is not supported by the extensive manuscript evidence and quotations from early church fathers.

Contained within this statement are the following assumptions:

1. Every single one of the creators of the resultant doctrine was acting in earnest without any ulterior motives but The Truth.
2. The result of their efforts is The Truth, i.e., the assumption is that they got it all correct (regardless of intent)
3. The people who came to different conclusions than the "Church Fathers," of which there were many, were absolutely incorrect wherever they disagreed with said "Church Fathers"
4. That all records of what the people had to say of importance still exist today.

There are some criticisms of these assumptions:

1. There is substantial evidence of ulterior motives in The Church that was created as a result of their efforts .For example, the design of The Church at the end (which we call the Catholic Church today) was to control the populace and unite the Roman Empire under a god-emperor. This end result doesn't prove ulterior motives for all people through all time during the entire creation of the resultant doctrine, but it does show that ulterior motives exist for some of the people involved. There are more examples than this.
2. There is no way to know what the Truth is, but it is taken "on faith" that what these people created represents that Truth, even though that much was left out is not controversial. The justification for the removal of certain works is that the Church Fathers believed that evidence belonged in "the bad box." So here we rely on their assessment as "experts," not our own investigation or consideration.
3. Like 2, this relies on faith in the same people, not on the process of reason. Those that disagreed were silenced by the Church Fathers "expertise" and "correctness." They were also silenced by provable destruction of their work, by laws and on penalty of death.
4. Four is easily shown false. We have no doubts that many writings were destroyed. It is commonly justified similarly to the other assumptions, that they had good reason to destroy the "heresy." There are likely entire categories of things destroyed by The Church of which we will never know. The Vatican is notorious for control of all information regarding these things. We rely on the information we have. We know that information is controlled and has been destroyed by the same entity that gave us the bulk of today's official doctrine. This is important information in any effort to reason the truth about this development.

inconsistent with the robust historical evidence we possess.

Two things:

1. This suggests you have seen enough of the evidence to glean the truth, yet you have admitted that some evidence isn't worth consideration because it has been placed in "the bad box" (Gnostic e.g.).
2. This assumes that enough of the evidence has survived the purge that we know happened to make reasonable determinations.

Your entire argument rests on "we have enough provable history that the conclusions must be correct." This argument is provably false for certain other broadly adopted conclusions (The Empire of Scythia/Tartary e.g.), yet you assume it can't be false for this one.

is not supported by the extensive manuscript evidence and quotations from early church fathers.

Contained within this statement are the following assumptions:

1. Every single one of the creators of the resultant doctrine was acting in earnest without any ulterior motives but The Truth. 2.The result of their efforts is The Truth, i.e., the assumption is that they got it all correct (regardless of intent)
2. The people who came to different conclusions than the "Church Fathers," of which there were many, were absolutely incorrect wherever they disagreed with said "Church Fathers"
3. That all records of what the people had to say of importance still exist today.

There are some criticisms of these assumptions:

1. There is substantial evidence of ulterior motives in The Church that was created as a result of their efforts .For example, the design of The Church at the end (which we call the Catholic Church today) was to control the populace and unite the Roman Empire under a god-emperor. This end result doesn't prove ulterior motives for all people through all time during the entire creation of the resultant doctrine, but it does show that ulterior motives exist for some of the people involved. There are more examples than this.
2. There is no way to know what the Truth is, but it is taken "on faith" that what these people created represents that Truth, even though that much was left out is not controversial. The justification for the removal of certain works is that the Church Fathers believed that evidence belonged in "the bad box." So here we rely on their assessment as "experts," not our own investigation or consideration.
3. Like 2, this relies on faith in the same people, not on the process of reason. Those that disagreed were silenced by the Church Fathers "expertise" and "correctness." They were also silenced by provable destruction of their work, by laws and on penalty of death.
4. Four is easily shown false. We have no doubts that many writings were destroyed. It is commonly justified similarly to the other assumptions, that they had good reason to destroy the "heresy." There are likely entire categories of things destroyed by The Church of which we will never know. The Vatican is notorious for control of all information regarding these things. We rely on the information we have. We know that information is controlled and has been destroyed by the same entity that gave us the bulk of today's official doctrine. This is important information in any effort to reason the truth about this development.

inconsistent with the robust historical evidence we possess.

