I'm not sure where you're getting some of these ideas. Paul was very much a Jew. He trained under Gamaliel, one of the most prominent Jewish rabbis of the time. He did also have Roman citizenship, but those two things were not mutually exclusive.

Also, James, while prominent in the early church, was not in any sense Jesus's choice to lead the church. The closest thing to a single designated leader of the church was Peter though that is a point of contention between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Nowhere are circumcision or kosher foods required for Christianity, either.

Indeed, some points were a bit unclear. This is literalism in the sense of "God is real, created the world, Jesus lived and died to save you from your sins", not "there is no figurative language in the bible" or "the Bible is a bunch of stories about how to be a good person."

One important phrase in interpreting Scripture is "let Scripture interpret Scripture." (cf. 1 Cor 1:18f, Romans 11:33-35, 2 Cor 10:5 - our reason is not capable of fully understanding God, so we interpret it as his Word says and leave it at that.)

I should point you toward the Council of Jerusalem for part of the early history of the church, and I'm not really sure where you're coming from with the rest.

As for the rest (mostly about the history of biblical manuscripts), could you please put what I missed into a couple more clear questions?

> If this is correct, it means modern Christianity, is not based on Jesus stated future direction of his church.

One view is that this was resolved at the council described in acts, and all agreed. The view that there was some paul-led split that is covered up by the selection of the NT canon is often used by detractors of christianity, who typically try to frame Jesus as purely a jewish reformer, and that Paul was some 'kook' that invented his own religion (despite the texts that he was working with, rather than against, the rest of the apostles).

YMMV, but probably useful to be just as skeptical to sources on both sides when trying to ascertain what might have actually happened historically

> It is 'literal' and therefore not subjective. This is a fallacy - as there is always subjectivity and interpretation in human understanding, and certainly in interpreting something as nuanced and contradictory as the bible.

At the sermon on the mount, Jesus said "you are the salt of the earth". A literal take would be Jesus was saying the listeners were salt. You can be subjective and think this is a metaphor, but allowing for metaphors in the bible puts an end to literalism.

the universally considered authentic Pauline epistles are commonly dated from the mid 40s to the late fifties AD.... So any arguments made about church leadership 'before' then are arguing from a very small body of evidence (luke/acts) ... rather a less persuasive argument than the iron clad one you present here.