Well, you have provided a great deal of the useless material you dread.
"But I will never let myself be so suckered, not until at LEAST any or all Protestants/anti Catholic Christians answer the following: Which do you think came first: Efforts to spread the Gospel, ie, evangelization, OR the Bible? IOW, what do you think Peter, and the rest of em did right after Jesus ascended into Heaven? Or even right after Pentecost?"
If this is actually a question (or two, or three), then let's discuss this. The "Bible" is a composite library of 66 books/letters/writings written by perhaps 150 "writers" and one Author. I believe that every single thinking person in the world believes that the great majority of that library came before the so-called evangelism to which you refer. Thirty nine of the 66, to be exact.
The Torah, w'Nebiim, w'Kethubim were completed some 400 years before Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The rest of the letters (epistles) and other writings (gospels, journals) of the so-called New Testament were penned shortly after the events they record happened or concurrent with the issues to which they speak.
I don't mean to disappoint you (well, perhaps you need to be), but folks were being saved all the way back to the beginning of mankind. Try reading Paul's letter to the Hebrews chap. 11 and notice that "faith" has been granted to all the elect throughout history. Abel, Noah, Abraham, are all part of the family God has been calling out. Rome clearly was not there.
When Jesus was crucified, buried, resurrected and ascended, the Holy Spirit first came upon the Jews, then upon the Gentiles. While these Post-Pentecost believers did understand a lot more clearly God's rescue plan for the chosen, their "grafting in" brought them into an existing family with no more status than any of the previously saved men/women/children.
If any of the writers of the Scriptures thought Rome was going to be pre-eminent, then they certainly would have recorded such a monumental claim. After all, Rome demands this acquiescence. But, your remarks disclose a possible frustration at not being able to find such a claim. You cannot because it is not there.
Rome has wrongly fixated on the ascent of their organizational gargantuan as something other than what it really is...a self-created clubhouse for unwed fathers.
This is my precise point and you still don't accept the important implication. And I'm not talking about the Scriptures only for the Jews. Before I was clearly referencing the Scriptures for everyone ( IOW the "old" Testament and the "new"). Did you realize that, or were you being obtuse?
Because I have little time for obfuscation. And depite what you claim, there is very little historical evidence that any ("New Testament") Scripture that existed before at the earliest, AD 50.
Think about that for a second, that's 20 years AFTER Christ died and rose from the dead. TWENTY YEARS! Do you think the Church just sat idle all that time and did nothing but write Scripture all day long?
Or hey, if you don't want to think of it that way, consider this: what are the names of the books of the NT? Aren't they names like, " The LETTER of St Paul to the Romans" and "The first Epistle of Saint Peter"?
Letters, epistles, oh my! Almost sound like things written in the MIDST of an ongoing act, ie, evangelization, not as a PRECURSOR TO it.
You are right to sense frustration on my part. But not for the reason you believe. No, I'm not frustrated because the "evidence" you demand from Scripture isn't there, I'm frustrated that you and everyone else like you demand we play YOUR game ( and yes it's a game, not real intellectual discourse) and this game is to try to FORCE Scripture to be something it was never intended to be, ie, a complete ( or nearly complete) record of EVERYTHING the Early Church believed.
It's not nor was it ever intended to be that.
So again, I refuse to play by the rules Protestants/anti-Catholic "Christians" demand. You aren't the only ones with an opinion about the very nature of the Church and/ or it's function and in fact, your opinions about the nature of the Early Church are clearly based upon nothing but "find reasons to reject Catholicism".
If you want to discuss/debate anything with me, let it be that ( the nature/composition/intention/function of the Early Church). I will not be providing Scripture to "prove Catholicism", because that's precisely the game you are demanding. And it misses and obfuscates the REAL solution to these " debates" entirely, thus is a complete waste of time.