* First up we have a string of quotes from Ignatius, mainly from the forged epistles or quotes of the later interpolations (not Ignatius' own words), so this is not an accurate representation of Ignatius
* Secondly we have a quote from an Athenian philosopher, who is reporting secondhand (or perhaps thirdhand - we don't know), what he thinks Christians believe (he is therefore not a primary source)
* Thirdly we have an allegd quote from Polycarp, which is preserved only in the 4th century writings of Eusebius (and therefore unverifiable), so we do not have Polycarp's own words in the form of a primary source
* Fourthly we have an alleged quote from Polycarp preserved in a letter from the church of Smyrna, which is again secondhand (and therefore unverifiable), so we do not have Polycarp's own words in the form of a primary source here either
* Fifthly we have a quote from Justin Martyr, who ascribes to Logos Christology (though he did believe that Jesus was a Divine being, he certainly did not believe in the trinity)
* Sixthly we have a quote from Tatian, concerning which the site itself says 'The words 'Jesus' and 'Christ' do not appear in this work. In fact not even the word 'Christian' appears. The term 'Logos' does appear as the first-born of the Father, but that is it', so I wonder why on earth they even bothered quoting it
* Seventhly we have Miltiades, concerning which the site itself says 'Miltiades cannot be cited in evidence since his works are lost. [...] Miltiades will not be considered'
* Eighthly we have Melito of Sardis, who says ' he was by nature God and man', but says nothing of the trinity
* Ninethly we have Athenogoras, who uses the term ' God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit', which is finally getting somewhere, but we're at the end of the 2nd century already
* Tenthly we have Irenaeus, concerning which the site says 'Irenaeus describes Jesus as the Son of God, as the Word of God, by whom all things were made, who descended from above, became flesh, was crucified, and quotes John 1,1-2 that the Word was God', but we do not have the trinity
* Eleventhly we have Theophilus, concerning which the site says 'Theophilus cannot be cited in evidence of opinions about Jesus since his anti-heretical works are lost, and his apology does not even mention Christ', and although it is true that he refers to some kind of 'trinitas', it is uncertain how he defined it
* Twelfthly we have Minucius Felix, concerning which the site says 'Minucius Felix does not discuss any theology at all', and acknowledges that 'His rebuttal of pagan accusations might be a statement denying the incarnation'
* Finally we have Tertullian, concerning which the site says 'The words 'Jesus' and 'Christ' do not appear in this work. The word 'Christian' appears many times. Likewise Tertullian does not discuss any christology at all in this work.', and although we know that Tertullian believed in some form of incarnation, it is also clear that his Christological views were heretical
This is not exactly overwhelming me.
For those wishing to continue this discussion in terms of promoting this heresy, I refer you to the Statement of Belief for this site on the main page as well as the Discussion Guidelines.
No one here is 'promoting this heresy'. The discussion is being kept to an assessment of the historical data regarding the development of the doctrine, not whether it is true (Scripture is not even being quoted).