One of the things that got me thinking, many years ago, was the portrayal in the NT of life under Roman occupation. It was presented as a hazy, not very nice but not so bad time.
As a general rule in life, it's important to know the context in which something is said or written - and to remember that history is written by the victors. (Increasingly nowadays archaeology is unearthing (no pun intended) accounts left behind by the losers).
A little research reveals that the reality of occupied Palestine was very different. Life was harsh and there were fairly constant undercurrents and eruptions of revolt, particularly by those 'zealous for the law' of their god. They believed that the land, the people and everything that it produced belonged to their god and that it was their holy duty to resist unbelievers (see any paralells today?).
Jesus (whoever he was) was one of thousands executed by the Romans for rebellion. (Don't forget that Romans practiced 'decimation' - i.e. killing 1 in 10 of their own soldiers - if there was a threat of rebellion in the ranks. They did not believe in 'group hugs' and sitting down to talk out the issues.) They probably had a point - he had been involved in a major public disturbance in the temple precincts (the 'money changers' tables') and when he was arrested they sent a 'cohort' (perhaps about 600 soldiers). All was not as 'fluffy' as often portrayed.)
By the time the gospels and Acts were written there had been years of increasing armed revolt, guerilla warfare, Qumran, Masada and finally in 70AD the sack of Jerusalem and forced dispersal.
It was not a good time to be promoting a new religion (which seems to have been Paul's motivation, not dissimilar to Russell or Joseph Smith) whose main figure had been executed and that's probably why the gospels put the blame for the death of Jesus on the Jews (with the inevitable consequences).
It is interesting to note that as Paul was going round on his journeys, James was sending others after him to correct his teachings (if we are to believe what we read).
I lived in Paphos, Cyprus, from 2005 to 2010. My morning walk took me past the ancient burial tombs, the house of the Roman governor of Cyprus (probably) - the mosaic floors are still there - and an ancient Jewish subterranean place of worship. Oh, and past the alleged 'St Paul's Pillar', where he was supposed to have been tied and whipped.
I was always intrigued by the story of Paul in Paphos. It was there he changed his name from Saul, after meeting and allegedly converting the Roman governor Sergius Paulinus. That's where he is supposed to have met the Jewish guy 'Bar-Jesus' and blinded him in a trial of faiths. I have no idea of the truth of that story (I think its in Acts 9 or thereabouts) and I doubt that it will ever be known. Seems a bit allegorical to me.
To repeat myself - context is everything. The more we know about what was actually going on in Palestine (and the rest of the Roman empire) the more (probably) we will understand the truth behind the NT.
Just my opinion.