Well, adamant about not abandoning my skepticism, but essentially, yes. For instance, what god controls human affairs? The bible god only appears in history around 1500 BCE, by which time the gods of Mesopotamia and Egypt were already thousands of years old. Yet none of them had been heard of in any effective sense outside of the trade routes across to India and around the Mediterranean.
But gods never appear, never say, never do. The Christian god sits on [his] hands and lets the infant drown in the backyard pool. [He]'s fought on both sides at once in the myriad wars across the history of Europe, not least the second millennium, and (as is often noted) rather fancies the big battalions. Experiments in hospitals detect no improved outcome for patients who are prayed for. The evidence is totally consistent with gods being an aspect of human psychology from tribal days eg as in the bible ─ the Tanakh's god, for example, begins as only one of many gods in the Canaanite pantheon, apparently with a consort Asherah back then ─ hence 'no other gods before me' instead of 'ain't no other gods'. for instance. Not till after the Babylonian captivity (around the time Isaiah is written) does [he] become the only god. Then, when Paul abandons the covenant of circumcision, the Christian god becomes a distinct entity, and in the 4th century the Christian god becomes triune, and then the Christians become Eastern and Roman, then Roman and Protestant, then all the thousands of protestant sects, with guest-spot appearances in Mormonism and Rastafarianism, and so on and so on and so on. Gods must provide what their congregations want or lose their congregations, and a god without a congregation is a dead god.
Both are ancient sets of documents, and they say what they say. I have no wish for them to say any particular thing, but it seems wrong from the historian's pov to misrepresent the texts relied on. The question whether and if so to what extent they contain actual history is for historians to answer, not theologians.
I think there probably was a human historical Jesus, and he probably died by crucifixion, but none of the NT authors ever met him, he gets no mention in contemporary history, and each of the gospel versions plus Paul's is different (though Paul says virtually nothing about the earthly bio of his Jesus, and Galatians 1:11-12 is instructive). All we have of substance are the gospel accounts, and the earliest, Mark, was written around 75 CE, comfortably more than 40 years after the traditional date of the crucifixion, in a time and place where living to 40 was a substantial achievement.
It sounds good, but in fact, like Matthew, and apparently aware of Matthew, it uses Mark as its template and adds and omits as suits its author.
Why not ask your Jewish friends what they think of the notion of "circumcision of the heart"? My instinct tells me that Paul &c abandoned the covenant of circumcision because it got in the way of sales (as no doubt it would). As I said, at that point the god of Paul, and of subsequent Christianity, ceased to be the god of the Tanakh (and that's true in spades redoubled when the Trinity notion is adopted in the 4th century).
Incidentally, outside the debate boards here at RF, I don't care what people believe. I have dear relatives and close friends who are believers, with whom theology is a topic never raised. In my view what really matters is that people treat each other with decency, respect, inclusion and common sense, whatever they do or don't believe.