I know this is controversial and Catholicism teaches that Peter the Apostle was the first bishop of Rome and the founder of the Roman Church. The teaching of Catholic historians tells us that Simon Peter went to Rome at the same time as Simon Magus in order to thwart his evils. This was during the reign of Claudius and is about 41 AD to 54 AD. After successfully combating the Magus, they tell us, Peter assumed the Roman bishopric and ruled it until the Neronian persecutions of 68 A.D., during which Peter was supposed to have been crucified upside down on Vatican hill. Looking at the bible though this claim is nowhere to be found. That is:
1. Christ was commissioned by Peter to be apostle to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. If anything, Paul should have been the first bishop of Rome. From Galatians 2:7 "On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised..."
2. We are told by Paul in Romans 1:11 "For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift, to strengthen you." Paul wrote this around 57AD to 59 AD yet we told by Catholic historians that Peter had done this imparting of spiritual gifts a while ago during the reign of Claudius Caesar.
3. Paul states in Romans 15:20 "and thus I make it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on someone else's foundation. Well, if Peter had already been in Rome then Paul had to have a confrontation with Peter about this which makes no sense.
4. At the end of Romans epistle, Paul greets a lot of individuals, yet the name of Peter is not mentioned even once. That is very odd!
5. When Paul was sent to Rome after 60 AD we have from Acts 28:15 "And the brothers there, when they heard about us, came as far as the forum of Appius and Three Taverns to meet us. On seeing them, Paul thanked God and took courage. Again, no mention of Peter. Very odd!
6. When Paul arrived in Rome he gathered the local leaders of the Jews from Acts 28:17. From Acts 28:22-23 it is obvious that the Jews had not heard of Christ until then which is odd since if Peter the Apostle to the Jews had been in Rome he would have done that.
7. After the rejection of the Jewish elders, Paul remained in his own hired house for two years. During that time he wrote Epistles to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, Philemon, and to the Hebrews. And while Paul mentions others as being in Rome during that period, he nowhere mentions Peter. Again very odd!
8. With the expiration of Paul’s two year’s imprisonment, he was released. But about four years later (near 65 A.D.), he was again sent back a prisoner to Rome. This time he had to appear before the throne of Caesar and was sentenced to die. Paul describes these circumstances at length in 2 Timothy. In regard to his trial, notice what Paul said in 2 Timothy 4:16 "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men [in Rome] forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge." This means, if we believe the Catholics, that Peter forsook Paul, for they tell us Peter was very much present at Rome during this time! Very odd!
9. In 2 Timothy 4:11 it is stated "Luke along is with me..." Where on earth is Peter?
Conclusion is obvious: Peter the Apostle to the circumcised has never been in Rome. Therefore, the foundation of Catholic Church is non-existent. Talk about building a house on sand.