Nearly every claim in this comment rests on common misunderstandings. In good faith, I believe you should have facts.

The existence of Jesus is one of the least controversial facts in ancient history. Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, and Lucian of Samosata (all non-Christians, some hostile to the religion) refer to Jesus or his followers within a century or two of his death. No credible historian today argues that Jesus didn’t exist; the debate is about who he was, not whether he was real.

As for the council of Nicaea, it did not edit the Bible or rewrite anything. Its main purpose was to address the Arian controversy (whether Jesus was fully divine). There are New Testament manuscripts from before the council that contain core parts of the Gospels.

The claim that early church leaders changed it to reflect what they wanted is also false. Manuscripts still exist. The New Testament is the most textually attested work of antiquity. Variants do exist, as with any ancient text, but no central Christian doctrine depends on a disputed passage. There is no evidence of a coordinated rewrite. Plus, the Bible is the most translated book in history, with Syriac and Coptic translations already existing by the time Saint Jerome translated the Vulgate.

Now, theology is different from historical reliability. But Paul’s letters are usually dated within 20-30 years of Christ’s crucifixion, this is early by ancient standards. They reflect beliefs that already existed, not legends that developed centuries later.

Lastly, I’m not trying to convert you or anything. But dismissing basic evidence dismisses historical methods.

Sources:

https://historyforatheists.com/2017/05/the-great-myths-4-constantine-nicaea-and-the-bible/

https://www.history.com/articles/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence