What if the Jews Had Accepted Jesus as Messiah?

This is the question Klinghoffer asks in the introduction to his book, "Why the Jesus Rejected Jesus." His point is to say that it is actually in Christianity's favor that the Jews didn't accept Christ.

He sets up the arguments betweent the Lord's brother, James, and Paul, as recorded in the book of Acts. But he misunderstands what happened. He treats Paul's rejection of the Jews rejecting him and his claim to turn to the Gentiles as though it only happened because the Jews rejected him (like a salesman moving to another location to sell his wares - my metaphor).

"Had the Jews embraced Jesus, therefore, followers of the church of James would have continued to be obligated in the biblical commandments of circumcision, Sabbath, kashrut (eating only kosher food), family purity...and so on. Thus, in every key respect, the Jesus movement might have remained a Jewish sect" - Klinghoffer, p7.

But Klinghoffer misses the point of Galatians and the whole New Covenant under Jesus in this consideration. James, or at least those who considered themselves "of James" were in error. They were in error of what the ceremonial law was pointing to and they were in error of the correct teaching of Paul - and Jesus. If the Jews (as many actually did) had come to Christ, they would have heard the good news of the gospel and within a generation, rituals like circumcision would have been subsumed in the fulfilled work of Jesus Christ, the Messiah who would come and make all things new.

This looks to be a good, irenic, and helpful debate with a Jew who wishes to make his case without the shrill. However, from the start, he is missing the point of the gospel, the shadows of the law and temple, and the fulfilment of Jesus not only to the Jews, but to the whole Adamic race.