Jerusalem was extremely unstable do to the rebellions against Rome, and Christianity became a Mediterranean phenomenon rather than just a Jewish one. I'm not sure why you'd expect the most important center to continue to be Jerusalem, given the political realities of the Roman Empire.
Well, Christians are the ones claiming they have historical documents. You can't have Acts as history and unstable Jerusalem as history.
Acts has a contradictory picture.
Acts 8:
8 And Saul approved of their killing him.
On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem,
and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria.
Very strange and targeted persecution. Leave the apostles, but persecute everyone else?
And we find that James never left Jerusalem, but there continued to be a sizable presence of Christians there, where they had councils, see Acts 15
But who is persecuting Christians? There is a curious story of Acts 21
17 When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers and sisters received us warmly. 18 The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19 Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.
20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you.
here we read Paul coming to Jerusalem, and he is told about many THOUSANDS Jews who have believed and yet they remain zealous for the law (of Moses). And Paul is warned about these Christian believers by "... they will certainly hear that yo have come..." statement! Is Paul about to receive a warm welcome?
So, who was historical Jesus? Was Paul his follower or was James? And what happened to these thousands of Jews who were believers but also zealous for the Law?
Paul himself says that he was persecuted due to his stance on the circumcision.
Gal. NIV 5:11 Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished.
Later claims about the historical Jesus are apocryphal no matter where they're from, so not exactly historically accurate. See, for example, the Protoevangelium of James.
Well, if we take the Gospel narrative, Jesus came, did his miracles, was confused for risen John the Baptist, ascended into heaven, and whose resurrection was totally forgotten.
Acts 23:
6 Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, “My brothers, I am a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees. I stand on trial because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead.” 7 When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8 (The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees believe all these things.)
9 There was a great uproar, and some of the teachers of the law
who were Pharisees stood up and argued vigorously.
“We find nothing wrong with this man,” they said. “What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?”
Excuse me? Was there this mass amnesia that happened in Acts 23? Pharisees forgot about the risen Christ and how they paid money to the guards to keep quiet about what they saw? They now find NOTHING wrong with Paul is saying, by preaching Christ resurrected from the dead?
Sure, if you think that the Gospel writers were literary geniuses, I suppose this could work. Given the quality of much of the apocryphal works, though, I just don't think the early Christian community was competent enough to pull a Shakespeare like that. Fullscale fabrication is pretty easy to detect.
I also find it a bit puzzling that people think it suspicious that a 1st century Jewish rabbi would be referencing the Hebrew Scriptures. What else would you expect?
Gospels writers were not literally geniueses any more than the Muslim authors of the Quran or Joseph Smith, the author of the Book of Mormon.
I find it puzzling that you think a 1st century Jewish rabbi would reference the Greek version of the Old Testament.