If in 325 AD the Council of Nicaea failed to elect Jesus as man-god, where would the church be at today?

It's important to clarify a few points about the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. The primary purpose of the Council of Nicaea was not to "elect Jesus as man-god" but rather to address theological disputes within the early Christian Church, particularly regarding the nature of the relationship between God the Father and Jesus Christ.

The central issue at the Council of Nicaea was the Arian controversy, named after the priest Arius, who taught that Jesus Christ, while divine, was a created being and not of the same substance (homoousios) as God the Father. This view contradicted the orthodox Christian belief in the Trinity, which holds that God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit are three persons of one substance.

At the Council of Nicaea, the majority of bishops affirmed the Nicene Creed, which affirmed the divinity of Jesus Christ and his equality with God the Father. The Creed declared that Jesus Christ is "of one substance with the Father" (homoousios). This formulation became central to orthodox Christian theology and was instrumental in shaping the doctrine of the Trinity.

Had the Council of Nicaea not affirmed the divinity of Jesus Christ or had it failed to address the theological disputes effectively, it's challenging to speculate precisely where the Christian Church would be today. However, it's likely that Christianity would have continued to experience theological divisions and controversies, potentially resulting in different branches or sects with varying beliefs about the nature of Jesus Christ.

The Council of Nicaea was a significant event in the history of Christianity, but it was not the sole determining factor in shaping the development of the Christian Church. Subsequent councils and theological developments also played crucial roles in defining Christian orthodoxy and shaping the course of Christian history.