All interpretations of Christianity fall into two categories, internal and external, depending on whether they accept an Anointed or not ("anointed" being the root meaning of "Christianity").

As Francis Schaeffer noted, all debate between these two over which is "right" focuses on recognizing that people are always moving in one of two directions on the spectrum between them, either toward theism or toward nihilism.

It appears that the nihilism and external side fails basic tests of logic (because nihilism entails that logic is nothing as much as it entails that logic is something); and it also appears that motion toward the theism and internal side is also always challenging due to moral questions for each individual. Yet it's safe to propose that theism is the "right" interpretation even as there may then be further debate about who God "anoints" as representative. You know I've found this very defensible.

This is expressed briefly: He that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. The disposition of rewards is the same as the disposition of anointing.

So for the purposes of c/Conspiracies I propose that the Truth, the Way, and ultimately all Christianity is encapsulated in various isomorphic statements of rejection of nihilism and acceptance of a transcendent greatness harmonizing Self and Other. From that, anything can be built, and often is built more wrongly than rightly. But no specific formula is required for this essential concept to be recognized, and no axiom can be proposed universally because the inverse axiom of nihilism can always be offered as an alternative. I often describe this as the responsibility for steering me right falling upon someone other than me, even as the responsibility for seeking to be steered right, to never sway for an instant, is always my own. There are many other core truths that have been accepted by a permanent informal body known as Christianity, a number of which appear in classic formulas, all of which build upon an assumption that the received words of God over the ages are all truth; beginning on the foundation of theism these can all be worked out, but that is done among those who take theism seriously enough to seek structure and relationship among theists.

It needs saying that the person who professes theism but who rejects or judges the concept of Jesus is usually in a conflict that can be resolved by testing motion in either direction of the spectrum: because the concept of Jesus is fully consistent with the concept of theism, and arguments that it is not usually fall apart rapidly upon analysis. As the Python troupe said, we can't make fun of Jesus himself, that's straight out, but we can make fun of literally everything that surrounded him.

It also needs saying that, if you're asking about denominations, they shouldn't be regarded as having "right" interpretations in the sense that others are wrong. Denominations should be about different cultural emphases and practices among the same core right interpretation, and when this fails to happen there is evidence there may be incomplete agreement on the core, which can be analyzed. But you also know I believe in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God such that the "right" interpretation described above as theism will guide all truth-seekers into perfect unity of knowledge on any point.