While some may have had ulterior motives, it doesn't negate the sincerity and integrity of others who genuinely sought to preserve and transmit the teachings they believed to be true.

In today's world, the narrative is controlled by controlling just a few people at the top. The vast majority that do the actual pushing of the narrative fall into the category that I call "True Believers." This can be seen in any company, where the ultimate authority lies in the board of directors. The secondary authority is in the CEO. Everyone under that group doesn't have to be compromised at all to be compromised in their actions and beliefs. These True Believers have absolutely no idea of the controlling narrative or that the people in charge of the company have ulterior motives.

If there is a single corporation in the world (Megacorp), and a single board of directors that runs it (Megaboard), as my report shows quite well, then to compromise the output of the entire worlds economy, this control structure only needs to be compromised (in the "I know I'm compromised sense") in the single Board of Directors (Megaboard) that controls the entire world wide Megacorp, and maybe (though not necessarily) the various CEO's.

This structure and evidence of compromise, this same pattern of control can be found everywhere in history. It is just one more piece of evidence that suggests that "all" of history is compromised, and the results of events are not as organic as they appear. There are many other repeated patterns that can be found, but first you have to understand the nature and details of those patterns. That is why I wrote my report in the first place. It wasn't to show the fuckery of today, but to show how that fuckery works itself out. To show the patterns, and the Aristocracy that keeps using that same Con Pattern System to control the narrative and beliefs going back in history.

the process of canonization involved rigorous criteria aimed at preserving texts considered to be authoritative and divinely inspired.

The process of all consensus beliefs follows this same pattern. It is in the preservation of only those facts that they want people to see, and the removal of those facts that say something different. On top of that process is the addition of minimal extra stuff to drive a specific narrative (like the changing of Deut 32:8, the addition of the Johannine Comma, etc.). This allows someone to accurately say "99%+ of all texts are consistent throughout time" as "proof" of their beliefs. Because my research suggests that the fuckery doesn't lie there; because my research strongly supports the assertion that the truth is contained in the relevant context that has been left out, and the small number of changes, I'm far more interested in the <1% that is different, and the huge amount that has been removed entirely.

While dissenting voices existed within early Christianity, the canonical process was not solely a matter of suppressing alternative viewpoints. Instead, it involved discerning which writings were most widely accepted, consistent with apostolic tradition, and in harmony with orthodox beliefs.

This contains the following assumptions:

1. That the suppression of alternative viewpoints does not have a meaningful impact on Truth
2. That the most widely accepted beliefs are Truth (consensus can't be forced, but is organic and aligned with Truth).

The problems with (1) are obvious. The suppression of alternative viewpoints has been undeniably the path by which a false reality is created.

The problems with (2) are also obvious. Consensus can trivially be created when you are the entity in control of information. That is seen all over the place in our modern day. The reason that false consensus beliefs can be found all over the place is because it is provable that a single entity controls the information (or did). There are all of the necessary signs that indicate the same in regards to the creation of "Orthodox Christian beliefs." These signs (even explicit statements) of this do not prove that the resultant beliefs are false, but it absolutely falls into the same pattern that you see in all other creations of false beliefs, and thus is strong evidence that supports that conclusion.

While it's true that the historical record reflects selective preservation and occasional destruction of texts, it's essential to consider the robustness of manuscript evidence and early citations supporting the biblical texts.

I suggest it isn't nearly so robust as you suggest. There are problems with it. There are noted editions or alterations put in that support changing narratives, even though the majority is the same. There are noted removals of entire books done specifically because they clashed with the beliefs of the victors of the war.

One specific example, as evidence of this "robustness" you cited the Patrician citations as proof of the accuracy of the resultant beliefs. There are some serious issues with that assessment (from Bart Ehrman). To cut to the chase, he says:

But here are insurmountable problems with saying that we could reconstruct the entire New Testament just from the Patristic citations:

1. I should stress that Origen himself is highly exceptional. He quoted lots and lots of the NT and we have tons of writings from him. So yes, we could do what we did with his quotations of John.

2. But we could do this because we ourselves have a Greek Gospel of John that we can compare Origen’s writings to. In other words, if we didn’t have a Greek text of John before us, in many places we would’t know that what Origien was writing actually was a quotation of John. Church fathers usually don’t say things like, “As is found in the Gospel of John”; they say something like “As we know from Scripture” or “As the Lord once said” or they just quote something without even telling us they’re quoting it.

I’m not sure if I’m explaining the problem well. But if you read a newspaper article that says, something like “As we all know, you must be born again to inherit the kingdom above” – there would be nothing in the sentence to make you think, “Oh, this author is quoting John 3:3.”

To use the quotation to see if it is an accurate quotation of John 3:3, you have to actually have a copy of the Bible with John 3:3 in it. Without that Bible, you can’t reconstruct that verse of the Bible. See what I mean? You wouldn’t know it was John 3:3 – or even from the Gospel of John, or even from the Bible.

3. Relatedly, the church fathers never cited passages by chapter and verse, because they didn’t have chapters and verses. So if you have a church father like Tertullian, say, who quotes the Gospels a lot, you would certainly have his quotations, and maybe most of the time (?) you could figure out they were quotations of the Gospels, but you usually would have no way of knowing how the quotations were to be arranged, in what sequence, from beginning to end.

