[Cronos]

Their founded churches then proceeded to send out evangelists who, in turn led people to Christ, trained their leaders and established new local churches. So, no, I do not believe as you say that there was this ONE, TRUE, ONLY Church (singular). Rather there were many across the continent, all being established and peopled by genuine, born-again believers in Christ and the Bible became their "rule of the faith".

Again, this does not pan out in reality as is evidenced in history and in scripture. Let's deal with the scriptural aspects -- note in the Pauline Epistles how Paul sends letters to various missions admonishing them to stay true to the ONE faith. Note also that Paul writes to the Romans where he was not the apostle to spread the faith, so indicating that there was a "Mediterranean continent"-wise communication right through to Persia and India(as an aside, communication across the Mediterranean and right up to India was commonplace in those days, trade between India and Rome was part of normal everyday life such that Roman cuisine was spicier than Middle Ages European cuisine, so "heavy" was the trade of goods and ideas).

This is borne out by the similarities in beliefs, in rituals and in procedures between orthodoxy and the Ethiopians and indians and even to the Church in Mongolia (Naimans, Uighurs etc.).

Secondly, they all believed that they were part of the ONE True Holy Church. That was the essence of their and our belief that we are all connected in the body of Christ.

Thirdly, your statement the Bible became their "rule of the faith" is just not true because:
1. canon had not been defined until the 300s (note my above description of Clement's canon)
2. Because even in later councils we see appeals to apostolic authority to define the Faith.

Their "rule of faith" was that they believed in the Gospel of Christ and followed their bishops who were expected to know -- hence the bishops kept in touch across the churches.

[boatbums]

Again, this does not pan out in reality as is evidenced in history and in scripture. Let's deal with the scriptural aspects -- note in the Pauline Epistles how Paul sends letters to various missions admonishing them to stay true to the ONE faith. Note also that Paul writes to the Romans where he was not the apostle to spread the faith,

Obviously Paul was not the first to share the Gospel with them but he most assuredly went there with the intent to lead others to faith in Christ and to train them in the truths Jesus had revealed to him. See:

Romans 1:11-17
I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong— that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith. I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles. I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are in Rome. For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”

Their "rule of faith" was that they believed in the Gospel of Christ and followed their bishops who were expected to know -- hence the bishops kept in touch across the churches.

Those that could, read aloud to every church the writings that were circulated by the disciples. Many copies were obviously made so that each local church had what they needed. The bishops were appointed first of all by the apostles, and only after making sure the doctrine was fully understood and their lives were sold-out to Christ. The way the faith spread so rapidly, no one could keep track of everywhere that the name of Christ was heard. I'm sure the bishops would have liked to stay in touch, but without the means we have today, I seriously doubt they kept track of everyone. I fully believe in the spiritual body of Christ and we ARE already one in the faith. Just because we may not all speak the same language, wear the same clothes, conduct our worship in the same manner, doesn't mean we are not one in the Spirit because the Holy Spirit is who recognizes us - what's in our hearts - and he is who unites us.

I fully understand your need to assert what your church has concluded about its authority and you have bound yourself to it so you have no choice but to defend it. What I, instead, am trying to say is that we are not one because of the denominational labels we place on ourselves but rather by the faith that is within our hearts. We can be in unity of faith as we are all part of the universal body of believers in Christ. It is this that sets us apart, not what we call ourselves.