In a previous thread you posted a response of thousands of words within ten minutes. That is humanly impossible. That’s not a matter of opinion it’s a fact, just as a human can’t run faster than a car or a train.
Dünzl doesn’t dispute the part politics played in the formulation of the Trinity, in fact he spells it out in detail. He argues that God used the church to reach the Trinity doctrine despite that history of political intrigue.
I’ll let Dünzl’s own summary of the politics and his argument that God used the church to arrive at the Trinity despite/through the politics and philosophy of the day speak for itself.
The political interference in the theological debate is also likely to provoke scepticism: wasn't Emperor Constantine already less concerned with the quest for truth than with the unity of the empire on a religious basis? Didn't the stubborn efforts of his son Constantius to achieve a theological compromise aim at the lowest common denominator on which the parties in dispute were to agree? Wasn't it mere chance that because of a military emergency, rule in the East of the empire fell to the Spanish Theodosius, who was orientated on Nicaea, so that he had the opportunity also to realize his church-political goal there? Does the Neo-Niene faith thus represent just a further and last variant in the power-play of theological ideas - a variant which was able to establish itself for political reasons?
And if we turn once again to the content of the debate: don't the self-confidence and the sharp (often also unjust) polemic of the opponents, the deliberate distortion and exaggeration of opposing positions, the almost sophistic pedantic and sophistic interpretations of difficult biblical passages, prove repulsive over wide areas? We must not note such abuses on just one side of the parties in dispute - an ideologically coloured painting in black and white will not do justice to the historical evidence.
A look at the history is sobering. But at the same time it presents a challenge. In view of the problems I have mentioned, those who imagine that God's ways with human beings are all too straightforward and simple (or despair of them because they are indeed not so straightforward) are called on to break up customary religious schemes of thought and extend their own horizons so as to be able to do theological justice to reality. The risk of monotheism does not consist in making an arbitrary selection of reality in terms of one's own ideology, bracketing off disturbing problems and allowing only what fits, but in tracing back the complexity, the perplexing diversity and interlinking of phenomena to a last (albeit 'impenetrable') principle which is not one factor among many but the incomprehensible ground of the whole.
That the history of revelation is not played our untouched by external influence as it were in a 'vacuum' in the history ideas is not a defect but a touchstone of the monotheistic view of the world. The philosophical systems of Middle and Neo-Platonism or the Stoa are not simply to be dismissed as non-Christian intellectual constructions which had to be overcome: rather, they are of decisive importance for the communication of God in the sphere of history, which is not a clean sheet, but is already shaped, and its content determined, by ideas. The legacy of ancient philosophy has entered into Christianity (likewise into Judaism, Islam and modern philosophy) - but that does not amount to 'contamination with inauthentic intellectual material'; rather, it is material for fruitful controversy which will always move between the poles of assimilation and demarcation.