Reagan was johnny come lately with his "tear down this wall" speech. He didn't give that until 1987. The Solidarity Movement stated around 1980- 1981; and, in my opinion, had a great part in weakening the Soviet hold on Poland.

And Jimmy Carter was responsible for some of their trouble there.

Once Gorbachev took over, that sealed it.

But the myth endures.

yet people believe Reagan did it.

So why should the argument that there may be some testimony from 40 years earlier in the Gospels have us take any of it as true?

But Reagan’s massive increase in military spending definitely accelerated the collapse of the Soviet economy. They knew that couldn’t keep up with our levels of expenditure.
The CIA estimates of the Soviet economy in the late 90s thought it was about twice as large as it actually was.
This is not a popular view, but facts don’t have a bias.

Did Reagan induce a Soviet increase in military spending that in turn lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union? (For the thesis see Busch 1997, against the thesis Dobson 2005. For more, see the AskHistorians subreddit) Reagan’s policies were at much a secondary factor in explaining why the Soviet economy crashed. In that sense, he didn’t win the Cold War. Rather, The Soviet Union committed suicide by virtue of the deterioration of its economic system in the late 70s.

And the Myth that he brought down the USSR is as much a fable as walking on water. To get back to the real idea behind this Post.

Carter knew the USSR was on the brink of financial collapse because the CIA told him. Saint Ronnie ratcheted up the rhetoric and massively increased military spending with his Cold War 2.0. This was red meat to the Soviet hardliners and allowed them to go on longer than they would have otherwise.

Nations usually fall apart due to multiple factors and it would require some dedicated time for anyone to get more than a superficial understanding of what happened to the Soviet Union. Even with a good understanding of the facts, you might draw varying conclusions about the real causes.

A better example is contemporary faith healers who heal people at revivals. Even though we have evidence on how they fake the healings, people still believe because they saw it on TV or heard from a friend that the healings are real.

UFOs. Bigfoot, etc...
But I used this because it is a clear example of a myth about known person that is untrue. (Reagan was not responsible for the Soviet Union's downfall.) One that is taken seriously in some circles. With books written about it.

I think it demonstrates my point on the veracity of the Gospels.

But other contemporary myths equally show how untrustworthy the NT is.

Now, imagine the Reagan story 300 years from now, and what books assembled then might look like here and in Russia.

Canons aren't edited and assembled until centuries later.

after the Washington Irving re-telling.

I am also fairly certain that Davey Crockett did not kill himself a bear when he was only 3.

There is an apocalyptic text floating around called "Shepherd of Hermas." I have seen suggested dates as early as the first century, so it may be quite old. It was a favorite among early Christians, as I recall, and perhaps included in some early biblical canons. Yet, how many people today have heard of "Shepherd of Hermas." For all we know, Ronald Reagan may be the a sort of "Shepherd of Hermas" of presidents. Shoot, 300 years from now Rutherford B Hayes may be the favorite.

we're chosen for specific reasons. Most reasons were to support the Roman church. The rest was discarded.