Two things:

1. This suggests you have seen enough of the evidence to glean the truth, yet you have admitted that some evidence isn't worth consideration because it has been placed in "the bad box" (Gnostic e.g.).
2. This assumes that enough of the evidence has survived the purge that we know happened to make reasonable determinations.

Your entire argument rests on "we have enough provable history that the conclusions must be correct." This argument is provably false for certain other broadly adopted conclusions (The Empire of Scythia/Tartary e.g.), yet you assume it can't be false for this one.

is not supported by the extensive manuscript evidence and quotations from early church fathers.

Contained within this statement are the following assumptions:

1. Every single one of the creators of the resultant doctrine was acting in earnest without any ulterior motives but The Truth. 2.The result of their efforts is The Truth, i.e., the assumption is that they got it all correct (regardless of intent).
2. The people who came to different conclusions than the "Church Fathers," of which there were many, were absolutely incorrect wherever they disagreed with said "Church Fathers"
3. That all records of what the people had to say of importance still exist today.

There are some criticisms of these assumptions:

1. There is substantial evidence of ulterior motives in The Church that was created as a result of their efforts .For example, the design of The Church at the end (which we call the Catholic Church today) was to control the populace and unite the Roman Empire under a god-emperor. This end result doesn't prove ulterior motives for all people through all time during the entire creation of the resultant doctrine, but it does show that ulterior motives exist for some of the people involved. There are more examples than this.
2. There is no way to know what the Truth is, but it is taken "on faith" that what these people created represents that Truth, even though that much was left out is not controversial. The justification for the removal of certain works is that the Church Fathers believed that evidence belonged in "the bad box." So here we rely on their assessment as "experts," not our own investigation or consideration.
3. Like 2, this relies on faith in the same people, not on the process of reason. Those that disagreed were silenced by the Church Fathers "expertise" and "correctness." They were also silenced by provable destruction of their work, by laws and on penalty of death.
4. Four is easily shown false. We have no doubts that many writings were destroyed. It is commonly justified similarly to the other assumptions, that they had good reason to destroy the "heresy." There are likely entire categories of things destroyed by The Church of which we will never know. The Vatican is notorious for control of all information regarding these things. We rely on the information we have. We know that information is controlled and has been destroyed by the same entity that gave us the bulk of today's official doctrine. This is important information in any effort to reason the truth about this development.

inconsistent with the robust historical evidence we possess.

Two things:

1. This suggests you have seen enough of the evidence to glean the truth, yet you have admitted that some evidence isn't worth consideration because it has been placed in "the bad box" (Gnostic e.g.).
2. This assumes that enough of the evidence has survived the purge that we know happened to make reasonable determinations.

Your entire argument rests on "we have enough provable history that the conclusions must be correct." This argument is provably false for certain other broadly adopted conclusions (The Empire of Scythia/Tartary e.g.), yet you assume it can't be false for this one.

is not supported by the extensive manuscript evidence and quotations from early church fathers.

Contained within this statement are the following assumptions:

1. Every single one of the creators of the resultant doctrine was acting in earnest without any ulterior motives but The Truth. 2.The result of their efforts is The Truth, i.e., the assumption is that they got it all correct (regardless of intent).
2. The people who came to different conclusions than the "Church Fathers," of which there were many, were absolutely incorrect wherever they disagreed with said "Church Fathers".
3. That all records of what the people had to say of importance still exist today.

