1. The historical Jesus based on the success and prediction of John the Baptist strategically and wisely developed a new and simple theory that would lead people to understand the Ethical part of Stoicism, leaving the two other difficult parts (Physics and Logic) of Stoicism to mainly the Stoic philosophers. Through indicating clearly and firmly that Water Baptism is just for now which is not an end, because there will be a Fire Baptism in the future for his followers/students. What's that Fire Baptism? It could be just Stoicism. That's why the Stoics of the age didn't bother to criticise Jesus much, or at all. Because Jesus mentioned clearly about Fire Baptism. A very clear signal leads people to understand the importance of Fire, which is one of the important element in Stoicism physics/theory. 2. Looks like there has been lack of formal studies about Fire Baptism in Christian theology. Common believers in Christianity would probably don't really or actually understand what it is! However, it is one of the most important aspects for his followers after water baptism which is only the very first step of their whole journey, according to Jesus stated in the gospels, repeatedly. 3. In Stoicism, " We must get used to the fact that for the Stoics it is no problem that god is fire." - page 227 in " Stoic Theology - Proofs for the Existence of the Cosmic God and of the Traditional Gods " by PA Meijer. https://eburon.nl/en/product/stoic_theology/ This ancient concept of cosmic god in Stoicism matches very much our modern physics framework of today.
Thanks for the civil discourse OT. I think you are putting far too much emphasis on Stoicism as a specific influence or even counter force to religion. The insurrection that later evolved itself into Christianity would have contained plenty of stoics, the main philosophy of which states virtue is based on behavior rather than words. It was rebellious and warring Jews which laid the grounding for Christianity and they would of course have considered their actions in line with stoic reasoning. Like the Romans and their contemporary Jews, they were highly superstitious, creating a new God to appease the Romans and self-servingly reassure themselves they were in the right.
You may as well say Lord Voldemort knew Harry Potter's mother Lily. With no evidence the writer of Paul was even called Paul, the epistles written by that (those) author(s) whoever they were, hardly refer to Jesus as a living person but reference the character only in terms of a heavenly or celestial being. In other words, a fictional entity. The historical reasoning that confirmed a similar portion of text was forged by Christian apologetics (probably aggravated that such a notable historian as Josephus had not mentioned anything about a Bible Jesus or Christ), also raises the very same serious doubts about "Paul knew Jesus's brother James". No doubt there will come a time when the "consensus" which claim otherwise are obliged stop using the same unreliable and invalid arguments they still rely upon as they have done before. Also, To say there was an historical Jesus is to say there was an historical Tom, Dick or Harry. The name Yeshua (Jesus) was common at the time.
1. The possibility should be reasonably high that the original and very-early Christians who followed the Real Jesus' Real teachings behaved very differently than the later Christians who followed the Bible teachings after it's canonized. A. The emperors and Paul-before-conversion were not able to kill all too many very early Christian believers that were growing far too much than the emperors expected and controlled/killed. Then a plan devised for a new Christianity generation according to a canonized Bible defined by them (paid for by the rulers/emperors) was devised/created by Paul-before-conversion yo make them - the believers becoming much more moderate/conservative. Rather than so aggressive and progressive as behaved by some of the very-early believers. 2. The true reason(s) why the very-early Christians were persecuted by their emperors is not obvious, nor be easily found/understood. As all evidences could have been destroyed purposely. A. The Bible Jesus told them they should follow the state law. Unless the Real Jesus told the very-early believers the otherwise. imo, the role of Jesus from various angles was a reformer by default/nature. Hence, a movement initiated by the Real Jesus was then changed to an organised institutional religion designed by the authority and appointees (probably headed by the Paul-after-conversion), in order to avoid further more killings. B. If the very-early believers did follow state law as defined by the rulers/emperors that required them not to preach Jesus, would they follow the law? 3. A. If the Paul-before-conversion actually knew James was a believer of Jesus, perhaps James would have been killed immediately. Whether James was Jesus' brother or not. B. Probably it was the Paul-after-conversion who after converting to a believer was later introduced to James by others. LOL!
Obviously your story is much better than the ones of mine. I wish I myself could understand what I am trying to post here. LOL :
Personally, I wouldn't underestimate the intelligence and capability of those guys working on various scientific approaches/projects including the width/depth of developing their ethics, physics and logic systems. " Why 2,000 Year-Old Roman Concrete Is So Much Better Than What We Produce Today https://elitetrader.com/et/threads/...uch-better-than-what-we-produce-today.311353/ "