"I was not connecting Syrian with the Indo-European strain of Languages, but early translations of NT MSS into European dialects as early as the 2nd century are on record in good manuscript evidence studies."
I am sincerely interested in seeing these, if they exist. Could you provide a cite to them either in cybher or book form?
"My point in all of this is that Roman Catholic (and now should I take it to include Orthodox Catholic???) will discard libraries full of manuscript evidence, if that evidence in any way appears to indicate that the Holy Spirit accomplished anything by common Christians who were never under the authority of their religious system(s)."
Unless you are referring to the various heretical sects which arose in the first 3 centuries of The Church, records from which are numerous and were mostly preserved by Eastern monastics not the Church at Rome, I would appreciate some cites to this manuscript evidence.
"I have gone round and round with Roman Catholics especially who, for their own authoritarian purposes, compress the the 2nd and 3rd centuries into oblivion -- that period between the death of John the Beloved and the Council of Nicea."
Any Roman Catholic who does that knows nothing of their Faith. Personally, I've never met such a person, certainly none here.
"Rome (What about the Orthodox??) cannot stand the thought that there were just plain common Christians who were personally leading more and more people to Jesus Christ -- that there were congregations of believers forming, and pastors arising, who were NEVER connected with bishops (or with their immediate predecessor) who went to Nicea for the Council."
Oh, neither the Romans nor the Orthodox, nor the Monophysites for that matter, deny that there were such groups running around. They were well known from the 1st century on. They were at the time and are now called heretics.
Your experiences here in the States and in China are touching and no doubt very real. As a Greek I can appreciate what the Chinese are up against. We spent over 400 years under the heel of the Mohammedans where the only way to teach the Faith was by night in the famous "Secret Schools". But throughout it all, we maintained the ecclesiological systemn and beliefs of the Apostles and their immediate successors. Kosta's people spent even longer under the Turks!
"This is why we often see the remark on this forum to the effect that the Roman Catholic Church was the originator of the Bible; that we would have no Bible if it were not for the RCC."
I think you'll find that the Romans assert, truthfully, that it was "The Church" or the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" which did the preserving and compiling...and they are right. They do not claim that it was the particular church at Rome which did this all alone. Because you know little about the actual history of the Church before the Reformation, I can see how you might misinterpret what the Latins have to say.
"This is why we see Roman Catholic contributors to this forum try to convince us that there were NO Christians except Roman Catholics in the 2nd and 3rd centuries."
Again, neither Rome nor Holy Orthodoxy state that there were not groups outside of The Church, which called themselves Christians. They were heretics.
"Rome (and perhaps the Orthodox???) would have us to believe that the fruit of the Apostles and those that heard the Apostles didn't include many, many such autonomous congregations in the 2nd and 3rd centuries."
Not at all. The teachings of the Apostles undoubtedly were preached in those heretical assemblies, but the fruit they bore was rotten and they died out.
"This kind of history is needed by them to help secure their own authority over their own members. But it is not true history; it's not even reasonable to believe that kind of history."
Here's a suggestion. Read the works of St. Ignatius of Antioch. They are all excellent, but pay particular attention to his epistle to the Smyrneans. +Ignatius was the successor but one to +Peter as bishop of Antioch; he was a friend and disciple of +John, knew the Mother of God and was the child who sat on Christ's lap. His late 1st, early 2nd century discussion of the structure of The Church and especially his definition of The Church, as well as his Eucharistic theology pose an insurmountable problem for virtually all of Protestantism and its revisionist history of the early Church. While you're at it, read the contemporaneous writings of +Clement of Rome and +Polycarp.
"If you read the histories written by Rome of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, you would think that there were only Roman Catholics and heretics."
Like I said, read the above Fathers.
"No, not till the Council of Nicea did there come into being a system that we know now as the Roman Catholic Church."
Do you know why the Council of Nicea was called, what it taught and who was there? Do you deny the teachings of the Council of Nicea? I think that's a fair question, FB!