Peter Was Never In Rome, Much Less The Bishop Of Rome

Peter was not the first Pope or Head of Christ's Church: There is no evidence Peter was ever in Rome, much less the Bishop of Rome or the first Pope.  The early Church consisted of believers, meeting in their homes and selecting their own pastors.

Protestant Christian Understanding: There is no evidence Peter was ever in Rome, much less the Bishop of Rome or the first Pope.  The early Church consisted of believers, meeting in their homes and selecting their own pastors.

Catholic Christian Understanding:  Jesus is the King of His Kingdom, which is His Church, and He rules it through His royal officers and to reject His officers is to reject Jesus - "Luke 10:17" Whoever hears you, hears Me.  Whoever rejects you, rejects Me."  Catholic's accept the authority of the Pope because it is the authority that Christ instilled on earth, and based on Luke 10:17, is biblical.

On the contrary, Peter was in Rome, according to history and fact, even most protestant denominations will agree Peter was in Rome and the Bishop of Rome.  The question here, between a Protestant mindset and a Catholic mindset, is how authority works.  Authority, since the history of time, has always come from the top down, not the bottom up.  In this objection to the Catholic understanding, the Protestant believes authority comes from the bottom up, from the "believers".  Catholics believe authority comes from top down, from God downwards.  

(Just as an interesting side note, the whole idea or notion of bottom up authority originates from Free Masonry and is not historically a Christian practice.  Jesus reiterates this when He was being interviewed by Pontius Pilate before His death when Pilate says , " Why are you not answering me?  Don't you realize that I can put you to death?"  And Jesus says in John 19:11, "You would have no authority, except that which is given to you FROM ABOVE." )

Also found in Romans 13, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities and there is NO AUTHORITY except from God.  Therefore, those who resist the authorities resist what God has appointed and those who resist will incur judgement."  

Jesus and Apostles taught authority from the top down, that is biblical.  God also shows us this in Geniuses when He gives the authority to Adam to rule over the animals and name them.  God did not ask the animals to get together and choose a ruler to name them, which he very well could have if that was what He wanted. God said to Adam, "I have made you in My image and you are to have dominion over everything on earth." Adam's authority came from God down and that is what the bible consistently teaches.  God also declares top down authority when he appoints the man the head of the household in the bible.  Jesus' thrown is established by God the Father and not His subjects.  

The authority that a ruler has is one thing, the means by which the authority is selected is another.  The two come together and coexist in that person.  Let's take ACTS 1 where Peter asked for nominations and for everyone to draw lots.  God worked through that and God can work through a popular elective process as well, in fact, we all agree God can do anything.  However, once a person is selected, the authority comes to him DOWN from God, not from the people that selected him.  "All authority resides in God" Paul says in Romans 13:1.  So to say that power resides in the people and it is pushed up to the man made select is completely backwards from what the Bible teaches us.  

There is a consensus among many Protestant leaders and sects that Peter was in fact in Rome and did go to Rome.  A book I found by two Protestant historians, William Farmer, and co-author William Kerekszy "Peter and Paul In Rome", surveys all the historical data from archeology and data records.  Evidence for this is overwhelming conclusive that Peter was in Rome and, with Paul, died there.  I read that no responsible Protestant historian or theologian denies that Peter was ever in Rome.  They all agree he was there and I could not find one respected protestant historian that denied Peter being in Rome.