And you've been proven wrong. Ignoring the evidence doesn't serve anyone well.
If we've been proven wrong, it certainly hasn't been by you. You haven't presented any evidence to prove anyone wrong. All you've done is to cut and paste from works that assert the same things that you do, making bald assertions without providing any specific references that can be checked (e.g., as I pointed out above, 'Justin Martyr taught so and so' but with no references to specific statements of Justin's to back up the assertion). You'll have to present some actual evidence before we can ignore it.
Fragments from the 2nd century don't prove jack shit.
Actually, they do. The cumulative weight of the manuscript evidence that exists is that the NT as we have it today is substantially the same as the writings that were produced by the apostles and their associates. If the Bible today doesn't teach reincarnation, then it didn't in the early centuries of the church, either.
The canon was carefully selected hundreds of years later to eliminate "heresies".
Not only is this statement false, but it shows massive ignorance of the history of the canon of the NT. The writings of the NT were accepted as Scripture even during the lives of the writers. At 2 Peter 3:16, Peter refers to Paul's writings as "Scripture." At 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul quotes Luke 10:7 and calls it "Scripture." Even if you take the liberal view that these were later works by other authors (a viewpoint with which I strenuously disagree), they would still be dated no later than the early 2nd century, showing that those works (Paul's writings and Luke's Gospel) were regarded as part of the "canon" even then - long before you are asserting that the canon was "carefully selected." The establishment of a formal canon by church council in the 4th century does not mean that the canon was unknown before that time. It's not like a bunch of bishops sat down one dey and decided to select a canon when up to that time, nobody had the slightest idea which books were considered Scripture. The majority of NT books were accepted as inspired Scripture from the time of their being written. What the church ultimately formalized at the council of Carthage was a canon that had already been known and accepted for hundreds of years. Maybe you should read some literature from sources other than this new cult you seem to have embraced unquestioningly.
Sound like a Cult in Brooklyn we know?
Your method of argumentation certainly does, as I pointed out in my previous post.
One thing about the Vatican, if they're covering it up, it's undoubtedly true.
Another bald assertion offered without evidence. To claim that if the Vatican's covering something up it means that it's true, you first have to prove that the Vatican is covering something up, and you haven't done that. If you can't establish the rest of your argument using real citations and evidence rather than naked assertions, then you haven't shown that there's anything to be covered up in the first place. I can claim that there are little green men living on Pluto and that NASA is covering it up, but to make the argument stick, I first have to prove that the little green men actually exist, and then, as a separate argument, prove that NASA knows about them and is in fact covering up what they know. The same process applies to your argument, and your cutting and pasting of assertions without meaningful citation fails to meet the criteria for proof that any reasonable person would demand.
