This is a very interesting topic. I myself have questioned the existence of Jesus, not as a man (he might have been just a good and simple man), but all the miracles they said he did. From what I understand, the New Testament is just a collection of writings that a Committee selected among numerous ones to put together the way they like the story to be presented to us.
Most of what is now considered the "accepted canon" of christianity was selected, not by a committee, but by Origen, a scholar in Alexandria in the late 2nd and early 3rd century CE. You can read about Origen here (clickity-click).
Origen wrote a list of all known "gospels" in his time, and commented on the reliability of the text, and whether or not he thought it was genuine. Origen was not without his personal prejudices, but he kept up a high academic standard. Unfortunately, we don't know the basis for most of his decisions. Subsequent to Origen, the most important christian scholars with regard to the canonical texts were Pamphilus and Eusebius. Pamphilus was born just a few years before Origen was thought to have died, and Eusebius was born 23 years after that. Pamphilus amassed quite a large library of church texts, and texts from Jewish sources on the subject of Judaism and theology in general. Eusebius became a scholar in the home of Pamphilus when he was a young man, and always revered and honored Pamphilus. You can read about Eusebius here.
In 325 CE, a church council was convened at Nicea, with the intention to resolve conflicts in the church. This was the church council which created the Nicean creed, the basis for "official" christianity for many centuries to come, even after the Roman church split off from the Orthodox and Byzantine churches. This may be why you consider that the accepted canon was chosen by a committee--it was established at the council of Nicea. Actually, though, church scholars such as Eusebius of Caesarea and Pamphilus had already, relying upon the scholarship of Origen, established the accepted canonical texts, usually through the simple method of correspondence between scholars and bishops. (Early bishops were usually expected to be scholars, and early scholars were often made bishops--it was important to have knowledgeable men in a time when most people were illiterate, and when "heresy" flourished because any glib preacher could sway the crowd.)
You can read about the first Nicean council here.
There have been many foolish and false things repeated about church councils in general, but particularly about the first council at Nicea. At this link,
you can read a summary of what the author alleges are false claims circulating on the internet, and his refutations of them. Finally, this page about Origen
discusses what standards he used to determine whether or not a scriptural passage was genuine, and mistakes he may have made.