The Christianity of the NT is a fraud.
The orthodox statement for the Catholic faith was made by Eusebius (fourth century CE), who was both Constantine's chronicler and the official chronicler of the Christian Church. Amongst other fictions, he wrote up the contrived connection between Peter and the Papacy claiming a divine mandate for the Roman Church's legitimacy. His key interest was in making Roman Christianity work as a political instrument and to do that he invented the concepts of the primitive church as it is understood today.The realities of the first century however are quite different from this modern viewpoint which Eusebius planted into "history" but one to which the WT uncritically subscribes.
I know I am at odds with most here but the evidence for Jesus as an air-breathing human is extremely tenuous. At best he is the product of a mosaic of literary references existing for millennia which had formerly been applied to other saviour god-men.The Jesus character fulfilled the need for a Jewish redeemer. He was expected by Jewish tradition (in Isaiah) where he was to come as a prince ruling in glory, the archetypal conquering hero saving the nation from all of its enemies.
By the first century CE Judea had become thoroughly Hellenised, completely influenced by the classical culture of the time; public baths, pagan temples, McDonalds etc, its religion was on a back burner. At this time there were many would- be saviours ranting in the market places, there were also many established cults within that Roman world, all polytheistic, recognising the traditional gods. Notable amongst them was the cult of Dionysus who had been born of a virgin birth, son of a god, turned water into wine and crucified for the sake of mankind and most importantly; universally understood to be so.
The clever twist of the early church teaching was to unify the disparate threads of the Greek/Roman pagan polytheist tradition with the monotheist Jewish.
The Jewish hero saviour was a conquering prince whereas the Greek and Roman, pagan hero was a 'sacrificial god' by which claim Jewish taste would be greatly offended.
The NT scripture was written in part to accommodate these disparities.
Therefore when seen from the Catholic fusion perspective, the Jesus character had fulfilled the role in the Dionysian and Mythraic tradition as wonder worker, healer, preacher and ultimately the sacrificial saviour but it was quite clear that he was no political prince who came ruling in glory. That then is why he had to have the words put in his mouth in scripture that he was "coming again" when all eyes will see him.(Mat 24;30) The glorious return was therefore a sop for the Jewish punters to be realized in their own day. The 'sacrificial' christ had already been attested to according to the faithful.
All of this has no modern meaning! It was meant to build and establish the catholic faith drawing together beliefs and believers from all of paganism and Judaism.
To understand the FDS can only seriously be understood in the light of the purpose of the NT in fuelling the 'Jesus as Christ' movement which culminated in the Catholic (meaning all embracing) Roman Church.