Would Jesus promote punishing the innocent instead of the guilty?

[Vicki Q]

Let's just say that Matthew and Luke gave two different genealogies which are not evidence of anything. They maybe want to correspond to Jesus story with OT, but then again they likely reflect the political allegiances of the authors.

They are very good evidence of the wish to tie Jesus into the OT meta-narrative. In the C1 Jewish world this was the equivalent of a fanfare and a town crier calling for attention. I agree totally this was also a political statement, because this was tying Jesus into the royal family- and Herod's approach to family members was well known.

What Paul is doing is trying to tie mystical religions and many of the practices, such as baptism and sacred meals (probably even the mysteries of Mithras where he "introduces an image of a resurrection") with Judaism which were already in use among the mystery religions in the Greco-Roman world to draw non Jews to temples, and not Jesus from the Gospels.

Baptism was properly instituted by John the Baptist (Josephus), and Jewish Chavurah fellowship meals were well established, so Paul didn't introduce them to Judaism, which is where Christianity got them from without any pagan influence. The whole Mithras theory has long been discredited in academic circles.

Like in Romans 11...Paul seems to be talking about the coming of a future "Deliverer", but he makes no mention at all of Jesus here. If Jesus had just been here then why is Paul talking about old scriptures instead of Jesus Christ, who had just been here?

?He's quoting a prophecy from the past, which was referring to Jesus as the deliverer, also in the (more recent) past. I really can't see your point here.

 
Furthermore, in Philippians 3, 20 Paul says that they are expecting a Savior from heaven, which is Jesus. He doesn't say that they are expecting him to come back again or anything like that, but that they are expecting a Savior from heaven for the first time. "But our commonwealth is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ."

?Why do you think this isn't about Jesus' return? Paul is using the Roman colonies in Greece as a metaphor for the Church as colonies of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth; eventually all the earth will become one giant colony when Jesus returns; that's what he is saying.

 
He declares that the "promise" made by God to Abraham existed before the "law." ("If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring and heirs according to the promise.") But, honestly, who really cares? Jesus never said anything about any of this stuff,  

Jesus repeatedly ties himself into the OT meta-narrative in general and Abraham in particular. For examples, Matthew 8:11; Luke 13:28; Luke 16:29,30; John 8:39,40; John 8:56

 but Paul never concerns himself with Jesus' teachings; his goal is to get Gentiles into the church, and the only way that he can justify such radical action is with his faith trumps-law argument.

 

What is your evidence for this claim?

Why would Paul bother to “get Gentiles into the church” if the church wasn't following Jesus' teachings? He was getting completely and repeatedly mashed for doing this (2 Corinthians 11)

Why then does Paul use Jesus' teaching as normative against his own e.g. 1 Corinthians 7:10,12 “I give this command (not I, but the Lord)” vs “To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord)”

Be aware that when Paul talks about 'faith' in Jesus, the image he's giving is of a soldier wearing a uniform- obeying his CO's orders.

You read it and you'll see there is no mention of Jesus there, nor Herod's slaughter of the innocents -- it's all in the heads of Christian readers who are using the technique of "wishful thinking".

I can't have explained things at all well. I'll have another go.
Jeremiah 31 is an immensely important passage. It talks about the suffering of the Jewish nation, including the deaths of Jewish children. However it also talks about how the Jewish nation will be forgiven, and the Kingdom of God will arrive. This Kingdom will be completely different to earlier versions, will involve a new relationship between God and His people, and this change will be permanent.
Now Jesus did inaugurate the Kingdom of God, establish a new relationship between God and His people, and it was in a permanent way. Matthew is looking at the Slaughter of the Innocents (BTW historically entirely in line with Herod's MO), and pointing out that Jeremiah talked about the coming together of the deaths of Jewish children and the inauguration of God's Kingdom.

What is fascinating is how the Early Church felt able to say that the Jeremiah prophecies had come true in Jesus, given his complete failure to achieve anything.