Good morning, Shawn…Thanks for the response. I am not sure what your being an engineer has to do with it, but it is a worthy profession. I am related to a few.
In your original posting, you stated some things without specifying too much as to your sourcing. Constantine embracing the concept of the trinity may or may not have happened – somewhere in his head. But he may also have not understood the concept or any number of things. The Arian bishop who baptized him near the end of Constantine’s life makes me (and maybe others) wonder whether he really understood or accepted the final results of the Council of Nicaea.
There are Jewish and Christian sources (today as in the past) which testify to the Judaism of Jesus’ time exploring some sort of binitarian description of their monotheistic Godhead, as a result of some of the visions in Daniel plus the intertestamental books of 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra.
The Dead Sea Scrolls also attest to a very present expectation of the first centuries BC/Ad that they were looking for a Jewish man who would be both Messiah and God. They saw several chapters in Isaiah as descriptive of His ministry.
When the post-Resurrection Jesus (whom many saw as having fulfilled the messianic role — and been verified that way via His resurrection form the dead) – told His disciples to go into all the world baptizing “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:18) — that is just one reference to a trinitarian or complex monotheistic Godhead…and Ignatius, Clement of Alexandria, plus others also echo same.
“For our God Jesus Christ, being in the Father, is more plainly seen. The work is not of persuasiveness, but Christianity is a thing of might, whenever it is hated by the world” --Ignatius, early early second century A.D.
“Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Scepter of the majesty of God, did not come in the pomp of pride or arrogance,…but in a humble state” – Clement of Rome
There is more, of course.
As for Origen of Alexandria and Justinian — the latter did have a colorful wife. I did check some of Origen’s commentary on John. Since he regarded Scripture from lliteral, allegorical and symbolic perspectives that are unlike what I am used to – I can only say that I found phrases like “it is Christ abou8t whom such prophecies are made…” and “But the Son Himself, the glorified God, the Word, … waits for the preparation which must take place on the part of men of God who are to admit His deity …” ---- and several other phrases which I am hard pressed to fit into your assertion that Origen explained “in great detail how Jesus is not God,” as you assert.
Origen seems to have been a man of great talent and great opinions . While some of the sources I consulted had mixed summations of his theology, they did not assert that he tried to disprove the deity of Christ — one source even noting that Origen “laid the foundations” for a more orthodox definition of the Trinity (see The New Westminster Dictionary of Church History, vol. one).
As for Justinian…he called for yet another of those lovely church councils which seemed to combine debates over the nature of Christ ( Monophysite or Nestorian) with the politics of the era — we do the same today but using more secular subject matter.
. If he truly did make “belief in the preexistence of Jesus’s soul anathema” — then he surely contradicted Origen, who did believe in the pre-existence of Jesus. The level of discord in describing the exact relationship of Christ’s divine and human nature is (today at least) allowed as giving the non-believing Mohammed a skewed idea of what Christians believe – which all leads to another discussion altogether. I did not find something (at least not very readily) that Justinian focused his energies on the preexistence of Jesus’ soul.
At any rate, I am not entirely sure of the religious or philosophical leanings that inform your thinking. But the concept of the Trinity is a very old one, and evidently part of biblical teaching pre-New Testament times.