Let me illustrate the problem. Imagine you decided to cut up a Charles Dickens novel with scissors, cutting out whole sentences sometimes (never more than two or three at once), but far more often just clauses or phrases. You then shuffle together the tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of scraps you have, and then you try to figure out how to arrange them to create the novel. You could do it if you already have the novel to compare the scraps to, but you couldn’t do it (or at least know that you had done it right) if you did not have the novel. So without the novel, you couldn’t reconstruct the novel.

4. And what if you didn’t cut these scraps from a single book, but from hundreds of different copies of the novel, and each of the copies you used was different from each other?

That’s what we have with the patristic citations. The church fathers all quote the passages of the New Testament in different ways – either because their own manuscripts of it differed from one another, or because they were quoting it from memory and got a few words wrong (as people always do; and the church fathers absolutely did – no question about that one! Origen himself would quote the same verse in many different ways!), or because they were adjusting the quotation to the context of what they were talking about. If you’re alert, you will have noticed I did that very thing when I quoted John 3:3 above. It is not actually an accurate citation.

One of the main problem he notes s, in many cases, "what exactly is a quote?" He elaborates that well I think, but what he doesn't address is that it is entirely possible that these people were quoting works of the bible that have been removed. How would we know if those works have been destroyed? How would we know since they aren't necessarily quoting it exactly as it is written, nor are they citing it, etc.:

This reconstruction looks preferentially for what we have, and doesn't look at what disagrees with dogma or The Book. Relying on it as solid evidence in support requires ignoring these facts. Suggesting that it represents a continuance through time also ignores these facts, and the criticisms of the very people who have worked on that reconstruction.

While some may have had ulterior motives, it doesn't negate the sincerity and integrity of others who genuinely sought to preserve and transmit the teachings they believed to be true.

In today's world, the narrative is controlled by controlling just a few people at the top. The vast majority that do the actual pushing of the narrative fall into the category that I call "True Believers." This can be seen in any company, where the ultimate authority lies in the board of directors. The secondary authority is in the CEO. Everyone under that group doesn't have to be compromised at all to be compromised in their actions and beliefs. These True Believers have absolutely no idea of the controlling narrative or that the people in charge of the company have ulterior motives.

If there is a single corporation in the world (Megacorp), and a single board of directors that runs it (Megaboard), as my report shows quite well, then to compromise the output of the entire worlds economy, this control structure needs to be compromised (in the "I know I'm compromised sense") only in the single Board of Directors (Megaboard) that controls the entire world wide Megacorp, and maybe (though not necessarily) the various CEO's.

This structure and evidence of compromise, this same pattern of control can be found everywhere in history. It is just one more piece of evidence that suggests that "all" of history is compromised, and the results of events are not as organic as they appear. There are many other repeated patterns that can be found, but first you have to understand the nature and details of those patterns. That is why I wrote my report in the first place. It wasn't to show the fuckery of today, but to show how that fuckery works itself out. To show the patterns, and the Aristocracy that keeps using that same Con Pattern System to control the narrative and beliefs going back in history.

the process of canonization involved rigorous criteria aimed at preserving texts considered to be authoritative and divinely inspired.

The process of all consensus beliefs follows this same pattern. It is in the preservation of only those facts that they want people to see, and the removal of those facts that say something different. On top of that process is the addition of minimal extra stuff to drive a specific narrative (like the changing of Deut 32:8, the addition of the Johannine Comma, etc.). This allows someone to accurately say "99%+ of all texts are consistent throughout time" as "proof" of their beliefs. Because my research suggests that the fuckery doesn't lie there; because my research strongly supports the assertion that the truth is contained in the relevant context that has been left out, and the small number of changes, I'm far more interested in the <1% that is different, and the huge amount that has been removed entirely.

While dissenting voices existed within early Christianity, the canonical process was not solely a matter of suppressing alternative viewpoints. Instead, it involved discerning which writings were most widely accepted, consistent with apostolic tradition, and in harmony with orthodox beliefs.

This contains the following assumptions:

1. That the suppression of alternative viewpoints does not have a meaningful impact on Truth
2. That the most widely accepted beliefs are Truth (consensus can't be forced, but is organic and aligned with Truth).

The problems with (1) are obvious. The suppression of alternative viewpoints has been undeniably the path by which a false reality is created.

The problems with (2) are also obvious. Consensus can trivially be created when you are the entity in control of information. That is seen all over the place in our modern day. The reason that false consensus beliefs can be found all over the place is because it is provable that a single entity controls the information (or did). There are all of the necessary signs that indicate the same in regards to the creation of "Orthodox Christian beliefs." These signs (even explicit statements) of this do not prove that the resultant beliefs are false, but it absolutely falls into the same pattern that you see in all other creations of false beliefs, and thus is strong evidence that supports that conclusion.

While it's true that the historical record reflects selective preservation and occasional destruction of texts, it's essential to consider the robustness of manuscript evidence and early citations supporting the biblical texts.

