Looking at context, both Jesus and Paul were Jews. They both, Paul to a lesser extent, talked about OT Law. Both seemingly lifted up women (Phoebe is attached to Paul, not Jesus, as were a number of other women). And this wasn't necessarily unique, as women could have some authority.

Historians dont agree on that. Many doubt any familial relation between Jesus and John. While most agree that Jesus was baptized by John, they often see it as Jesus being a follower of John.

He wasnt woman hating. He was open to women being leaders in the church. And the wind wasnt blowing good for the new Christian movement. It was nothing more than a weird little movement during his time.

No books were thrown out of the Torah. The Torah is just the first 5 books. Youre thinking Tanakh, which is the Hebrew Bible. But no books were thrown out of that. In fact, our Protestant list is the same as the Hebrew Tanakh.

Constantine also didn't even make Christianity the state religion. He just allowed it to be practiced. Youre right about this being historical record but I'd suggest you dive a bit deeper.

Constantine was dead by the Council of Rome. He had nothing to do with the process you're talking about. And its not hard to find that new translations dont rely on the texts the KJV did. Most translations will tell you what they are working with. Most use the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example.

More so, the Dead Sea Scrolls were Essene texts that were lost prior to the first Jewish War. None contain NT writings, but were largely of the OT. They weren't banned in anyway. They weren't hidden. They were forgotten after the Essenes were wiped out by Rome

The Canon was basically agreed upon in the third century, so long before the Council of Rome. They just made it legit. More so, we have many of those so called lost books. 2nd, the KJV used the Textus Receptus to translate from. No modern edition uses that. No modern one relies on KJV.

Thats not a lie. Name a single archeologist in the field that says Nazareth didn't exist.

Every academic historian would. Every archeologist of the area would tell you Nazareth existed. The only people who doubt Nazareth existed are non-archeologists who ignore the actual data.

The Canon was already largely decided before Nicaea, and Nicaea didn't even discuss it. Nor is the KJV a complete rewrite. We can compare it with other English translations and see that it isn't vastly different. Nor are modern versions based on it, so it would be irrelevant anyway.

How are they mistranslated and censored? You can get the Hebrew and Greek and check it. You can look at the manuscripts they use.

1) that's an AI summary of websites. Thats terrible searching. 2) while some think there is some interpolation, the accept a historical core. There simply isn't a debate. Ken Olson made one argument, which has been debunked.

Stylometry has shown no such thing. Thats simply false. What you're repeating are the fringe ideas in Christ Before Jesus, which even Richard Carrier tears apart for being either a scam or just ignorance.

How is it false? The consensus is what I said. You have non-scholars making the Eusebius argument, and they have been thoroughly debunked. You're holding a fringe view you cant even defend.

The consensus is he wrote about Jesus. The position Eusebius wrote about him is not proven. It's a conspiracy theory based on wishful thinking.

Thats the default position as per historical research. The consensus is Jesus existed. To suggest otherwise, you need to prove your case.

That's how most of history works.