Thanks so much for your point-by-point refutation ...
It certainly isn't true that "The doctrine of the divinity of Christ was invented in the 4th Century as a political power play." History is clear that this was already the Christian doctrine.
Ah! the 'Blue pill', how original!
Let's sample the 'Red pill':
The triune godhead is referenced in three places of the New Testament:
1. Matthew 28:19
2. I John 5:7
3. John 1:14 (arguably)
In the case of Matthew, the modern texts reads:
'Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit;'
The two earliest manuscripts extant (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) don't have it. Instead they read :
'Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.'
The historian Eusebius in eighteen different citations gave the same phrase: 'in my name'. Nowhere does he quote the triune formulation.
Ya think something might have gotten changed?
The there's I John 5:7.
This interpolation is so famous it has it's own moniker: 'Comma Johanneum'.
But for the lurkers:
The modern text of I John 5:7 reads: 'For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.'
Pretty obvious that that means the 'Trinity', right? Except that isn't in the earliest copies of the epistle.
Arch-trinitarian Tertullian never quoted it when he needed it, instead having to refer to a the lame verse of John 10:15. Clement of Alexandria wrote extensive commentaries on John, yet somehow missed the 'big picture' in that verse. St. Cyprian, like his mentor Tertullian, was unaware of the Comma, although it would have suited his arguments admirably.
Of the hundreds (probably thousands) of New Testament mms. in Greek, the comma appears in only eight. And every one of those are 8-10th century back-translations from Latin.
The the earliest known copies of St. Jerome's Vulgate don't have it. Erasmus' first two editions of the New Testament (Textus Receptus) didn't have it. When Erasmus inserted the Comma in his 1522 edition, he made a notation indicating that he doubted its authenticity.
On 2 June 1927, Pope Pius XI decreed that the Comma Johanneum was open to dispute.
Ya think something might have gotten changed?
Then we come to John 1:14
This one is iffy. First off, the Gospel of John is a Gnostic testament.
No doubt that's a big surprise! to all you Protestant fundamentalists out there, but see Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Origen, Robert Kysar, Mack Burton, & Raymond Brown ...
Anyhow in John 1:1 The 'Logos' (translated as the 'Word') of God is God. In John 1:14 the 'Word' become 'flesh' -- Jesus being the material manifestation of the 'Word' of God. Pretty deep stuff for a Jewish fisherman ...
Okay ... so where are we? A God and another God? Where's the 'Holy Spirit'? So we got two Gods -- a Duo-vinity, not a Trinity.
The first whiff of the triune godhead comes from Tertullian, later Origen, then the heretic Priscillia, until finally Augustine of Hippo lays it all out for us:
Plato's metaphysics of man is: 'Mind, Body, and Soul' therefore the metaphysics of heaven is 'Father, Son, Spirit'.
Like-I-Mean Duh! ---
Okey-okey-okey ... before I get off on a rant.
So no, gbcdoj. It was not the Christian doctrine.
Christian believers of hetro-ousia included most of Ethiopia, half of Egypt, and a strong minority of Palestine. Probably a good 30-40% of Christian at the time.
Had Arius been a lone nut-case, they could've buried him under a rock somewhere in the desert. Surely if the doctrine of the Trinity was so flip'n obvious in scripture, why didn't they just toss Arius in a hole and be done with him?
Well that's because Mat 28:19 and I John 5:7 are interpolations that occured after Nicea, they weren't there before 325. There was no scriptural basis to settle the argument (which is better blue or green?).
And Arius had a large following with many like minded believers. Which is why Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia supported him. Constantine asked Alexander and Arius to settle the matter between themselves because he wanted a religious peace along with his secular peace.
Had the Arian crowd triumphed Constantine would've accepted that as well.
It was a political settlement in the 4th century. Deal with it.
And there's a reason for history books. Read 'em.
(Green won and now 'Green is Trvth' in our Bibles.).
There was no need for a "point-by-point refutation." You quoted or perhaps paraphrased some unnamed source that doesn't provide any references to actual historical documents, your only reference being "history books." The analysis was simplistic and flawed to anyone who's actually read a real history book on the subject; for instance, how can one simply toss off the reference to Antioch (~270), as you or your source did, ignoring the entire context of the dispute in that case?
Let's sample the 'Red pill': The triune godhead is referenced in three places of the New Testament:
In this case, analysis of the NT is irrelevant. We are dealing with a matter of third-century history. But briefly:
The baptismal formula in St. Matthew - Your statement "The two earliest manuscripts extant (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) don't have it. Instead they read" is not verified. My Greek NT, which has quite a bit of textual apparatus, doesn't note any such variant, and a quick web search, even of critics of this text, doesn't find any such claim, indeed, just the opposite: "The exclusive survival of (3) in all MSS., both Greek and Latin, need not cause surprise. In the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older reading, namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin MS., the pages are gone which contained the end of Matthew." Please provide a reference to a published work or withdraw this statement. As regards Eusebius, he quotes both versions of the text; please see his letter to his Diocese after the Council of Nicaea.
1 John 5:7 - Irrelevant for the time period of third-fourth century. None of the Fathers of the age quote the spurious addition.
John 1:14 - the statement that the Gospel of John is a Gnostic testament is, indeed, absurd. Yet more absurd is the statement that "Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Origen ... & Raymond Brown" would agree. Gnosticism was a heresy rejected by those four Fathers, but they accepted the Gospel of John as canonical scripture.
The ascription of the doctrine of the Trinity to Augustine and Neoplatonism is absurd. No one with any real historical knowledge of the period would say such a thing. Augustine's comparison of Neoplatonic and Christian doctrine, from the perspective of a Neoplatonic believer reverting to Catholicism, far postdates explicit writing about the Trinity, including the very word, in both the Eastern and Western Fathers, e.g., Origen, Dionysius of Rome, Athanasius, Basil, Cyril of Jerusalem, to name some off the top of my head.
Christian believers of hetro-ousia included most of Ethiopia, half of Egypt, and a strong minority of Palestine
Of course no source is cited to back up these figures, despite your claim to be supported by "history books."
Eusebius of Nicomedia was one of the very few episcopal supporters of Arius' doctrine. Canonical Matthew 18:19 is quoted in writings (Ignatius' authentic epistles) predating Nicaea by 200 years. The length of the Arian controversy is easy to account for without believing the DVC fictions about a close debate at Nicaea over the divinity of Christ that you've spouted here: it's telling that your "history book" account completely ignores the role of the Semiarians and the homoiousion in the post-Nicene period.