Thanks, but all I said was even in the book of Acts, I did not say whether it was 100% historical or not.
There was no persecution of Christians by Jews as portrayed in the NT.
Now I feel you are simply dismissing the NT as historical sources wholesale which is a nono as well as taking it 100% as fact. It would be a crime to blaspheme against God, and a Christian who pronounced Jesus as Lord would be considered a Blasphemer. The Sanhedrin did hold trials, and it is no far stretch to think that Christians were tried before it in regards to blasphemy. Even Paul in Galatians mentions he persecuted Christians, so we know the Jews did indeed persecute members of the sect. In 2nd Corinthians Paul lists a giant list of the trials he faced by the Jews against him. (and no, I am not going to debate the historicity of Paul here, since the historical opinion and consensus is Paul was a historical individual and he actually wrote Galatians, I am sticking with that. Any discussion on this point would be off topic, and belongs in the never ending thread.)
There was some sort of conflict c. 49 in Rome, which resulted in the Jews' temporary expulsion. But the NT gives away the plot when it pretends that there was no Roman persecution, and all their troubles were because of Jews.
Well seeing how the author of Luke/Acts was probably a Roman citizen (i.e. a non Jew), there is good reason to suggest why the focus of persecution is on the Jews, and no it was not to create hatred for the Jews. If the audience of Luke/Acts is intended to be Gentile readers (which it was most likely) then portraying Jewish leadership as antagonistic is a good way to bolden the new converts. Gentile converts in second temple Judaism were not treated like wholesale Jews, and by some sects were despised. Luke/Acts is written to demonstrate they are wrong and the persecuted are righteous. Yes, it's biased and impassioned and the author manipulated stories to say something that probably didn't happen. Welcome to first century journalism.
This is clear evidence of serious ideological and racist axe-grinding, not history writing.
You've read Suetonius' works, yes? How can you say that is not ideological or axe grinding? Yet, I doubt you have a problem with the works of Suetonius? Josephus is also CLEARLY biased and yet, despite the one or two discrepancies, I am positive you also accept his historical work. The same is said in regards to the New Testament. Yes, it deserves critical analysis and yes, there are clear manipulations within the text to tell a story in a certain way as to bias one group over another. That is expected in the histories of antiquity.
The point was to destroy and demonize the Jews in order to justify stealing their religion. It was the most effective propaganda of all time.
Now that is a claim which has 0 evidence to support it. If Luke/Acts was written after the Fall of Jerusalem then it would have no reason to destroy or demonize the Jews, nor need to justify anything. Unless you are arguing for an early authorship of Luke/Acts?
As for it being propaganda, propaganda is still heavily based in historical fact. It just presents one side of the argument/position.
Anyways, back to persecution by the Jews, we know from 4th-5th century scholars that claims of Jewish persecution were largely exaggerated by the early Christian church to distance themselves from the Jews, who were at the time not favored by Rome at all (3 major revolts would do that for sure). As Christianity fell under Gentile leadership after 70 AD, it came into conflict with Rabbinical Judaism and thus it distanced itself from it. This is why Matthew portrays the Pharisees in such a negative way, and why Luke panders towards a Gentile audience. Mark is the only gospel which does not negatively portray the Jewish community (which is why Mark is dated earlier by scholars), but even Mark mentions persecution (but vague and non-specific) and seeing how Mark was most likely written in the wake of Nero's open persecution of Christians this sense of fear of persecution makes sense.