Yes. Christians believe that “the word became flesh” not that the word became a bunch of other words. It is gnosticism that tries to spiritualize Jesus into the ether and insist he is a myth or a concept. Christianity say that an actual flesh and blood man is God, born of a virgin not once upon a time, but when Augustus was emperor, Herod was king; condemned by a high priest whose existence is attested by several historical sources, physically crucified by a Roman bureaucrat who has left behind a historical record we know about, and raised from the dead and seen by numerous eyewitnesses who leave behind writings recounting their experiences and the experiences of people they know very well. Paul sums things up pretty well for people who thought exactly as you did in the Church at Corinth:
Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, 2 by which you are saved, if you hold it fast—unless you believed in vain. 3* For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4* that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5* and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8* Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9* For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed. 12 Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; 14* if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. 17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18* Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied. 20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. (1 Corinthians 15:1-20)
The physical reality of the resurrection is, in fact, something the witnesses go out of their way to emphasize in order to short-circuit the gnostic urge to do exactly what you are attempting here.
As they were saying this, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace to you.” * 37 But they were startled and frightened, and supposed that they saw a spirit. 38 And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do questionings rise in your hearts? 39* See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have.” 40 And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. * 41 And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate before them. Luke 24:36-43
Luke is a very careful historian, working according to the normal rules of first century historiography to pin down the testimony to “those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word” in order “to write an orderly account for you”. He is, in fact, an eyewitness to good portions of Paul’s ministry, and has obviously had access to conversations with the original 12 apostles. Likewise, Mark is an eyewitness to some of the ministry of Jesus and was present in the Garden of Gethsemane, as well as on Easter morning. James of Jerusalem and his brother Jude are the son of Clopas, who met Jesus on the Emmaus Road on Easter morning. John is an eyewitness, as is Matthew. The gospel bear all the earmarks, not of myth, but of historical testimony. And they, interestingly, include saying which nobody, inventing a long ago god figure from cloud cuckoo land, would ever invent. Clearly the figure they are portraying is a first century Jew, not an Indian, Chinese, Egyptian, Meso-American or Nordic archetype. The gospels, in short, are mythic (in that they fulfil the deepest longings of human myth) but they are weirdly and solidly historical and clearly belong to the category of eyewitness testimony, not fiction.
The question of whether I am a jerk, while excellent polemic, is not germane to the question of whether Jesus existed. The simple fact is, no reputable historian in the world would deny the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Rita’s dogmatic regurgitations of ignorant proclamations and her refusal to listen to anything that might endanger her close-minded high school sophomore dogmatism persuaded me that it was not worth giving her a platform to spew ignorance. You, in contrast, actually asked a question and seem to be interested in trying to do something more than simply dogmatize.
For further information on the obvious historical character of the gospels and the New Testament, I recommend the work of Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony Bauckham, as distinct from Some Guy with a Website, is an actual scholar who is familiar, not only with the gospels but, just as importantly, with other kinds of ancient literature. The gospels, while not history as a modern would write it, are nonetheless rooted in history and in eyewitness testimony to the life, death, and yes, resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. The gospel is, quite simply, about nothing else. It’s the only news the apostles have to bring. And they are absolutely adamant that the resurrection is an event which has taken place, not in cloud cuckoo land of myth and legend, but in history, on a particular day, at a particular physical location, leaving behind a tomb with no corpse in it, yielding a glorified human being who both possesses strange properties (appearing and disappearing, for instance) but who also can be touched and who eats real food.
Exactly how different from pagan myth this is can be seen in both your and Rita’s urgent attempts to alter what the gospels in fact say and shove the whole story out of history and back into the realm of cloud cuckoo land. Pagan myths never bother with such things because no historical claim is ever made for them, just as nobody looks for the house of Jack the Giant killer. But the Church, beginning with the apostles (and, significantly, their enemies, is born with the knowledge that Jesus was a historical figure). So early Jewish polemics, for instance, never claim Jesus didn’t exist. They claim he was a false prophet, a magician, a fake, a liar. But never ever a myth. Gnostics attempt to make him one, but their great enemies are the apostles who insist he “came in the flesh”. And it is, after all, the gnostics who are the johnny come latelies who never met him, spiritual dilletantes (like Rita) who have a theory and who are not interested in any facts that contradict the theory.