Would Jesus promote punishing the innocent instead of the guilty?

[Vicki Q]

Paul™ of acedemic consensus was an ideological polemicist, not a jewish theologian.  

Have you got this the wrong way round? The Paul of academic consensus was both Jewish, and a theologian. Here is the link to Wikipedia to confirm that.

I you think he's an ideological polemicist, against that consensus, could you give your evidence? Thanks.

..not a secretary,

I'm not sure what you mean by this. He may well have used an amanuensis, of course.

and not a historian - not even of paul.

Again, could you provide your evidence, and let me know which scholars on the list provided above don't agree with what I've said is the clear consensus on the accuracy of his biography?

There's nothing wrong with this in and of itself...these are the sorts of people who start movements.

Except that Paul didn't start the movement. He jumped on the bandwagon after Damascus Road.

It does seem strangely uncurious and a bit ridiculous for christians to believe otherwise, as a belief in christ does not require a belief in paul.

Paul's writings are immensely important, and provide crucial and solid evidence about what the Early Church believed about Jesus. They really did believe that Jesus had been resurrected, and that His death and resurrection was the climax of the Jewish story. They really did believe that Jesus had done things that God said He would do, and that role reserved for God meant that Jesus must in some sense have been God- an astonishing claim.

And if we know what the Early Church believed this astonishing stuff, the follow on question is why? I would argue that the simplest, most economical solution, is that these things actually happened.