Okay okay okay.
I will get back on track with the opening post and the problem there, and at the same time try to satisfy myelaine's questions.
I had to go back and look for the questions. Here they are
Do you deny that jerusalem society was greatly and irreversibly impacted by a noteable person of jewish descent in the 1st century? (A luminary, so to speak)
Do you deny that it is that same person who was essentially responsible for gentile interest or belief in the God of the OT?
I do indeed deny that Jerusalem society was greatly impacted by a noteable person of Jewish descent if you imply that person was Jesus Christ.
There is absolutely no evidence that such a person existed at that time and he was written about long after that time. The Jesus that Paul first wrote about was a mystical figure with no clear human history.
Movements to follow several mystical gods started and Jesus won out. I am sure at least one particular person will say that is for the reason that Jesus was real. I don't go along with that. And even if he was a real person, that doesn't mean he was a god, God's son, or in any way more than a man like many of the others trying to start a following. Stories about him written long after his life could easily be completely fictional even if they are based on an actual human.
The great impact upon the Jews at that time was the end of their way of life because of the conflict with Rome.
I think knowing where I stand firmly on this will tell why I won't bother with more arguments with those that are so set that "of course it was all real."