I suggest it isn't nearly so robust as you suggest. There are problems with it. There are noted editions or alterations put in that support changing narratives, even though the majority is the same. There are noted removals of entire books done specifically because they clashed with the beliefs of the victors of the war.

One specific example, as evidence of this "robustness" you cited the Patrician citations as proof of the accuracy of the resultant beliefs. There are some serious issues with that assessment (from Bart Ehrman). To cut to the chase, he says:

But here are insurmountable problems with saying that we could reconstruct the entire New Testament just from the Patristic citations:

1. I should stress that Origen himself is highly exceptional. He quoted lots and lots of the NT and we have tons of writings from him. So yes, we could do what we did with his quotations of John.

2. But we could do this because we ourselves have a Greek Gospel of John that we can compare Origen’s writings to. In other words, if we didn’t have a Greek text of John before us, in many places we would’t know that what Origien was writing actually was a quotation of John. Church fathers usually don’t say things like, “As is found in the Gospel of John”; they say something like “As we know from Scripture” or “As the Lord once said” or they just quote something without even telling us they’re quoting it.

I’m not sure if I’m explaining the problem well. But if you read a newspaper article that says, something like “As we all know, you must be born again to inherit the kingdom above” – there would be nothing in the sentence to make you think, “Oh, this author is quoting John 3:3.”

To use the quotation to see if it is an accurate quotation of John 3:3, you have to actually have a copy of the Bible with John 3:3 in it. Without that Bible, you can’t reconstruct that verse of the Bible. See what I mean? You wouldn’t know it was John 3:3 – or even from the Gospel of John, or even from the Bible.

3. Relatedly, the church fathers never cited passages by chapter and verse, because they didn’t have chapters and verses. So if you have a church father like Tertullian, say, who quotes the Gospels a lot, you would certainly have his quotations, and maybe most of the time (?) you could figure out they were quotations of the Gospels, but you usually would have no way of knowing how the quotations were to be arranged, in what sequence, from beginning to end.

Let me illustrate the problem. Imagine you decided to cut up a Charles Dickens novel with scissors, cutting out whole sentences sometimes (never more than two or three at once), but far more often just clauses or phrases. You then shuffle together the tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of scraps you have, and then you try to figure out how to arrange them to create the novel. You could do it if you already have the novel to compare the scraps to, but you couldn’t do it (or at least know that you had done it right) if you did not have the novel. So without the novel, you couldn’t reconstruct the novel.

4. And what if you didn’t cut these scraps from a single book, but from hundreds of different copies of the novel, and each of the copies you used was different from each other?

That’s what we have with the patristic citations. The church fathers all quote the passages of the New Testament in different ways – either because their own manuscripts of it differed from one another, or because they were quoting it from memory and got a few words wrong (as people always do; and the church fathers absolutely did – no question about that one! Origen himself would quote the same verse in many different ways!), or because they were adjusting the quotation to the context of what they were talking about. If you’re alert, you will have noticed I did that very thing when I quoted John 3:3 above. It is not actually an accurate citation.

One of the main problem he notes s, in many cases, "what exactly is a quote?" He elaborates that well I think, but what he doesn't address is that it is entirely possible that these people were quoting works of the bible that have been removed. How would we know if those works have been destroyed? How would we know since they aren't necessarily quoting it exactly as it is written, nor are they citing it, etc.:

This reconstruction looks preferentially for what we have, and doesn't look at what disagrees with dogma or The Book. Relying on it as solid evidence in support requires ignoring these facts. Suggesting that it represents a continuance through time also ignores these facts, and the criticisms of the very people who have worked on that reconstruction.

While some may have had ulterior motives, it doesn't negate the sincerity and integrity of others who genuinely sought to preserve and transmit the teachings they believed to be true.

In today's world, the narrative is controlled by controlling just a few people at the top. The vast majority that do the actual pushing of the narrative fall into the category that I call "True Believers." This can be seen in any company, where the ultimate authority lies in the board of directors. The secondary authority is in the CEO. Everyone under that group doesn't have to be compromised at all to be compromised in their actions and beliefs. These True Believers have absolutely no idea of the controlling narrative or that the people in charge of the company have ulterior motives.

If there is a single corporation in the world (Megacorp), and a single board of directors that runs it (Megaboard), as my report shows quite well, then to compromise the output of the entire worlds economy, this control structure needs to be compromised (in the "I know I'm compromised sense") only in the single Board of Directors (Megaboard) that controls the entire world wide Megacorp, and maybe (though not necessarily) the various CEO's.

This structure and evidence of compromise, this same pattern of control can be found everywhere in history. It is just one more piece of evidence that suggests that "all" of history is compromised, and the results of events are not as organic as they appear. There are many other repeated patterns that can be found, but first you have to understand the nature and details of those patterns. That is why I wrote my report in the first place. It wasn't to show the fuckery of today, but to show how that fuckery works itself out. To show the patterns, and the Aristocracy that keeps using that same Con Pattern System to control the narrative and beliefs going back in history.

the process of canonization involved rigorous criteria aimed at preserving texts considered to be authoritative and divinely inspired.

