Wow, you must be a special treat at parties. Here are some pointers though. I'm not "you people". Who exactly "you people" refers to I'm not sure, but keep the tone, it allows people to make a quick decision in regard to your character.
If you consider yourself part of the Christian Church, then you can't refer to Peter as "your supposed first Pope", for the same logical reason you cannot refer to "The United States" during the 1600's.
I doubt Peter had any Bible at all. He wrote and received letters. He would have also had knowledge if not possession (not likely) of the Jewish histories and laws. For the first 300 years or so, the Church used a collection of different works, but did not settle on which ones were authentic, redundant or trivial. This is why that although many Latin texts from this period exist, no "Bible" from this period exists. Unless you are simply saying that "biblyos" is Greek for book, which really meant a volume, which really applies to any scrap of paper. The Old Testament is not inclusive of all Jewish histories, but it could be a bible. It just couldn't be "The Christian Bible", as that would require Christ.
Christ never gave instructions for the creation of the Bible, but then he didn't have to answer to evangelicals.
Curiously, I wonder where you make the cut off between early Church and evil Catholics? Which one wrote your Bible?
If we just refer to it as "the good book", will you go away?