First Council of Nicaea: when Christianity was deformed and Jesus named son of God.

[Brian37]

Reading history does indeed give us a glimpse on the current state of matters; and religion is no different.

Actually; Christianity never considered "Jesus" a God or Son of God; but with the admission and documentation of the Christian church itself; this neo-belief was manufactured, created and formulated in year AD 325:

The Council of Nicaea was the first council in the history of the Christian church that was intended to address the entire body of believers. It was convened by the emperor Constantine to resolve the controversy of Arianism, a doctrine that held that Christ was not divine but was a created being.

https://www.britannica.com/event/First-C...Nicaea-325

Another more detailed source from wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

All Christians who say that "Jesus is the son of God" believe in the conclusion of the First Council of Nicaea; i.e the Nicene Creed :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

It is the defining creed of Nicene or mainstream Christianity,[1][2][3] which includes those Christian denominations that adhere to the teaching of the creed. Nicene Christianity regards Jesus as divine and co-eternal with God the Father. Various non-Nicene doctrines, beliefs, and creeds have been formed since the fourth century, all of which are considered heresies[4] by adherents of Nicene Christianity.

So now we have it documented and even referenced with historical refrences: the Christians of today -and all Christians worshiping Jesus as son of God"; are not actually "Christians": but "Nicene Christians".

That's their historical and true name; and taking the name "Christians" to be their religious label is false and a big lie: these are "Nicene Christians" not Christians.

The first known writing of the NT didn't get written until almost 100 years after the alleged time the bible claims the Jesus Character existed. Not only that, since that time lots of NT "books, were written, many were left out of the "final" Council of Nicaea voting. But even after the Council of 329, I find it funny that future newer "versions" were written. If the Council got it right, then why the newer versions? 

Still don't see the point in this post. This is not news to historians. 

And of course they were Christians, just like Sunnis and Shiites are both Muslims whom simply have different interpretations of the Koran and both think they got it right.

And "Son of God" is not a original motif of monotheism. Prior polytheism has Gods/gods. Whom are the heads of the divine world whom have families and children. Even Buddhism has Queen Maya being told by the divine world that she would give birth to a son that would bring wisdom to the world. In ancient Egypt Horus was the son of Osiris and Isis, and was worshiped as the "savior" hero god of the Egyptians. 

To imply that Nicaea Christians are not "real Christians" is crap. Just like to day when Sunnis claim that Shiites are not "real Muslims". The 329 Nicaean still believed in the Christian monotheistic God regardless of what other Christians interpreted. 

The only thing I can agree with is the Nicaean bible is the first known completed compiled bible. 

You are employing the "True Scotsman fallacy". 

FYI, Thomas Jefferson did not believe that the Jesus character was some magic man, but considered the Jesus Character a philosopher. But he was still a Christian. He simply was not a fundy or theocrat.