There are some criticisms of these assumptions:

1. There is substantial evidence of ulterior motives in The Church that was created as a result of their efforts .For example, the design of The Church at the end (which we call the Catholic Church today) was to control the populace and unite the Roman Empire under a god-emperor. This end result doesn't prove ulterior motives for all people through all time during the entire creation of the resultant doctrine, but it does show that ulterior motives exist for some of the people involved. There are more examples than this.
2. There is no way to know what the Truth is, but it is taken "on faith" that what these people created represents that Truth, even though that much was left out is not controversial. The justification for the removal of certain works is that the Church Fathers believed that evidence belonged in "the bad box." So here we rely on their assessment as "experts," not our own investigation or consideration.
3. Like 2, this relies on faith in the same people, not on the process of reason. Those that disagreed were silenced by the Church Fathers "expertise" and "correctness." They were also silenced by provable destruction of their work, by laws and on penalty of death.
4. Four is easily shown false. We have no doubts that many writings were destroyed. It is commonly justified similarly to the other assumptions, that they had good reason to destroy the "heresy." There are likely entire categories of things destroyed by The Church of which we will never know. The Vatican is notorious for control of all information regarding these things. We rely on the information we have. We know that information is controlled and has been destroyed by the same entity that gave us the bulk of today's official doctrine. This is important information in any effort to reason the truth about this development.

inconsistent with the robust historical evidence we possess.

Two things:

1. This suggests you have seen enough of the evidence to glean the truth, yet you have admitted that some evidence isn't worth consideration because it has been placed in "the bad box" (Gnostic e.g.).
2. This assumes that enough of the evidence has survived the purge that we know happened to make reasonable determinations.

Your entire argument rests on "we have enough provable history that the conclusions must be correct." This argument is provably false for certain other broadly adopted conclusions (The Empire of Scythia/Tartary e.g.), yet you assume it can't be false for this one.

is not supported by the extensive manuscript evidence and quotations from early church fathers.

Contained within this statement are the following assumptions:

1. Every single one of the creators of the resultant doctrine was acting in earnest without any ulterior motives but The Truth. 2.The result of their efforts is The Truth, i.e., the assumption is that they got it all correct (regardless of intent).
2. The people who came to different conclusions than the "Church Fathers," of which there were many, were absolutely incorrect wherever they disagreed with said "Church Fathers". 4.That all records of what the people had to say of importance still exist today.

There are some criticisms of these assumptions:

1. There is substantial evidence of ulterior motives in The Church that was created as a result of their efforts .For example, the design of The Church at the end (which we call the Catholic Church today) was to control the populace and unite the Roman Empire under a god-emperor. This end result doesn't prove ulterior motives for all people through all time during the entire creation of the resultant doctrine, but it does show that ulterior motives exist for some of the people involved. There are more examples than this.
2. There is no way to know what the Truth is, but it is taken "on faith" that what these people created represents that Truth, even though that much was left out is not controversial. The justification for the removal of certain works is that the Church Fathers believed that evidence belonged in "the bad box." So here we rely on their assessment as "experts," not our own investigation or consideration.
3. Like 2, this relies on faith in the same people, not on the process of reason. Those that disagreed were silenced by the Church Fathers "expertise" and "correctness." They were also silenced by provable destruction of their work, by laws and on penalty of death.
4. Four is easily shown false. We have no doubts that many writings were destroyed. It is commonly justified similarly to the other assumptions, that they had good reason to destroy the "heresy." There are likely entire categories of things destroyed by The Church of which we will never know. The Vatican is notorious for control of all information regarding these things. We rely on the information we have. We know that information is controlled and has been destroyed by the same entity that gave us the bulk of today's official doctrine. This is important information in any effort to reason the truth about this development.

inconsistent with the robust historical evidence we possess.

Two things:

1. This suggests you have seen enough of the evidence to glean the truth, yet you have admitted that some evidence isn't worth consideration because it has been placed in "the bad box" (Gnostic e.g.).
2. This assumes that enough of the evidence has survived the purge that we know happened to make reasonable determinations.

Your entire argument rests on "we have enough provable history that the conclusions must be correct." This argument is provably false for certain other broadly adopted conclusions (The Empire of Scythia/Tartary e.g.), yet you assume it can't be false for this one.

is not supported by the extensive manuscript evidence and quotations from early church fathers.

Contained within this statement are the following assumptions:

1. Every single one of the creators of the resultant doctrine was acting in earnest without any ulterior motives but The Truth. 2.The result of their efforts is The Truth, i.e., the assumption is that they got it all correct (regardless of intent).
2. The people who came to different conclusions than the "Church Fathers," of which there were many, were absolutely incorrect wherever they disagreed with said "Church Fathers". 4.That all records of what the people had to say of importance still exist today.

