A.S.K. your way to proof.

[Bucky Ball]

I'll give you just one example, out of many:

Wikipedia -- Filioque

Many other examples exist -- conciliarism, infant baptism (not to mention the eternal fates of infants who die without Baptism), innerancy of the Bible, necessity of explicit faith in Jesus, venial versus mortal sin, eternal security ("Once saved, always saved."), predestination, universal salvation, etc., etc.  As for burning heretics, such as episodic.  Jon Hus was burned at the behest of the Council of Constance under Pope Martin V, but Pope John Paul II, 500 years after Hus' immolation apologized to modern-day Bohemia for his condemnation.  And, so, was Hus a heretic or not?

The basic doctrines (the most basic tenets of orthodoxy) were well established. The creed was established and remained ... and still remains the same.
The argument over the "filioque" clause, was over HOW TO EXPRESS,  (not whether) Jesus' divinity and "progression" from the Father. Not *if* he "proceeds". How to say it.
The examples you give (without the dates you were asked to give) are minor.
They do not involve the major tenets of orthodoxy.  Whether Hus was a heretic or not is not a question relating to the major tenets of orthodoxy, but an authority question. 
No one says nothing ever changed. Orthodoxy DEVELOPED, but it was far from the chaos you claim, and the major tenets were established, PROVEN be the creeds they recited together every week for centuries. So yeah. You're doing a reductio ad absurdam.

From the beginning it was never meant to be an orthodox Christianity, as there are no master list of Christian laws, as there were with the Jews. Think about it they just came of a few 1000 years of structured Judaism, the apostles knew how to structure an orthodox religious system. But rather than have one single agree upon book of the law, each epistle to each church is it's own self contain book of law given to a specific region dealing with unique problems. Meaning rules for one church say like the church at Rome need not apply to a more mature church say in Corinth. Rather the church has 2 laws. Love God with all you being and your neighbor as yourself. this would flesh out in different ways for all the different cultures which is why we are told to do our best for God and each other rather than have a set standard some could not meet while out could easily meet the min requirements.

That's hilarious. The fool who has never once even taken ONE class in the subject thinks he's competent to speak on a subject of which he is completely ignorant. You have no clue what was "meant" from any beginning, AND you posted no reference. Who "meant" this fairy tale you cooked up Drippy ? The apostles knew nothing. They were ignorant fishermen, (if there even were twelve anything). You are totally wrong. IN the epistles they argue where they got their gospels from, and Paul goes to great lengths to SAY where he got his, and to reference where .. (I see you never actually read his letters). They DID expect there to one general church AND they had meetings (some day when you go to school you'll learn about the early *councils*).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jerusalem

"The Council of Jerusalem or Apostolic Council was held in Jerusalem around AD 50. It is unique among the ancient pre-ecumenical councils in that it is considered by Catholics and Orthodox to be a prototype and forerunner of the later ecumenical councils and a key part of Christian ethics. The council decided that Gentile converts to Christianity were not obligated to keep most of the Law of Moses, including the rules concerning circumcision of males. The Council did, however, retain the prohibitions on eating blood, meat containing blood, and meat of animals that were strangled, and on fornication and idolatry, sometimes referred to as the Apostolic Decree or Jerusalem Quadrilateral.

Accounts of the council are found in Acts of the Apostles chapter 15 (in two different forms, the Alexandrian and Western versions) and also possibly in Paul's letter to the Galatians chapter 2.[1] Some scholars dispute that Galatians 2 is about the Council of Jerusalem (notably because Galatians 2 describes a private meeting) while other scholars dispute the historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles."

So yeah, Dripshit, your crap is totally BOGUS. You made it up, as you are a totally ignorant fool, who actually knows NOTHING about this subject.
Agreement and orthodoxy was important to the early communities.
In fact it was so important SINCE the very beginning, that there were many councils held ... to denounce what they felt were all kinds of heresies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_ch...cumenical)

the Council of Rome of 155
the Council of Rome of 193
the Council of Ephesus of 193
the Council of Carthage of 251
the Council of Iconium of 258[13]
the Council of Antioch of 264
the Councils of Arabia of 246–247
the Synod of Elvira of 306
the Council of Carthage of 311
the Synod of Neo-Caesarea of c. 314
the Synod of Ancyra of 314
the Synod of Arles of 314

Then there were seven ecumenical councils  :
First Council of Nicaea (325)
First Council of Constantinople (381)
First Council of Ephesus (431)
Council of Chalcedon (451)
Second Council of Constantinople (553)
Third Council of Constantinople (680–681)
Second Council of Nicaea (787)

So yeah, Christianity always cared about orthodoxy.

Drippy...go get an education before you make a fool of yourself. even further.