You ASSUME this to be true.
How do you verify it?
Your turn to cite sources.
Unfortunately, I'm away on job training all this week and don't have access to my library, so citing sources isn't within my current ability. However, it seems a reasonable enough prima facie conclusion: the canonical Scriptures support the deity of Christ; the Nicean council found in favor of the deity of Christ; the ante-Nicene fathers cited the canonical Scriptures extensively. Am I reaching too far to see a relationship there? If you think I am wrong about that, from where do you think the Nicene bishops got their understanding of the deity of Christ?
Now, why take the view that Catholic Dogma was the TRUE view and the only documents destroyed were actual heretical writings/
HOW DO YOU KNOW?
Correct me if I misunderstand you here, but it seems to me that you are asserting that there were some hypothetical writings that have not survived that you are now appealing to in an effort to bolster your original claim regarding how the biblical documents were viewed by their original readers? Even if it were true that such documents existed (and I have no doubt that there may have been SOME "heretical" documents that failed to survive, even as there were very likely SOME "orthodox" documents that failed to survive), it would do little for your case, since the original readers of the NT documents lived centuries by Constantine. Even if your scenario were correct, the documents would certainly have been regarded as "holy" before the time of Constantine. So that offers nothing to explain why the autographs did not survive.
In any event, I think it's quite a stretch to hypothesize documents for whose existence we have no evidence and then use them to bolster your theory, particularly from a guy who is so demanding of evidence for positive claims. If Constantine did undertake to destroy all "heretical" documents, he was wildly unsuccessful, since many, many such documents have survived to come down to us. Read The Other Bible or Ehrman's Lost Scripture and you'll see many such works. I don't think the question is how I know that there were not lost documents, but how you know that there were, and more particularly, what the content of those alleged documents might have been.
Do you know anything about the Roman government as to efficacy of enforcement historically?
Have you read Gibbon?
No, I haven't read Gibbon, though I have no doubt that the Roman enforcers were quite capable. However, we are talking about absolute eradication of work throughout the Empire. That is a pretty tall order for any autocracy. It requires that every single copy of an objectionable work be located and destroyed. All it takes is one person hiding his scrolls in a cave somewhere, and we have the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Nag Hammadi texts to show later generations what was written. The same sort of logic comes into play when one contends that the NT was "changed by the church" - an impossible task, given the early and wide distribution of manuscript copies. Any "change" would have stood out like a sore thumb under the light of textual criticism.
So you are dodging my question?
How is it you can demand from me various responses with impunity while picking and choosing what you will address?
Dodging your question would imply ignoring it or engaging in verbal "dancing" to give a non-answer. I directly indicated that I didn't want to have that discussion. That's not dodging. The questions I have asked you relate directly to the topic at hand. This is not a naturalistic/supernaturalistic or an atheistic/theistic discussion. Your original point, to which I have repeatedly tried to redirect the discussion, related to how the original biblical writings were regarded by their contemporaries. That has nothing to do with whether they actually were of supernatural origin, only whether people regarded them as such. Therefore, for us to start wrangling about whether the supernatural actually exists would be a "rabbit trail" - a diversion that is irrelevant to the subject at hand.
And, bluntly, you have shown such a mocking and dismissive attitude toward belief in the supernatural that I have no desire to give you an excuse for more ad hominems. My intent has been to show that your unspoken presupposition - that nothing exists that is outside the scope and purview of science - is itself unprovable and therefore no less faith-based than any supernaturalistic position I might take.