@Opusdei, you make a good case for the un-likeliness of 90% of the gospels being historical. To my mind in the absence of any contemporary secular corroboration of gospel stories, virtually the whole thing looks like propaganda and not history... and that includes JC. IF there really was a wonder working god-man who could raise the dead, don’t you think he would be brought to the attention of the highly literate Roman authorities? People who can really raise the dead would be somewhat in demand.
I understand the general protest we all make: “but surely it was built around a real person.” As I said, this is generally not the way of the Bible; the Bible puts flesh on a prevailing skeleton of myth which has far greater psychological leverage than raising up and idolising some Jewish conjuror for example. The reason the prevailing myth theory (such as the god-man) is more successful than glorifying an existing individual, is that the belief is already present when the story is told.
The substitution of “Jesus” for the Roman “Mithras” or “Dionysus” was clearly an expediency of the early christ-cult to attract the disaffected and messianic minded Jews who already had, by the way, a story in the back of their minds told from about 100BCE of a wonder- working Rabbi called Jesus.