In Fig's thread about the discovery that apparently humans existed 80,000 years ago, I commented:
From 325 A.D. to, say, 1800 A.D., the mainstream of Christendom--the powerful, influential sects who got to decide who was Christian and who was not--would have tried, convicted, branded a heretic, excommunicated, and possibly executed a fellow Christian who admitted believing that there were humans on Earth 80,000 years ago.

Father_JD seems to disagree with that ***essment:
Well have you imbibed revisionist historical "theories" that there were equally valid forms of Christianity and the bigger or more entrenched party merely "won out".
And I responded:

But if you are right, and the idea that a majority of Christendom was overrun by a cabal of corrupt leaders teaching false doctrines is a false, fabricated history, then what kind of respect can you have for the Reformers who fought that orthodoxy--an orthodoxy they risked their lives trying to bring down? And what the heck are your doing in a PROTESTANT church? Read what Wesley said about post-Constantine Christendom (The More Excellent Way, Sermon 89 is but one of several) and tell me that Wesley was a fellow "Imbiber of revisionist history."

So my question is this: Did John Wesley have a totally incorrect understanding of the history of post-Nicene Christianity? Did Wesley imbibe too much revisionist history?