acqwsed you wrote:
While Hart acknowledges diversity in early Christian theology, he does not claim that Arius more faithfully represented the apostolic faith.
This is just wrong. It is difficult to maintain belief in your good faith when you so blatantly distort a source we have both listened to. Hart said that:
“scholars have known this, I mean known that Arius was not some strange, curious anomaly, that he was simply an extreme expression of what was regarded by many as the orthodoxy of centuries, and there is a reason why after the Arian controversy, the controversy continued with the Eunomians and others, you know, bishops and priests still committed to this older view that they thought was the correct view. It was the Nicene party that was proposing a new grammar, you know, even a new word, homoousios, consubstantial, it’s not in scripture, and it wasn’t in previous Christian usage.” (Around 50 minutes into video)
How can you be trusted when you claim Hart meant the opposite of what he said in a source that we both have access to?