That there was a human who corresponds to the biblical figure, who was a clever and charismatic genius living in the early Roman occupation of Judea, who challenged the sitting priesthood manning the vassal state and was executed by the Romans, in a manner at least roughly preserved in the Gospels.

That he was not in fact the son of God or capable of performing miracles, that he was not resurrected and that his death did not resolve any particular issue of sin and thus allow life after death. That Pentecost – the Apostles going into reclusion upon his execution and returning months later with the story of his resurrection and of the Holy Spirit where their teachings were exactly as divine as Jesus and God – was made up, in that When Prophecy Fails way.

That all the Gospels were written after and in service of this reading and that even where they include actual teachings of Jesus that support it they may pass over issues pertinent to the immediate cultural and geopolitical contexts that were not relevant to a greater cause or the contexts the Apostles scattered to to found churches.

That the most likely origin of “he provided more quality wine when a wedding feast found itself running out” and “he provided more food at an outdoor gathering than expected” tales has to do with his links to major local landholders – note how the “literal” reading of his parables, to be recognizable and understood, is about the operation of fields and vineyards.

That even if you take the religious aspect of the New Testament seriously it strikes me the message isn’t about the victory of the God of the Jews, it’s about the victory of the Roman Empire.