The process of all consensus beliefs follows this same pattern. It is in the preservation of only those facts that they want people to see, and the removal of those facts that say something different. On top of that process is the addition of minimal extra stuff to drive a specific narrative (like the changing of Deut 32:8, the addition of the Johannine Comma, etc.). This allows someone to accurately say "99%+ of all texts are consistent throughout time" as "proof" of their beliefs. Because my research suggests that the fuckery doesn't lie there; because my research strongly supports the assertion that the truth is contained in the relevant context that has been left out, and the small number of changes, I'm far more interested in the <1% that is different, and the huge amount that has been removed entirely.

While dissenting voices existed within early Christianity, the canonical process was not solely a matter of suppressing alternative viewpoints. Instead, it involved discerning which writings were most widely accepted, consistent with apostolic tradition, and in harmony with orthodox beliefs.

This contains the following assumptions:

1. That the suppression of alternative viewpoints does not have a meaningful impact on Truth
2. That the most widely accepted beliefs are Truth (consensus can't be forced, but is organic and aligned with Truth).

The problems with (1) are obvious. The suppression of alternative viewpoints has been undeniably the path by which a false reality is created.

The problems with (2) are also obvious. Consensus can trivially be created when you are the entity in control of information. That is seen all over the place in our modern day. The reason that false consensus beliefs can be found all over the place is because it is provable that a single entity controls the information (or did). There are all of the necessary signs that indicate the same in regards to the creation of "Orthodox Christian beliefs." These signs (even explicit statements) of this do not prove that the resultant beliefs are false, but it absolutely falls into the same pattern that you see in all other creations of false beliefs, and thus is strong evidence that supports that conclusion.

While it's true that the historical record reflects selective preservation and occasional destruction of texts, it's essential to consider the robustness of manuscript evidence and early citations supporting the biblical texts.

I suggest it isn't nearly so robust as you suggest. There are problems with it. There are noted editions or alterations put in that support changing narratives, even though the majority is the same. There are noted removals of entire books done specifically because they clashed with the beliefs of the victors of the war.

One specific example, as evidence of this "robustness" you cited the Patrician citations as proof of the accuracy of the resultant beliefs. There are some serious issues with that assessment (from Bart Ehrman). To cut to the chase, he says:

But here are insurmountable problems with saying that we could reconstruct the entire New Testament just from the Patristic citations:

1. I should stress that Origen himself is highly exceptional. He quoted lots and lots of the NT and we have tons of writings from him. So yes, we could do what we did with his quotations of John.

2. But we could do this because we ourselves have a Greek Gospel of John that we can compare Origen’s writings to. In other words, if we didn’t have a Greek text of John before us, in many places we would’t know that what Origien was writing actually was a quotation of John. Church fathers usually don’t say things like, “As is found in the Gospel of John”; they say something like “As we know from Scripture” or “As the Lord once said” or they just quote something without even telling us they’re quoting it.

I’m not sure if I’m explaining the problem well. But if you read a newspaper article that says, something like “As we all know, you must be born again to inherit the kingdom above” – there would be nothing in the sentence to make you think, “Oh, this author is quoting John 3:3.”

To use the quotation to see if it is an accurate quotation of John 3:3, you have to actually have a copy of the Bible with John 3:3 in it. Without that Bible, you can’t reconstruct that verse of the Bible. See what I mean? You wouldn’t know it was John 3:3 – or even from the Gospel of John, or even from the Bible.

3. Relatedly, the church fathers never cited passages by chapter and verse, because they didn’t have chapters and verses. So if you have a church father like Tertullian, say, who quotes the Gospels a lot, you would certainly have his quotations, and maybe most of the time (?) you could figure out they were quotations of the Gospels, but you usually would have no way of knowing how the quotations were to be arranged, in what sequence, from beginning to end.

Let me illustrate the problem. Imagine you decided to cut up a Charles Dickens novel with scissors, cutting out whole sentences sometimes (never more than two or three at once), but far more often just clauses or phrases. You then shuffle together the tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of scraps you have, and then you try to figure out how to arrange them to create the novel. You could do it if you already have the novel to compare the scraps to, but you couldn’t do it (or at least know that you had done it right) if you did not have the novel. So without the novel, you couldn’t reconstruct the novel.

4. And what if you didn’t cut these scraps from a single book, but from hundreds of different copies of the novel, and each of the copies you used was different from each other?

That’s what we have with the patristic citations. The church fathers all quote the passages of the New Testament in different ways – either because their own manuscripts of it differed from one another, or because they were quoting it from memory and got a few words wrong (as people always do; and the church fathers absolutely did – no question about that one! Origen himself would quote the same verse in many different ways!), or because they were adjusting the quotation to the context of what they were talking about. If you’re alert, you will have noticed I did that very thing when I quoted John 3:3 above. It is not actually an accurate citation.

The main problem is, in many cases, "what exactly is a quote?" He elaborates that well I think, but what he doesn't address is that it is entirely possible that these people were quoting works of the bible that have been removed. How would we know if those works have been destroyed? How would we know since they aren't necessarily quoting it exactly as it is written, nor are they citing it, etc.:

This reconstruction looks preferentially for what we have, and doesn't look at what disagrees with dogma or The Book. Relying on it as solid evidence in support requires ignoring these facts. Suggesting that it represents a continuance through time also ignores these facts, and the criticisms of the very people who have worked on that reconstruction.

