretical marriage, one that he might someday have but does not yet have. He responds to complaints concerning whichever women actually did accompany him and his male companions. This indicates to me that “wife” is not the right translation here. The key Greek words in 1 Corinthians 9:5 are “adelphaen gunaika.” The first means “sister,” and the second can be translated as either “woman” or “wife.” This means the phrase translates as “sister woman” or “sister wife,” with “sister” indicating not a biological but a spiritual relationship. It would make sense for the apostles to be accompanied by “sister women” who could assist them in ministering to women—for example, at full-immersion baptisms, where a question of modesty could arise, or in cases where it would be more appropriate for a woman to perform a charitable or catechetical function. This finds support in the Fathers. “Sister woman” is found in Jerome’s Vulgate, and Jerome wrote that “It is clear that [they] must not be seen as wives but, as we have said, as women who assisted [the apostles] with their goods” (Ad. Jovinian I, 26). Clement of Alexandria agreed, saying the women were not the wives of the apostles but were female assistants who could enter the homes of women and could teach them there (Stromata III, 6).

Also:
Whether St. Peter’s wife was alive at the time of Jesus’ ministry is an open question. We know that St. Peter did have a wife, because Jesus cured Peter’s mother-in-law (Matt. 8:14-15, Luke 4:38-39). What many have found strange is that Peter’s wife is not described as being by her dying mother’s side, and the tradition that Peter was a widower derives from this anomaly. You are correct that Eusebius cites Clement and claims that St. Peter’s wife was martyred shortly before St. Peter was. Due to the fact that Eusebius is citing Clement, we must consider it as one source for this tradition rather than two. Eusebius is also generally criticized for not having great knowledge of the Western Church. Given that no other early Church Father relates any information about St. Peter’s wife, this tradition has not been as well accepted as the tradition that she died prior to the ministry of Jesus.

So you admit, the only evidence we have on the matter is that Peter’s wife was with him up until shortly before he was killed. And there is absolutely no evidence to contradict this. Until I see a reason not to I’ll go with Eusebius.

I also note that in 1 Timothy and Titus, Paul states that a requirement for elders, deacons and overseers is that they be the husband of one wife.