Originally Posted by RND
The fact that there is plenty of information that counters and dispells the myths and twisting of history that Catholicism likes to shroud itself with.
That's one side of history.
The fact that there is usually only one side presented as fact by the church shouldn't surprise anyone. It is steeped in revisionism. These same councils passed canons that were completely against the very essence of scripture.
Then what's the other side? The trail of blood theory? Some other sort of "remnant" idea? Neither have any real founding in history (as the trail of blood has been criticized, so would the other remnant theories), and neither are particularly believable. Of course, the fact that there's no real historical evidence for it wouldn't be the product of it simply not being true, it must
be because it was covered up the whole time.
The winners write history, but you would think that by now we would have found something that proves or at least supports the veracity of such theories. But, nothing of the sort has been found.