While some may have had ulterior motives, it doesn't negate the sincerity and integrity of others who genuinely sought to preserve and transmit the teachings they believed to be true.

In today's world, the narrative is controlled by controlling just a few people at the top. The vast majority that do the actual pushing of the narrative fall into the category that I call "True Believers." This can be seen in any company, where the ultimate authority lies in the board of directors. The secondary authority is in the CEO. Everyone under that group doesn't have to be compromised at all to be compromised in their actions and beliefs. These True Believers have absolutely no idea of the controlling narrative or that the people in charge of the company have ulterior motives.

If there is a single corporation in the world (Megacorp), and a single board of directors that runs it (Megaboard), as my report shows quite well, then to compromise the output of the entire worlds economy, this control structure needs to be compromised (in the "I know I'm compromised sense") only in the single Board of Directors (Megaboard) that controls the entire world wide Megacorp, and maybe (though not necessarily) the various CEO's.

This structure and evidence of compromise, this same pattern of control can be found everywhere in history. It is just one more piece of evidence that suggests that "all" of history is compromised, and the results of events are not as organic as they appear. There are many other repeated patterns that can be found, but first you have to understand the nature and details of those patterns. That is why I wrote my report in the first place. It wasn't to show the fuckery of today, but to show how that fuckery works itself out. To show the patterns, and the Aristocracy that keeps using that same Con Pattern System to control the narrative and beliefs going back in history.

the process of canonization involved rigorous criteria aimed at preserving texts considered to be authoritative and divinely inspired.

The process of all consensus beliefs follows this same pattern. It is in the preservation of only those facts that they want people to see, and the removal of those facts that say something different. On top of that process is the addition of minimal extra stuff to drive a specific narrative (like the changing of Deut 32:8, the addition of the Johannine Comma, etc.). This allows someone to accurately say "99%+ of all texts are consistent throughout time" as "proof" of their beliefs. Because my research suggests that the fuckery doesn't lie there; because my research strongly supports the assertion that the truth is contained in the relevant context that has been left out, and the small number of changes, I'm far more interested in the <1% that is different, and the huge amount that has been removed entirely.

While dissenting voices existed within early Christianity, the canonical process was not solely a matter of suppressing alternative viewpoints. Instead, it involved discerning which writings were most widely accepted, consistent with apostolic tradition, and in harmony with orthodox beliefs.

This contains the following assumptions:

1. That the suppression of alternative viewpoints does not have a meaningful impact on Truth
2. That the most widely accepted beliefs are Truth (consensus can't be forced, but is organic and aligned with Truth).

The problems with (1) are obvious. The suppression of alternative viewpoints has been undeniably the path by which a false reality is created.

The problems with (2) are also obvious. Consensus can trivially be created when you are the entity in control of information. That is seen all over the place in our modern day. The reason that false consensus beliefs can be found all over the place is because it is provable that a single entity controls the information (or did). There are all of the necessary signs that indicate the same in regards to the creation of "Orthodox Christian beliefs." These signs (even explicit statements) of this do not prove that the resultant beliefs are false, but it absolutely falls into the same pattern that you see in all other creations of false beliefs, and thus is strong evidence that supports that conclusion.

While it's true that the historical record reflects selective preservation and occasional destruction of texts, it's essential to consider the robustness of manuscript evidence and early citations supporting the biblical texts.

I suggest it isn't nearly so robust as you suggest. There are problems with it. There are noted editions or alterations put in that support changing narratives, even though the majority is the same. There are noted removals of entire books done specifically because they clashed with the beliefs of the victors of the war.

One specific example, as evidence of this "robustness" you cited the Patrician citations as proof of the accuracy of the resultant beliefs. There are some serious issues with that assessment (from Bart Ehrman). To cut to the chase, he says:

But here are insurmountable problems with saying that we could reconstruct the entire New Testament just from the Patristic citations:

1. I should stress that Origen himself is highly exceptional. He quoted lots and lots of the NT and we have tons of writings from him. So yes, we could do what we did with his quotations of John.

2. But we could do this because we ourselves have a Greek Gospel of John that we can compare Origen’s writings to. In other words, if we didn’t have a Greek text of John before us, in many places we would’t know that what Origien was writing actually was a quotation of John. Church fathers usually don’t say things like, “As is found in the Gospel of John”; they say something like “As we know from Scripture” or “As the Lord once said” or they just quote something without even telling us they’re quoting it.

I’m not sure if I’m explaining the problem well. But if you read a newspaper article that says, something like “As we all know, you must be born again to inherit the kingdom above” – there would be nothing in the sentence to make you think, “Oh, this author is quoting John 3:3.”

To use the quotation to see if it is an accurate quotation of John 3:3, you have to actually have a copy of the Bible with John 3:3 in it. Without that Bible, you can’t reconstruct that verse of the Bible. See what I mean? You wouldn’t know it was John 3:3 – or even from the Gospel of John, or even from the Bible.

3. Relatedly, the church fathers never cited passages by chapter and verse, because they didn’t have chapters and verses. So if you have a church father like Tertullian, say, who quotes the Gospels a lot, you would certainly have his quotations, and maybe most of the time (?) you could figure out they were quotations of the Gospels, but you usually would have no way of knowing how the quotations were to be arranged, in what sequence, from beginning to end.

