A lot of people have a lot of interpretations of what Jesus of Nazareth said during his life, despite the fact that he spoke in Aramaic, that no one transcribed his sermons and talks while he was alive, that the Gospels weren't written until at least 100 years after his death, and that archeological findings such as the Dead Sea scrolls show that in the first several centuries after Jesus had lived there were wildly different versions of "Christianity" being practiced, the word in quotations as many versions would be totally unrecognizable to practicing Christians today. In some of the traditions, Jesus wasn't even the central figure and other disciples, even including Judas, were the messiahs.  Eventually, one version become predominant, got adopted by Rome, and the other competing versions were declared "heresy" and wiped out.

But no one really knows what Jesus actually taught. 

I can't pretend that I believe the Gospel of Judas was his actual, true teaching, but I can't prove that it wasn't or that the currently accepted Gospels were.  But when I hear so-called "alternative" teachings of the Christ, teachings that more accord with what I believe to be true, I tend to think, "Yeah, that's probably what he said."

Case in point - somewhere in the writings,. the Gospels report that Jesus claimed, "I and the Father are one."  But he didn't follow that claim by saying "and you aren't," and I've read some New Age writers argue that Jesus' true message was that we are all one with the Father.  We're all the Son of God.  "Yeah," I think, "That could be what he said," because it's close to what I otherwise believe (although I would word it differently). It's not dissimilar to what the Buddha (who had his own actual transcription problems) was reported to have said upon his enlightenment - "How marvelous!  I and all sentient beings have come to awakening together," meaning that since the Buddha became enlightened to the unity of all beings, all beings, including you and I, also became enlightened.  

But just because I agree with a notion philosophically and spiritually doesn't mean that the version is any more legitimate or any less speculative than any other version. But I'm prone to believe it because it accords with other things in which I believe.

Half the battle is realizing this about oneself.  The hard part is recognizing the legitimacy of other people's beliefs, and refraining from telling others, "but the Bible doesn't actually say that" even when they claim that, say, Jesus hated homosexuals or that it's a sin to accept welfare.  That version of an alternative Gospel, as absurd as it sounds to me, jibes with their values and beliefs and sounds as natural and likely to them as Jesus acknowledging that we are all one with the Father does to me. 

We're all predisposed to accept what fits with our a priori understanding of things, and to reject things that upset our understanding.  We need to, I need to, not consider other people's beliefs as "wrong" and try to correct them, just as I appreciate it when they let mine be.