Robert said:

Is this thread really about the gospels of Matthew and Luke or is it about Mike Pompeo, Anthony Fauci, the CIA, Stephen Miller, Dick Cheney, Susan Neiman, Cornel West, and Hannah Arendt?

And let's not forget Trump.  As the description of the first video in Post 5 says:

"Trump is part of a larger system Cornel West warns. We are resharing this conversation of David Griscom and Cornel West this week that goes deep into Trumpism and the way we fight back."

Robert said

Steefen said
In Luke 13:1-3, people told Jesus about a time when Pontius Pilate killed a group of Galileans. He slaughtered them right as they offered their worship, so their human blood mixed with the blood of their animal sacrifices. Jesus did not stop it, and instead used the tragedy to warn the crowd to repent of their own sins.

Jesus was being told about an event in the past. He was not in a position to stop what had already occurred. Or are you imagining that Jesus was capable of time travel without respect for the temporal prime directive?
  

You think so?

Pontius Pilate began his ten-year term as the fifth Roman governor (prefect) of Judea in 26 CE (AD 26)

Even if it is in the recent past, Pontius Pilate, Jesus was an adult. Maybe he was located outside of Galilee, but the statue of limitations should not have been up for the Father or the messiah to call the offense out.

Robert said
Is this thread really about the gospels of Matthew and Luke or is it about Mike Pompeo, Anthony Fauci, the CIA, Stephen Miller, Dick Cheney, Susan Neiman, Cornel West, and Hannah Arendt?
  

Subforum: New Testament Gospels
Mike Pompeo, Anthony Fauci, the CIA, Jesus (** you do not have permission to see this link **)

Steefen said
In Luke 13:1-3, people told Jesus about a time when Pontius Pilate killed a group of Galileans. He slaughtered them right as they offered their worship, so their human blood mixed with the blood of their animal sacrifices. Jesus did not stop it, and instead used the tragedy to warn the crowd to repent of their own sins.

Jesus was being told about an event in the past. He was not in a position to stop what had already occurred. Or are you imagining that Jesus was capable of time travel without respect for the temporal prime directive?

When politicians use moral language, they are trying to pool the wool over our faces [eyes].

Steefen:
Jesus, how clever is Trump?

How clever is Netanyahu?

How clever is it to be $40 trillion dollars in debt?

How clever is it to start a war with Iran, I kid you not, for a greater Israel?

How clever  is it for the vineyard owner not to be satisfied with the deaths of those who came before you but needed you to be sacrificed? Second, others were resurrected, what was proven by one more resurrection, your resurrection?

Moral concepts come before religious concepts.

Stephen Miller:

[With condescension] You can talk about [international] niceties.

But [the correct upper hand] we live in a world governed by strength, force, and power.

Steefen:
Pompeo would agree with you. You want to follow Pompeo, Cheney, and Jesus to Heaven ? ? ?

Susan Neiiman:

Wait. Stephen Miller is sourcing a Nazi legal theorist, Carl Schmitt and Ancient Greek genocide against the Island of Melos for not bowing to power.

We can see the immorality / moral concepts are for [the naive, etc.--niceties that actually do not make a difference in the world]. Morality is for losers and fools.

Fauci:
Dogs can be tortured. There are other activities some would question but I couldn't.

Steefen:
Yes, condemn what is actually going on the world (where needed).

Jesus, so you're OK with a father letting his son be crucified or you're OK with a father letting his son being plotted against not for a sacrifice but for some political gain. Temple authorities didn't plan on a human sacrifice as Christians called it. Was the death of James a twin sacrifice?

Where is the virtue in being clever for some, too clever for others?

Jesus is making a comparison.

• The "People of this World" (Unbelievers): They are incredibly clever, strategic, and proactive about securing their earthly, material future. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
• The "People of the Light" (Believers): They are often passive or naive, failing to use the resources they've been given to actively invest in their eternal, spiritual future. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]

Steefen:

Jesus, you bring people to the edge and you are going to be responsible for those who go over the thin line of being too clever.

I would not bring the sheep so close to the cliff's edge. "Not good," why call you good, Jesus?

You're the Way? That's the way to salvation and the Kingdom of Righteousness/Heaven/God?

Cleverness is for world gain and the gain of light?

I already told you what I think of your position.

Steefen: Shrewdness is an impoverishment, a carelessness, inescapable untrustworthiness, treachery, there, Jesus.
Jesus, there is less than "the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God." 

** you do not have permission to see this link **
The master commended the dishonest manager because he acted shrewdly. For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their contemporaries than the people of light.

** you do not have permission to see this link **
And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.

** you do not have permission to see this link **
And the master commended that dishonest steward for acting prudently. “For the children of this world are more prudent in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light.

Steefen:
Jesus likes shrewdness.

I would appreciate comments from readers familiar with textual or redaction criticism: how strong is the scholarly case for seeing sacrificial or atonement language in these passages as secondary to earlier tradition, even where it is textually secure in surviving manuscripts? And are there other Gospel passages where scholars have argued that sacrifice, ransom, or forgiveness language reflects a secondary theological development?

The example of the addition in Mt 26,28 to Mk 14,24 is, of course, familiar to redaction criticism, but the other examples are completely foreign to any other methodologies used in the legitimate study of the Bible. Why not just say you don't agree with the text as written? Is there a desire to maintain some kind of scriptural authority foe an altered text? I think that would only confuse people, either about the legitimacy of the methodology or the actual history of the text. 

I think a much more legitimate approach that could achieve your goal would be to simply focus on the gospel of Luke as analyzed by Bart Ehrman, a very well respected leader in the field of text-criticism. His text-critical analysis of the gospel of Luke (cf Westcort-Hort Western non-interpolations) yields an atonement-free theology in of Luke, which would be a repudiation of Mark's light endorsement of some kind of atonement.

I would also add that the theology of Mark only occasionally and very lightly dips a toe into something resembling atonement theology and even that can perhaps be better understood as some kind of liberation redemption, though Bart would disagree with me on this. Liberation redemption theology has its own pitfalls, but I would emphasize that we're only talking about ancient metaphors here, not necessarily dogma. 

I have my own opinions about child sacrifice; like the life one is willing to give is not theirs to give.

I don't know much about scholarship on the Biblical texts, however.

Welcome again!

This raises a broader question. Could presenting Yeshua’s death as fulfillment of the OT sacrificial system have helped strengthen theological continuity between the OT religious system and the God whom Yeshua called Father?

You might find these books interesting.

** you do not have permission to see this link **  about to be issued in a reasonably priced paperback.

** you do not have permission to see this link **