Let me illustrate the problem. Imagine you decided to cut up a Charles Dickens novel with scissors, cutting out whole sentences sometimes (never more than two or three at once), but far more often just clauses or phrases. You then shuffle together the tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of scraps you have, and then you try to figure out how to arrange them to create the novel. You could do it if you already have the novel to compare the scraps to, but you couldn’t do it (or at least know that you had done it right) if you did not have the novel. So without the novel, you couldn’t reconstruct the novel.

4. And what if you didn’t cut these scraps from a single book, but from hundreds of different copies of the novel, and each of the copies you used was different from each other?

That’s what we have with the patristic citations. The church fathers all quote the passages of the New Testament in different ways – either because their own manuscripts of it differed from one another, or because they were quoting it from memory and got a few words wrong (as people always do; and the church fathers absolutely did – no question about that one! Origen himself would quote the same verse in many different ways!), or because they were adjusting the quotation to the context of what they were talking about. If you’re alert, you will have noticed I did that very thing when I quoted John 3:3 above. It is not actually an accurate citation.

The main problem is, in many cases, "what exactly is a quote?" He elaborates that well I think, but what he doesn't address is that it is entirely possible that these people were quoting works of the bible that have been removed. How would we know if those works have been destroyed? How would we know since they aren't necessarily quoting it exactly as it is written, nor are they citing it, etc.:

This reconstruction looks preferentially for what we have, and doesn't look at what disagrees with dogma or The Book. Relying on it as solid evidence in support requires ignoring these facts. Suggesting that it represents a continuance through time also ignores these facts, and the criticisms of the very people who have worked on that reconstruction.

While some may have had ulterior motives, it doesn't negate the sincerity and integrity of others who genuinely sought to preserve and transmit the teachings they believed to be true.

In today's world, the narrative is controlled by controlling just a few people at the top. The vast majority that do the actual pushing of the narrative fall into the category that I call "True Believers." This can be seen in any company, where the ultimate authority lies in the board of directors. The secondary authority is in the CEO. Everyone under that group doesn't have to be compromised at all to be compromised in their actions and beliefs. These True Believers have absolutely no idea of the controlling narrative or that the people in charge of the company have ulterior motives.

If there is a single corporation in the world (Megacorp), and a single board of directors that runs it (Megaboard), as my report shows quite well, then to compromise the output of the entire worlds economy, this control structure needs to be compromised (in the "I know I'm compromised sense") only in the single Board of Directors (Megaboard) that controls the entire world wide Megacorp, and maybe (though not necessarily) the various CEO's.

This structure and evidence of compromise, this same pattern of control can be found everywhere in history. It is just one more piece of evidence that suggests that "all" of history is compromised, and the results of events are not as organic as they appear. There are many other repeated patterns that can be found, but first you have to understand the nature and details of those patterns. That is why I wrote my report in the first place. It wasn't to show the fuckery of today, but to show how that fuckery works itself out. To show the patterns, and the Aristocracy that keeps using that same Con Pattern System to control the narrative and beliefs going back in history.

the process of canonization involved rigorous criteria aimed at preserving texts considered to be authoritative and divinely inspired.

The process of all consensus beliefs follows this same pattern. It is in the preservation of only those facts that they want people to see, and the removal of those facts that say something different. On top of that process is the addition of minimal extra stuff to drive a specific narrative (like the changing of Deut 32:8, the addition of the Johannine Comma, etc.). This allows someone to accurately say "99%+ of all texts are consistent throughout time" as "proof" of their beliefs. Because my research suggests that the fuckery doesn't lie there; because my research strongly supports the assertion that the truth is contained in the relevant context that has been left out, and the small number of changes, I'm far more interested in the <1% that is different, and the huge amount that has been removed entirely.

While dissenting voices existed within early Christianity, the canonical process was not solely a matter of suppressing alternative viewpoints. Instead, it involved discerning which writings were most widely accepted, consistent with apostolic tradition, and in harmony with orthodox beliefs.

This contains the following assumptions:

1. That the suppression of alternative viewpoints does not have a meaningful impact on Truth
2. That the most widely accepted beliefs are Truth (consensus can't be forced, but is organic and aligned with Truth).

The problems with (1) are obvious. The suppression of alternative viewpoints has been undeniably the path by which a false reality is created.

The problems with (2) are also obvious. Consensus can trivially be created when you are the entity in control of information. That is seen all over the place in our modern day. The reason it is all over the place is because a single entity controls the information. There are all of the necessary signs that indicate the same in regards to the creation of "Orthodox Christian beliefs." These signs (even explicit statements) of this do not prove that the resultant beliefs are false, but it absolutely falls into the same pattern that you see in all other creations of false beliefs, and thus is strong evidence that supports that conclusion.

While it's true that the historical record reflects selective preservation and occasional destruction of texts, it's essential to consider the robustness of manuscript evidence and early citations supporting the biblical texts.

