Red herring? I've presented actual evidence from the early Church and you want to dismiss it as a red herring. What I quoted was a very small sampling of the volumes of info on the early Church, but you're likely not interested since it doesn't fit your theory.
The teaching of the church as a whole is evidenced by the creeds at that time
But don't misunderstand, the creeds were not the whole teaching of the Church at that time. They are a summary of the very basics, not a catechism of the entire doctrine of the Church. If it was the whole teaching of the early Church then your premise in #140 that "The Catholic church of 300 AD was much closer to Baptists of today than the Catholic church of today" goes out the window. The Baptists of today don't subscribe to the Apostles Creed as their sole catechism as they have many more detailed doctrines not captured by it, just as the Ten Commandments you recite are a summary of convenience of the Decalogue in Exodus and Dueteronomy. The Catholic Church of today believes the very same Apostles Creed you noted. By what your claiming, that would mean the beliefs of present day Baptists and present day Catholics are exactly the same, which isn't true, since both have doctrines that conflict.
Red herring is still a red herring. You know and I know that many of these issues did not make it into the Creeds because they were still being contested at that time. For example, Mary as Mother of God doesn't show up in the creeds until a little later (I think mid 400s.) I also never said that Baptists ascribe to any creed. If you knew about Baptists, we are non-Creedal people. The local church decides what it believes based upon Scripture. What I did say is that they would not find anything to disagree with as long as the words of the creed were properly understood (such as small c catholic). Those were the officially agreed upon teachings at the time. Baptists would have fit right in there. Later, they wouldn't have because the Creeds start adding diffent things that aren't in Scripture into them or things which the Scriptural interpretation thereof would not be acceptable to Baptists or most Protestants (are we to believe that the Catholics have the ONLY possible interpretation of the Eucharist and almost ALL Protestant and Baptist denominations have gotten it wrong? Clearly, Scripture has allowed enough gray area on that subject that you can come up with various interpretations).
We are not going to agree, it is clear. But be careful when quoting me. When I say Baptists identify more closely with the official teachings in 300, I am discussing the officially voted upon Creeds of the church. Not the other doctrines which Catholics officially accepted later as matters of faith and official doctrine.