I do not think he was head of the 12. I am pointing out that the first church historian recounts something that could in fact be true after a point in time…but that detracts.
I think that James played a crucial role in the Church. As Bishop of Jerusalem, he was in charge of the conversion and acclimation of some of the most hard-hearted of the Judaizers, and I think he (literally) worked miracles. His epistle is a fantastic clarification of the confusion following in the wake of Paul’s epistle to the Romans, and he was lead by the Holy Spirit to lead the early Church out of some nasty heresies. The close of his epistle (say, 5:13-5:20) lays out (basically in bullet point form) a lot of Catholic doctrines [auricular confession, efficacious intercessory prayer, extreme unction, etc.]. I don’t see any indication of James and Peter vying for power, or any hint of usurpation. Acts 15 shows two holy men working together (Peter first, James explicitly building off of him) to settle a dispute. And at the end of it, they claimed that **the Church Council spoke on behalf of the Holy Spirit ** (Acts 15:28, note the use of the term “we,” to show that it was the collective moving together).
As to your second point, that same Church historian records Dionysius of Corinth, in 170 A.D. (about 19 years before you claim Irenaeus “made it up”) acknowledging that Peter and Paul “planted” the Church of Rome:
“You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time” (Letter to Pope Soter [A.D. 170], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8).
catholic.com/library/Peter_Roman_Residency.asp
Peter did not found the church at Rome.
From a Catholic site
Yes. No doubt! I am pointing out that certain beliefs were not universally accepted and as such I cannot even say if they had MINORITY acceptance…you see my point. No one appeals to Irenaues about the life span of Jesus but they love his false contention about Peter and Paul. They did not found the church at Rome.
The quote you provided said that Peter died in Rome. If anything, this seems to suggest that he *did *found the church there. But I’ll acknowledge that there were almost certainly Christians who lived there prior to Peter and Paul’s arrival - Acts 2:10 mentions “visitors from Rome” present at Pentecost - although since Peter is the one who converted them in Acts 2:14-41, he technically is still responsible for even whatever ragtag group existed in Rome prior to Peter and Paul arriving. Most likely, some believers existed in Rome prior to their arrivals, but they organized the structure, and turned “group of believers” into “a church,” with the three-tiered structure and whatnot. This conclusion I’m basing off of the works we’ve discussed, and the few clues Acts provides - I’m speculating to some extent. But certainly, I see no evidence *against *the proposition that Peter and Paul founded the church there!
He made it up. Jesus was not forty. Have you read him? He has lots of odd theories about everything. I admite what he did against threats but seriously; he made things up.
I’ve read some of his stuff, and didn’t really find it odd, though our reading perhaps did not overlap? To be clear, he says two distinct things:
(1) Jesus was older than 30 [and he uses Scripture to prove this effectively, in my opinion]
(2) He may have been as old as 40.
He only expresses certainty at his first argument - he doesn’t claim Jesus was 40, just that He could have been as old as 40. So he seems to just be saying, Jesus was between 31-40 years of age.
Interestingly, he was right on the money. Here’s a Lutheran pastor (
xrysostom.blogspot.com/2006/02/jesus-age-at-death.html) explaining that “His age at death is difficult. Estimates vary from 33 to 38, with some even going as high as forty years.” The Bible doesn’t tell us His age - why couldn’t He be forty? And in any case, even if He was only 33, as Catholics traditionally believe, Irenaeus wasn’t wrong - 33 is still older than 30, which is the only age he declared too young.
Even though we vigorously disagree on a lot of doctrinal issues, I’d much rather have you as a Fundamentalist than an Atheist. 
You can do two things at the same time?