Toto

It would help if you did not write as if you did.

Untrue. Arius clearly meant, in context, that Jesus had a definite birth date. There was a time when he was not; then there was a time when he was born or created. This was heresy to those who believed that the Son was the same as the Father and existed at the creation of the world.

This is the standard interpretation. E.g. link:

Arius proposed that if the Father begat the Son, the latter must have had a beginning, that there was a time when he was not, and that his substance was from nothing like the rest of creation. The Council of Nicea, a gathering similar to the one described in Acts 15:4-22, condemned the beliefs of Arius and wrote the first version of the now famous creed proclaiming that the Son was "one in being with the Father" by use of the Greek word "homoousius."

You have not supported this. You just keep repeating the line about "fiction of men composed by wickedness." Julian pretty clearly thought that Jesus was a mere human.

Well, you have rejected Dura Europa, unlike the rest of the world. I provided you a link once to some amulets that could be dated to before 300 CE.

We have reasonable historical documentary evidence that leads us to believe that there was a Christian movement before Constantine, and that Constantine did not need to invent a new religion out of whole cloth. Your alternative hypothesis has no particular evidence or logic behind it.