To read church history, is to read the lies of the winners. The church historian Eusebius pleads guilty to lying for the sake of people such as you. Constantine burned the books of Arian, and decreed death to those who were found with such writings.
And Constantine later changed his mind and recalled Arius from exile and instead banished St. Athanasius of Alexandria. Constantine's own son, Constantius, and his grandson, Constantius II, were both Semi-Arians who sought to either completely nullify or weaken the doctrinal decrees of the Council of Nicaea. In 341, for instance, Constantius II convoked the Synod of Antioch which accepted Arius and adopted a Semi-Arian position.
In 380 AD, Theodosius declared the "Nicene Trinitarian Christianity" as the only legitimate Imperial religion.
Yes, but the 55 years between 325 and 380 saw more Arians in the emperor's favor than Orthodox.
I suggest that you do some reading outside of the church library. I suggest the book "Constantine the Great: the man and his times".
I have no need to. The Church has all the primary source documents and the complete historical record. The only reason secular scholars are able to do scholarly work about Church history is because the Church has preserved all these records.
Prior to 380 AD, in the 367, the NT canon was set by a proponent of the false Trinity dogma, Athanasius, who sat at the Nicene Council.
This is incorrect. St. Athanasius of Alexandria was the first to lay out the list of the 27 books of the New Testament that we recognize today, but the Bibles commissioned by Constantine include other books not today found in the New Testament, such as the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Epistle of Clement. There was still debate clear into the 500's about what books belonged in the New Testament. The Byzantine Church, for example, doesn't read from the Book of Revelation during the Liturgy because Revelation had not yet been accepted as Scripture in Asia Minor, Greece and Syria. Athanasius made a list of the books to be read in
his Egyptian church. It was by no means a definitive list of Scripture for all of Christianity--such a thing would be elusive for centuries afterwards.
Your false Trinity dogma, and your canon, all started with Constantine and his Council of Nicaea.
Wrong again. The Trinity was believed long before Nicaea, and I can provide citations. Nicaea was just where it was firmly defined.
Constantine supported any version which would unify his empire, and he finally settled on the Trinity dogma.
Constantine never really "settled" on any position; he constantly flip-flopped between Orthodoxy and Arianism, even after the Council of Nicaea.
"That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment"
{Eusebius. The title for chapter 32 of the twelth book of Evangelical Preparation}
Source?
"In addition, if any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death. As soon as he is discovered in this offence, he shall be submitted for capital punishment....." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
— Edict by Emperor Constantine against the Arians[8]
Keep reading the Wikipedia article. Let me help you:
"Although he was committed to maintaining what the church had defined at Nicaea, Constantine was also bent on pacifying the situation and eventually became more lenient toward those condemned and exiled at the council. First, he allowed Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was a protégé of his sister, and Theognis to return once they had signed an ambiguous statement of faith. The two, and other friends of Arius, worked for Arius's rehabilitation.
[32]
At the
First Synod of Tyre in AD 335, they brought accusations against
Athanasius, now bishop of Alexandria, the primary opponent of Arius. After this,
Constantine had Athanasius banished since he considered him an impediment to reconciliation. In the same year, the Synod of Jerusalem under Constantine's direction readmitted Arius to communion in AD 336. Arius died on the way to this event in Constantinople. Some scholars suggest that Arius may have been poisoned by his opponents.
[32] Eusebius and Theognis remained in the Emperor's favor, and when Constantine, who had been a catechumen much of his adult life, accepted baptism on his deathbed, it was from Eusebius of Nicomedia.[9]
...
Hence, after Constantine's death in 337, open dispute resumed again.
Constantine's son Constantius II, who had become Emperor of the eastern part of the Empire, actually encouraged the Arians and set out to reverse the Nicene Creed. His advisor in these affairs was Eusebius of Nicomedia, who had already at the Council of Nicea been the head of the Arian party, who also was made the bishop of Constantinople.
Constantius used his power to exile bishops adhering to the Nicene Creed, especially St Athanasius of Alexandria, who fled to Rome. In 355 Constantius became the sole Emperor and extended his pro-Arian policy toward the western provinces, frequently using force to push through his creed, even exiling Pope Liberius and installing Antipope Felix II.
The third
Council of Sirmium in 357 was the high point of Arianism. The Seventh Arian Confession (Second Sirmium Confession) held that both
homoousios (of one substance) and
homoiousios (of similar substance) were unbiblical and that the Father is greater than the Son. (This confession was later known as the Blasphemy of Sirmium.)
But since many persons are disturbed by questions concerning what is called in Latin
substantia, but in Greek
ousia, that is, to make it understood more exactly, as to 'coessential,' or what is called, 'like-in-essence,' there ought to be no mention of any of these at all, nor exposition of them in the Church, for this reason and for this consideration, that in divine Scripture nothing is written about them, and that they are above men's knowledge and above men's understanding;
[34]"
Even your own sources blatantly refute your false narrative.