I suggest it isn't nearly so robust as you suggest. There are problems with it. There are noted editions or alterations put in that support changing narratives, even though the majority is the same. There are noted removals of entire books done specifically because they clashed with the beliefs of the victors of the war.

One specific example, as evidence of this "robustness" you cited the Patrician citations as proof of the accuracy of the resultant beliefs. There are some serious issues with that assessment (from Bart Ehrman). To cut to the chase, he says:

But here are insurmountable problems with saying that we could reconstruct the entire New Testament just from the Patristic citations:

1. I should stress that Origen himself is highly exceptional. He quoted lots and lots of the NT and we have tons of writings from him. So yes, we could do what we did with his quotations of John.

2. But we could do this because we ourselves have a Greek Gospel of John that we can compare Origen’s writings to. In other words, if we didn’t have a Greek text of John before us, in many places we would’t know that what Origien was writing actually was a quotation of John. Church fathers usually don’t say things like, “As is found in the Gospel of John”; they say something like “As we know from Scripture” or “As the Lord once said” or they just quote something without even telling us they’re quoting it.

I’m not sure if I’m explaining the problem well. But if you read a newspaper article that says, something like “As we all know, you must be born again to inherit the kingdom above” – there would be nothing in the sentence to make you think, “Oh, this author is quoting John 3:3.”

To use the quotation to see if it is an accurate quotation of John 3:3, you have to actually have a copy of the Bible with John 3:3 in it. Without that Bible, you can’t reconstruct that verse of the Bible. See what I mean? You wouldn’t know it was John 3:3 – or even from the Gospel of John, or even from the Bible.

3. Relatedly, the church fathers never cited passages by chapter and verse, because they didn’t have chapters and verses. So if you have a church father like Tertullian, say, who quotes the Gospels a lot, you would certainly have his quotations, and maybe most of the time (?) you could figure out they were quotations of the Gospels, but you usually would have no way of knowing how the quotations were to be arranged, in what sequence, from beginning to end.

Let me illustrate the problem. Imagine you decided to cut up a Charles Dickens novel with scissors, cutting out whole sentences sometimes (never more than two or three at once), but far more often just clauses or phrases. You then shuffle together the tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of scraps you have, and then you try to figure out how to arrange them to create the novel. You could do it if you already have the novel to compare the scraps to, but you couldn’t do it (or at least know that you had done it right) if you did not have the novel. So without the novel, you couldn’t reconstruct the novel.

4. And what if you didn’t cut these scraps from a single book, but from hundreds of different copies of the novel, and each of the copies you used was different from each other?

That’s what we have with the patristic citations. The church fathers all quote the passages of the New Testament in different ways – either because their own manuscripts of it differed from one another, or because they were quoting it from memory and got a few words wrong (as people always do; and the church fathers absolutely did – no question about that one! Origen himself would quote the same verse in many different ways!), or because they were adjusting the quotation to the context of what they were talking about. If you’re alert, you will have noticed I did that very thing when I quoted John 3:3 above. It is not actually an accurate citation.

The main problem is, in many cases, "what exactly is a quote?" He elaborates that well I think, but what he doesn't address is that it is entirely possible that these people were quoting works of the bible that have been removed. How would we know if those works have been destroyed? How would we know since they aren't necessarily quoting it exactly as it is written, nor are they citing it, etc.:

This reconstruction looks preferentially for what we have, and doesn't look at what disagrees with dogma or The Book. Relying on it as solid evidence in support requires ignoring these facts. Suggesting that it represents a continuance through time also ignores these facts, and the criticisms of the very people who have worked on that reconstruction.

While some may have had ulterior motives, it doesn't negate the sincerity and integrity of others who genuinely sought to preserve and transmit the teachings they believed to be true.

In today's world, the narrative is controlled by controlling just a few people at the top. The vast majority that do the actual pushing of the narrative fall into the category that I call "True Believers." This can be seen in any company, where the ultimate authority lies in the board of directors. The secondary authority is in the CEO. Everyone under that group doesn't have to be compromised at all to be compromised in their actions and beliefs. These True Believers have absolutely no idea of the controlling narrative or that the people in charge of the company have ulterior motives.

If there is a single corporation in the world (Megacorp), and a single board of directors that runs it (Megaboard), as my report shows quite well, then to compromise the output of the entire worlds economy, this control structure needs to be compromised (in the "I know I'm compromised sense") only in the single Board of Directors (Megaboard) that controls the entire world wide Megacorp, and maybe (though not necessarily) the various CEO's.

This structure and evidence of compromise, this same pattern of control can be found everywhere in history. It is just one more piece of evidence that suggests that "all" of history is compromised, and the results of events are not as organic as they appear. There are many other repeated patterns that can be found, but first you have to understand the nature and details of those patterns. That is why I wrote my report in the first place. It wasn't to show the fuckery of today, but to show how that fuckery works itself out. To show the patterns, and the Aristocracy that keeps using that same Con Pattern System to control the narrative and beliefs going back in history.

the process of canonization involved rigorous criteria aimed at preserving texts considered to be authoritative and divinely inspired.

