In that case, I want you to understand that this has become a sore point for me (as you probably have ascertained). Your reply to me, giving the impression that "most of what they say is all lies" is what set me off, and for that I apologize.
I also want you to understand that it is the history that I am concerned with. I am "old school" in that I will happily take the word of the scholars closest to the events in question over those seeking to revise their work- It must be so, by the nature of the discipline, and the evidence must be overwhelmingly to the contrary to overturn their good works. With that in mind, I invite you to look at Plaisted's work. If you can get past the anti-Catholic tone to look at the numbers and the references he cites (which is why I posted it in the first place), and would care to offer an argument of substance, I would be happy to hear your reply.
I was going specifically by your comments in the post to which I responded; namely that you'd said your earlier observations had come from admittedly anti-Catholic sources and bards and troubadors! A rather rickety stool indeed.
This offers me some consternation, as Catholics seem to put such faith in oral tradition... The songs of the bards and troubadours are exactly that, and much can be learned of everyday life, history, and every sort of thing, even if they are a bit whimsical or irreverent at times. Especially when dealing with the Occish peoples and the Celts, where no other record exists. If one wishes to learn of them first hand there are few other sources.
As to the sources being anti-Catholic, one would be hard pressed to find anything in medieval Europe that would be a neutral source- either one is with Rome, or one is crushed.
My study was to consider ancient trade routes as established by the Phoenicians, supposing their good friends the Hebrews would have partnered with them quite a bit, and to look for evidences of Hebrew colonies along those routes. That evidence is there, and easy to establish. But then I thought one might suspect that the fruits of the Pentecost (why was every one in Jerusalem again? Remember speaking in [up to 12] tongues?) might just turn up along those same routes... And they do. In the Iberian Peninsula of Spain, at Gibraltar, the South of France, in Brittany, in the British Isles, in the Benelux region, and so on. The world was a whole lot bigger than we have been lead to believe, I'd guess.
It is odd, though, that all of these places are also the generators of supposed heresies against the RCC, isn't it?
At any rate, with the little that Rome has left us in the way of evidence, all that is left is the tales of troubadours and bards, the rest is buried in the ground, waiting to come back into the light.
As an aside, your moniker has always intrigued me... did you drop your waffle at the beach? :P
The other main source was attempts to merge Christianity with Greek philosophy. This is where the Gnostics come in, and some of the other more odd heresies.
But for the later Medieval heresies, these can't be the source.