While attempting to show that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, Steve really shoots himself in the foot. His star witness is Eusebius (ca. 303 A.D.), who wrote that Peter spent twenty-five years in Rome and was the first bishop of that city. However, Steve also quotes Lactantius (ca. 316 A.D.), who wrote that Peter came to Rome when Nero was already reigning and was executed along with Paul at Nero’s command. The problem is that Nero reigned from 54 to 68 A.D., so if Lactantius was correct, then Peter could not have spent twenty-five years in Rome! It is clear that the traditions about Peter’s stay in Rome had been muddled by the fourth century, but which tradition was older? Well, Tertullian (ca. 200 AD) noted that the Church of Rome in his time claimed Clement had been personally ordained by Peter. "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."
3 Therefore, if Peter was still alive to ordain Clement, who was either the second or third bishop of Rome (after Linus and perhaps Anencletus,) then Peter could not have been the first “bishop” of Rome. Indeed, Tertullian’s testimony is consistent with the Apostolic Constitutions, which claim that Paul ordained the first bishop of Rome - Linus. "Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; and Clemens, after Linus’ death, the second, ordained by… Peter."
4 This also seems consistent with Paul’s letter to the Romans, where Paul wrote, “Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation . . . .” (Romans 15:20) If Peter had been in Rome when Paul wrote his letter, would Paul have written this? Similarly, Paul saluted a number of prominent Roman saints at the end of his letter (Romans 16:1-15), but did not mention Peter. The conclusions we must inevitably draw from this evidence are: 1) Peter was not the first “bishop” of Rome, and indeed was not even the first Apostle to preach there.
2) Since the Apostles ordained at least two bishops of Rome while they were still alive and residing in Rome, Apostles must have been much more than glorified bishops.
3) Since the tradition of the Roman Church recorded by Tertullian around the turn of the third century differs markedly from that recorded by Eusebius in the fourth century, the Roman Church must have doctored history in the interim to establish its authority.
