"The common believers who were the converts of the converts of the Apostles used the Autographs and the copies thereof, of the very same books of the New Testament that are the preserved Canon today, the text type would have been that known to the sending Antiochan believers of the Apostle Paul, and probably even the text type of copies of the Autographs used by the earliest Byzantine region believers."
A question. If you accept that what you read for the NT, I mean to say the amended version of the Protestants, but believe that that was the version used by the early Church, do you also accept the Apostolic Succession, an ordained priesthood, the Virgin Birth and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? The early Christians did. By early Christians, I mean those gathered around the Apostles or their immediate disciples. The early independant heretics didn't. Now I understand that you profess to be connected in some way with the early Christians. If so, can this be a true profession if you don't believe what they believed about the foregoing? I already know you use a different bible than they did.
"The compiled and, shall we say, preserved form came down in the 1516 text you speak of, if you are referring to the good work of Stephanus --- a greatly superior text to the perverted Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, the products of manuscripts that were perverted by mystics in Alexandria."
Who were these mystics, pray tell? +Athanasius the Great? +Cyril?
"By the way, 'tis interesting indeed that the Scriptures themselves speak generally good things of Antioch of Syria, and generally warns God's people to stay away from Egypt."
Are you a Monophysite, a Non-Chalcedonian? You know, I assume what Antioch taught and Alexandria fought against.
"Oh, Thank the Lord that the defenders of the Receptus type manuscripts (Hills, Fuller, others) have not been members of the dark, mysterious Babylonian blends of Christendom, where men are under bondage."
I take it that would be use who have worshipped the Triune God for 2000 years in the same way with the same Faith, in virtually the same words which of course is all wrong seeing as we didn't have the benefit of a bunch of Johnny come lately Germans and Englishmen who haven't lit on a constant theology (except maybe real Calvinists) for the few hundred years they've been out multiplying sects!
"That means that their studies are not bound to the defense of a particular religious system -- they can study as free men."
Ah yes, every man a pope, including heretics like Pagels, right?
I still wish you'd tell me why you think The Church, East and West, got it so wrong for 1500 years until the fractious Protestants showed up.
This is indeed true. There was not a significant period of time from the Apostles onward where the Church of God did not have the writings to copy and distribute. Peter had Mark who faithfully wrote down everything Peter said and, I'm sure, allowed to be copied wherever they went; [2 Peter 1:15]
Paul, of course, was prolific with the pen. Writing Timothy from prison in Rome, he specifically asks him to get Mark, come to Rome, stopping at Troas where evidently he had been arrested the 2nd time and to pick up his scrolls, especially the parchments. He probably was unable to gather his belongings together before being dragged off to Rome and prison. These items surely included Hebrew Scriptures as well as Paul's own letters. I'm sure wherever Timothy and Mark stopped along the way scribes were busy. [2 Timothy 4:13] Mark would also have a copy of all of Peter's words.
The common believers who were the converts of the converts of the Apostles used the Autographs and the copies thereof, of the very same books of the New Testament that are the preserved Canon today
This is also true.