"If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?"

The mere fact that you asked this question in such simplistic terms, demonstrates how little thought you actually gave to the question.

I shall leave aside, for this exposition, the fact tha mythological assertions have a habit of being [1] untestable even in principle, let alone in practice, or [2] in the case of the testable assertions, not merely wrong, but fatuous and absurd in the light of modern knowledge. From the standpoint of your question, this is actually the least of your worries, though still a fatally serious one.

More problematic, from the standpoint of your question, is the matter of what Christianity actually is. The Christian narrative consists of many assertions, all presented as purportedly constituting fact. The trouble being that some of those assertions flatly contradict each other. As a corollary, you have to decide which of the members of each pair of mutually contradictory assertions you are going to choose as your definition of "Christianity", an issue that even adherents of the relevant mythology have been unable to agree upon from the outset. By selecting an explicit choice in this regard, you're going to face violent disagreement on the part of those adherents whose selection differs from yours.

Even if we put aside the mutually contradictory assertions for a moment, which is another fatal problem for your question, there still remains the matter, that while there are a small number of essential core assertions, that are a central requirement of the Christan narrative, these core assertions, whilst necessary, are not sufficient to define the Christian narrative in full - those familiar with the world of pure mathematics will understand my use of the relevant terms and their application here. You then have the problem of specifying, in detail, which of the other, subsidiary assertions you're going to include in your particular version of the Christian narrative. Which, again, is a matter that enjoys no consensus among adherents of the requisite mythology.

Even if you succeed in this cataloguing endeavour before persisting, you then have another problem to address. Which centres upon the fact that if the requisite assertions you present did, in some hypothetical future, did all turn out to be true, then why did so much of the knowledge base we have acquired, point emphatically in the opposite direction? At this point, you have the problem of answering why it is, that so many of us who paid attention in class, learned the proper rules of discourse and their application, who exerted diligent effort via said application of said rules, determining the likely status of various assertions and postulates, were apparently so thoroughly misled by observational reality and otherwise error-free deduction in this matter. Which, in that hypothetical future, will be a gargantuan task for you to undertake. Providing proper, substantive reasons why reality chose to throw this most perverse of curve balls at us, will almost certainly be beyond your capabilities.

In particular, you have to provide substantive answers, in that hypothetical future, why the magic entity suddenly determined to be real, arranged for so much of the universe to operate in a manner suggesting strongly that said entity was superfluous to requirements and irrelevant. You also have to answer another awkward question here, namely why this entity, asserted as it is to have our welfare as a major concern, did not take the obvious step of removing that doubt about its existence from the outset, and thus sparing our species millennia of wasted effort and needlessly spilt blood. Glib appeals to "free will" and "faith" won't cut it. While you're at it, you might want to address the matter of why this entity chose mythology as its vehicle for passing on its purported message to us, given that mythology is possibly the most unreliable means of disseminating substantive knowledge that humans have devised.

Take your time on this one. Because I assure you, you'll need it. My initial estimate being around three decades.

Which Christianity? There is a bewildering variety from which to choose.

If A Christianity were proved to be true that would mean the existence of god had been proved.

So, I could no longer be an atheist, and would be a theist . Would I become a christian? Not necessarily, would depend on what would happen if I did not..

Imo a just god would give me the freedom to choose.

IF Christianity were supported by the God of infinite attributes, including justice and compassion, I would probably worship him. Not sure about his weird son.

A more honest answer to what is essentially a facile and shallow minded hypothetical is; How the fuck could I possibly have any idea about what I might do? Throughout my life, I have often reacted very differently to events than I had thought. Sometimes that's been a good thing. Other times, not so much . .

Short answer: I don't know

@Vasily Dimitrivich

The simple answer is NO.
Can you actually supply some solid evidence that God is real?
There are 3200 popular religious beliefs, just about the same number of bibles as well. They all have one thing in common, (ONE) doesn't have to die if they believe in their God.
Your god is an asshole anyway, flooding the world with little reason to do so? That's one of many things I do not like about the Christian god.

According to your god, Homosexuality is a sin. So I go to hell just for being homosexual. Hell would be living forever in a heaven filled with homophobic assholes.

If a god exists (it) will make itself known at our death. And if there's no god, and no heaven, we find nothing out after death, simply ceasing to exist. And I am fine with simply ceasing to exist.

No pain, no suffering, no nothing.