Of course it's all questionable. I don't know if Jesus existed, but I believe it's likely, and in order to try to come up with something resembling a rational explanation for the events related by the writers, and altered over the centuries, these are some of the questions I asked.
Why did Wise Men take the trouble to travel a very long way to visit the new-born Jesus?
Why did Herod take the information that a new king had been born so seriously that he ordered the slaughter of all boys under the age of 2?
Where was Jesus for 18 years of his life, and why when he surfaced again did he bring with him a philosophy somewhat akin to that of the eastern religions, eg not an eye for an eye, but turn the other cheek?
Why was Jesus crucified, and who was responsible?
Did he die on the cross?
What did Paul know of Jesus?
Incidentally, it's not ALL guesswork. For example, had Jesus been charged with blasphemy, as is commonly believed, under Jewish law, he would have been stoned to death. The Romans worshipped multiple Gods and for them, blasphemy wasn't an issue. The charge against him was one of sedition, and the penalty for that was crucifixion. In short, the Romans saw him as a troublemaker. Additionally, Jesus supposedly died within a few hours, whereas in fact it takes several days for a crucified man to die, and his legs weren't broken to help the process along. The final clue to his survival is the fact that after he was pronounced dead, his body bled - and dead bodies don't bleed - but maybe the writers of the Gospels weren't aware of that.
The story cannot possibly be accurate. The writers have demonised the Jews for his death, and they've exonerated the Romans of all blame. Don't you wonder why? Mmm .... could it be that St Paul is rearing his ugly head again!