So long as the Apostles lived there was no need of a written record of the teachings of Jesus Christ. As the end of their natural lives approached, it became expedient that some authoritative, reliable account of our Lord's life and teaching be written by those who knew Him personally, or were at least able to give at first hand uncorrupted information concerning Him. This was all the more necessary, because His enemies were even then circulating false reports and spurious writings concerning Him. (One only need look at the Gnostic Hersey and its emergence today.)
Problem is, I suspect there is a bit of bias in the Catholic history...So you want us to believe that no one was making copies of the bible as the mystery of the church was unfolding...Sorry to say, even your own Catholic bible disagrees with you...
Joh 20:30 Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.
John was writing as he was preaching...As were the rest of the Apostles...
Joh 20:31 But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name.
2Ti 4:13 The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments
Paul had copies of completed books as well as the parchments he was writing during his ministry...And likely he left them so others could make copies...
Sorry, that's the REAL church history...
During the earlier part of the so-called "Dark Ages," the Bible was in the Latin language, because Latin was the universal tongue among those who could read. It was the scholastic language throughout Europe. Those who could not read Latin, could not read at all.
Really...Then why would any one make a translation into another language if the only person that could read it was the translator???
Regardless, there are a couple facts you are leaving out...Although the bible was translated into Latin for the Latin speaking folks, it differed enough from Jerome's translation into the Latin Vulgate, that, who was it, Constantine or Athanasus rejected it because it was such a poor translation...So let's not confuse the Old Latin with the Catholic Church's Latin Vulgate...They are not the same...
And the other fact is although the bible was translated into Latin, it was also translated in it's own original language...
Plus, the bible headed East...I don't think there was much Latin going on in that direction
And, as I said earlier, the Roman Catholic church put out a decree that all bibles other than the Latin Vulgate were to be destroyed...As well as the people holding them if they refused to give the copies up...That's also REAL church history...
The Church of St. Paul, St. Peter and St. John in the first century, are, we have seen, in harmony with the Church of the Fathers assembled at Carthage in the fourth, at Florence in the fifteenth, and at the Vatican in the nineteenth century...
That's another odd statement...The church that Peter started out with had water baptism for salvation...People weren't filled with the Holy Spirit because Jesus hadn't been crucified yet...
People were still living under the 10 Commandments, with the animal sacrifices...Apostles were involved in signs, wonders and miracles...In the middle of Acts, folks were baptized AFTER being filled with the Holy Spirit
By the time the mystery of the church was completely revealed, Paul was responsible for the ministry of the Gentiles...No law...No sacrifices...Salvation by GRACE...Baptism of the Holy Spirit, as opposed to water...Adoption of Gentiles into the Body of Christ...No more signs, miracles and wonders...
A transition period from Matthew thru Acts...Started out one way, ended up another...You can't possibly be like the church in Matthew and the one in Ephesians at the same time...Personal thoughts - Let's not get into that old calumny of the Church chaining up the Bibles.
And why not??? It's the truth...Luther revolted because he disagreed with the Catholic bible AND, he wanted to get the bible into the hands of the Christians instead of only the priests, bishops, etc...
That's History...
That's bogus "church history". Paul would not have recognized the church you describe, especially the "no law and no sacrifices" part. Paul was performing "signs, miracles, and wonders" until very late in his ministry; it says so flatly in Acts.