So basically during the 20 or so year gap in the record of the life of Christ in the Bible, he was actually in India learning Atharvavedic sorcery and Ayurvedic medicine. That's the reason this period was left out, because it would challenge the origin of his powers and his claims of divine descent. He then returned to Palestine in his 30s and the events of the New Testament unfolded more or less as described in the text, he won the support of the people as a worker of miracles and healer of the sick, planning to use them as a base of support to overthrow Roman rule in Palestine and create and independent kingdom. "King of the Jews" is a mistranslation, "Rex Iudaeorum" and "Basileus ton Ioudaion" are both better translated as "King of the Judaeans" or "King of Judaea". He was executed by crucifixion for challenging the Roman state, not for any religious reason.

The Old Testament is the mythologized story of the ethnogenesis of the Judaean people and the New Testament is the story of their failed attempt to crown a king and throw off foreign rule. Just about every would-be king and emperor ever has claimed divine heritage of some kind, so it seems strange to me that belief in this particular one should be so widespread among billions of non-Judaeans yet if you were to ask the average Christian if they thought that, for example, the imperial line of Japan truly was descended from the sun goddess Amaterasu, they would probably find such a notion to be absurd.