Exactly...There was nobody named Peter, Matthew, Luke, John etc ...

Names were changed to sell it to Europe.

I asked Grok "Is there any evidence for the idea that the apostle Peter was buried in Shama Lebanon and not in Rome?"

Response:

The idea that the Apostle Peter was buried in Shama, Lebanon, rather than Rome, has been discussed in various contexts, particularly in relation to recent events and historical interpretations. Here is an analysis based on available information:

• Historical Tradition and Archaeological Evidence in Rome: The traditional view, supported by historical texts and archaeological findings, holds that St. Peter was martyred and buried in Rome. Eusebius of Caesarea, in his "Historia Ecclesiastica," mentions that Gaius, a Christian writer, referred to the tombs of Peter and Paul in Rome during the early 3rd century. Excavations under St. Peter's Basilica have uncovered what is believed to be the tomb of St. Peter, with Pope Pius XII announcing in 1950 that bones found there could be St. Peter's, though without absolute certainty. This supports the longstanding tradition of Peter's burial in Rome.

• Claims of Burial in Shama, Lebanon: Recent claims that Peter was buried in Shama, Lebanon, stem from local traditions and recent events. Shama, also known as Chama or Shama'a, has a shrine attributed by local tradition to Saint Peter, known in Arabic as Shamoun al-Safa. This tradition links the site to Peter, with some sources suggesting it might be connected to the 12th and last Shia Imam Mahdi. However, these claims are more rooted in local religious narratives than in historical or archaeological consensus. The destruction of this shrine was reported in late 2024 by Israeli forces, which has fueled discussions and claims about its significance.

• Critical Analysis:

  • Lack of Historical Documentation: There's a notable absence of early Christian texts or historical records outside of local folklore that would definitively place Peter's burial in Shama. The historical narrative and archaeological evidence have long pointed to Rome as his burial place.
  • Modern Events and Misinterpretation: The destruction of the mausoleum in Shama has been widely discussed on social media and in some news outlets, often with a political or religious angle, suggesting it was a significant Christian site. However, this might conflate modern events with historical facts. The claims could be more about contemporary conflicts and cultural heritage disputes than about historical accuracy.
  • Archaeological and Scholarly Skepticism: Scholars and archaeologists have been skeptical about claims of Peter's burial outside of Rome, especially given the lack of corroborating evidence from the period of Peter's life or shortly thereafter. The association of Shama with Peter might be more symbolic or based on later religious developments rather than on direct historical evidence.

In summary, while there are local traditions and modern claims associating Shama with the burial of St. Peter, the historical, textual, and archaeological evidence overwhelmingly supports his burial in Rome. The narrative surrounding Shama appears to be more reflective of current cultural and political dynamics rather than a reevaluation of historical evidence.

Christ told Peter he was a "little pebble" and that he Christ is the ROCK on which the church would be built. Also, no where in the bible did Peter go to Rome. Paul did, Peter did not.

He is in Heaven, so that is the most important thing.