The process of all consensus beliefs follows this same pattern. It is in the preservation of only those facts that they want people to see, and the removal of those facts that say something different. On top of that process is the addition of minimal extra stuff to drive a specific narrative (like the changing of Deut 32:8, the addition of the Johannine Comma, etc.). This allows someone to accurately say "99%+ of all texts are consistent throughout time" as "proof" of their beliefs. Because my research suggests that the fuckery doesn't lie there; because my research strongly supports the assertion that Reality is contained in the relevant context that has been left out, and the small number of changes, I'm far more interested in the <1% that is different, and the huge amount that has been removed entirely.

While dissenting voices existed within early Christianity, the canonical process was not solely a matter of suppressing alternative viewpoints. Instead, it involved discerning which writings were most widely accepted, consistent with apostolic tradition, and in harmony with orthodox beliefs.

This contains the following assumptions:

1. That the suppression of alternative viewpoints does not have a meaningful impact on Truth
2. That the most widely accepted beliefs are Truth (consensus can't be forced, but is organic and aligned with Truth).

The problems with (1) are obvious. The suppression of alternative viewpoints has been undeniably the path by which a false reality is created.

The problems with (2) are also obvious. Consensus can trivially be created when you are the entity in control of information. That is seen all over the place in our modern day. The reason it is all over the place is because a single entity controls the information. There are all of the necessary signs that indicate the same in regards to the creation of "Orthodox Christian beliefs." These signs (even explicit statements) of this do not prove that the resultant beliefs are false, but it absolutely falls into the same pattern that you see in all other creations of false beliefs, and thus is strong evidence that supports that conclusion.

While it's true that the historical record reflects selective preservation and occasional destruction of texts, it's essential to consider the robustness of manuscript evidence and early citations supporting the biblical texts.

I suggest it isn't nearly so robust as you suggest. There are problems with it. There are noted editions or alterations put in that support changing narratives, even though the majority is the same. There are noted removals of entire books done specifically because they clashed with the beliefs of the victors of the war.

One specific example, as evidence of this "robustness" you cited the Patrician citations as proof of the accuracy of the resultant beliefs. There are some serious issues with that assessment (from Bart Ehrman). To cut to the chase, he says:

But here are insurmountable problems with saying that we could reconstruct the entire New Testament just from the Patristic citations:

1. I should stress that Origen himself is highly exceptional. He quoted lots and lots of the NT and we have tons of writings from him. So yes, we could do what we did with his quotations of John.

2. But we could do this because we ourselves have a Greek Gospel of John that we can compare Origen’s writings to. In other words, if we didn’t have a Greek text of John before us, in many places we would’t know that what Origien was writing actually was a quotation of John. Church fathers usually don’t say things like, “As is found in the Gospel of John”; they say something like “As we know from Scripture” or “As the Lord once said” or they just quote something without even telling us they’re quoting it.

I’m not sure if I’m explaining the problem well. But if you read a newspaper article that says, something like “As we all know, you must be born again to inherit the kingdom above” – there would be nothing in the sentence to make you think, “Oh, this author is quoting John 3:3.”

To use the quotation to see if it is an accurate quotation of John 3:3, you have to actually have a copy of the Bible with John 3:3 in it. Without that Bible, you can’t reconstruct that verse of the Bible. See what I mean? You wouldn’t know it was John 3:3 – or even from the Gospel of John, or even from the Bible.

3. Relatedly, the church fathers never cited passages by chapter and verse, because they didn’t have chapters and verses. So if you have a church father like Tertullian, say, who quotes the Gospels a lot, you would certainly have his quotations, and maybe most of the time (?) you could figure out they were quotations of the Gospels, but you usually would have no way of knowing how the quotations were to be arranged, in what sequence, from beginning to end.

Let me illustrate the problem. Imagine you decided to cut up a Charles Dickens novel with scissors, cutting out whole sentences sometimes (never more than two or three at once), but far more often just clauses or phrases. You then shuffle together the tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of scraps you have, and then you try to figure out how to arrange them to create the novel. You could do it if you already have the novel to compare the scraps to, but you couldn’t do it (or at least know that you had done it right) if you did not have the novel. So without the novel, you couldn’t reconstruct the novel.

4. And what if you didn’t cut these scraps from a single book, but from hundreds of different copies of the novel, and each of the copies you used was different from each other?

That’s what we have with the patristic citations. The church fathers all quote the passages of the New Testament in different ways – either because their own manuscripts of it differed from one another, or because they were quoting it from memory and got a few words wrong (as people always do; and the church fathers absolutely did – no question about that one! Origen himself would quote the same verse in many different ways!), or because they were adjusting the quotation to the context of what they were talking about. If you’re alert, you will have noticed I did that very thing when I quoted John 3:3 above. It is not actually an accurate citation.

The main problem is, in many cases, "what exactly is a quote?" He elaborates that well I think, but what he doesn't address is that it is entirely possible that these people were quoting works of the bible that have been removed. How would we know if those works have been destroyed? How would we know since they aren't necessarily quoting it exactly as it is written, nor are they citing it, etc.:

This reconstruction looks preferentially for what we have, and doesn't look at what disagrees with dogma or The Book. Relying on it as solid evidence in support requires ignoring these facts. Suggesting that it represents a continuance through time also ignores these facts, and the criticisms of the very people who have worked on that reconstruction.