There are some criticisms of these assumptions:

1. There is substantial evidence of ulterior motives in The Church that was created as a result of their efforts .For example, the design of The Church at the end (which we call the Catholic Church today) was to control the populace and unite the Roman Empire under a god-emperor. This end result doesn't prove ulterior motives for all people through all time during the entire creation of the resultant doctrine, but it does show that ulterior motives exist for some of the people involved. There are more examples than this.
2. There is no way to know what the Truth is, but it is taken "on faith" that what these people created represents that Truth, even though that much was left out is not controversial. The justification for the removal of certain works is that the Church Fathers believed that evidence belonged in "the bad box." So here we rely on their assessment as "experts," not our own investigation or consideration.
3. Like 2, this relies on faith in the same people, not on the process of reason. Those that disagreed were silenced by the Church Fathers "expertise" and "correctness." They were also silenced by provable destruction of their work, by laws and on penalty of death.
4. Four is easily shown false. We have no doubts that many writings were destroyed. It is commonly justified similarly to the other assumptions, that they had good reason to destroy the "heresy." There are likely entire categories of things destroyed by The Church of which we will never know. The Vatican is notorious for control of all information regarding these things. We rely on the information we have. We know that information is controlled and has been destroyed by the same entity that gave us the bulk of today's official doctrine. This is important information in any effort to reason the truth about this development.

inconsistent with the robust historical evidence we possess.

Two things:

1. This suggests you have seen enough of the evidence to glean the truth, yet you have admitted that some evidence isn't worth consideration because it has been placed in "the bad box" (Gnostic e.g.).
2. This assumes that enough of the evidence has survived the purge that we know happened to make reasonable determinations.

Your entire argument rests on "we have enough provable history that the conclusions must be correct." This argument is provably false for certain other broadly adopted conclusions (The Empire of Scythia e.g.), yet you assume it can't be false for this one.

is not supported by the extensive manuscript evidence and quotations from early church fathers.

Contained within this statement are the following assumptions:

1. Every single one of the creators of the resultant doctrine was acting in earnest without any ulterior motives but The Truth. 2.The result of their efforts is The Truth, i.e., the assumption is that they got it all correct (regardless of intent).
2. The people who came to different conclusions than the "Church Fathers," of which there were many, were absolutely incorrect wherever they disagreed with said "Church Fathers". 4.That all records of what the people had to say of importance still exist today.

There are some criticisms of these assumptions:

1. There is substantial evidence of ulterior motives in The Church that was created as a result of their efforts .For example, the design of The Church at the end (which we call the Catholic Church today) was to control the populace and unite the Roman Empire under a god-emperor. This end result doesn't prove ulterior motives for all people through all time during the entire creation of the resultant doctrine, but it does show that ulterior motives exist for some of the people involved. There are more examples than this.
2. There is no way to know what the Truth is, but it is taken "on faith" that what these people created represents that Truth, even though that much was left out is not controversial. The justification for the removal of certain works is that the Church Fathers believed that evidence belonged in "the bad box." So here we rely on their assessment as "experts," not our own investigation or consideration.
3. Like 2, this relies on faith in the same people, not on the process of reason. Those that disagreed were silenced by the Church Fathers "expertise" and "correctness." They were also silenced by provable destruction of their work, by laws and on penalty of death.
4. Four is easily shown false. We have no doubts that many writings were destroyed. It is commonly justified similarly to the other assumptions, that they had good reason to destroy the "heresy." There are likely entire categories of things destroyed by The Church of which we will never know. The Vatican is notorious for control of all information regarding these things. We rely on the information we have. We know that information is controlled and has been destroyed by the same entity that gave us the bulk of today's official doctrine. This is important information in any effort to reason the truth about this development.

inconsistent with the robust historical evidence we possess.

Two things:

1. This suggests you have seen enough of the evidence to glean the truth, yet you have admitted that some evidence isn't worth consideration because it has been placed in "the bad box" (Gnostic e.g.).
2. This assumes that enough of the evidence has survived the purge that we know happen to make reasonable determinations.