The Parable of the Landowner and Blood Atonement

[Stravinsk]

The Parable of the Landowner can be found in Matthew 21:33-46. Please review it before answering the following question:

If the husbandman and his fellow men are wicked for murdering first the servants (the prophets of the old testament) then the Son (Christ) in order to attempt to "seize the inheritance for themselves" - then how are you different from them if you believe that the murder of the Son was necessary to receive your inheritance (entry into Heaven, forgiveness, redemption etc)?

I already know that this argument will come up: "But Christ predicted His suffering and death". Yes, that's true. Does that fact lesson the notion that one is still guilty of wickedness by agreeing that it was somehow necessary in order to gain the inheritance (salvation, redemption, forgiveness etc)?

If you can answer these questions without quoting any murderers (cough Saul/Paul cough) that would be good.

 

[atpollard]

John 10:17-18 [NKJV] "Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father."

 

[Stravinsk]

John 10:17-18 [NKJV] "Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father."

A woman is at knife point by a man intending to murder her. A stranger intervenes and gets between the attacker and the woman. The stranger is killed and the woman escapes. The stranger has acted in love by laying down his life for the woman. Does this in any way lesson the attacker's wickedness, or those who agree with what the attacker did?

Edit: Also -

Matthew 9:13
Matthew 12:7

 

[Lamb]

A woman is at knife point by a man intending to murder her. A stranger intervenes and gets between the attacker and the woman. The stranger is killed and the woman escapes. The stranger has acted in love by laying down his life for the woman. Does this in any way lesson the attacker's wickedness, or those who agree with what the attacker did?

Edit: Also -

Matthew 9:13
Matthew 12:7

That doesn't represent accurately Jesus' laying down His life. A death needed to happen to atone for sins, we see that in the Old Testament as a foreshadowing of His death.

 

[1689Dave]

The Parable of the Landowner can be found in Matthew 21:33-46. Please review it before answering the following question:

If the husbandman and his fellow men are wicked for murdering first the servants (the prophets of the old testament) then the Son (Christ) in order to attempt to "seize the inheritance for themselves" - then how are you different from them if you believe that the murder of the Son was necessary to receive your inheritance (entry into Heaven, forgiveness, redemption etc)?

I already know that this argument will come up: "But Christ predicted His suffering and death". Yes, that's true. Does that fact lesson the notion that one is still guilty of wickedness by agreeing that it was somehow necessary in order to gain the inheritance (salvation, redemption, forgiveness etc)?

If you can answer these questions without quoting any murderers (cough Saul/Paul cough) that would be good.

“Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:” Acts 2:23 (KJV 1900)

 

[Stravinsk]

That doesn't represent accurately Jesus' laying down His life. A death needed to happen to atone for sins, we see that in the Old Testament as a foreshadowing of His death.

Did it?

Psalms 51:14
Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness.
O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise.
For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

Is the Psalmist in error?

Matthew 9:13

But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Matthew 12:7

But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

Is Christ in error?

 

[Lamb]

Did it?

Psalms 51:14
Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness.
O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise.
For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

Is the Psalmist in error?

Matthew 9:13

But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Matthew 12:7

But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

Is Christ in error?

Just because it isn't desirable, doesn't mean that it didn't need to happen. Only the blood of the purest lamb (Jesus) could atone for sin.

 

[Stravinsk]

Just because it isn't desirable, doesn't mean that it didn't need to happen. Only the blood of the purest lamb (Jesus) could atone for sin.

So you affirm that both the psalmist and Christ are in error, because the murdering hero of Christianity (Saul/Paul) says so.

 

[Stravinsk]

I'm wondering if we are also going to deny Jeremiah 7:22


For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.
But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward.

Murderer of Christians, prophet without witnesses, Saul/Paul says YES! Jeremiah is also false!

 

[Stravinsk]

Any more?

Oh, but there's Isaiah, the whole first chapter, in which God displays His DISGUST at animal sacrifices!

Wait, what? Saul/Paul says it's a foreshadowing! That dude just can't get enough of murder. His God loves to murder the innocent to "atone for sin" even if it's just a prelude to murdering the Son! More murder, more atonement! Why the f... did God even write a commandment against murder? It's all part of the grand plan!!!!!

 

[atpollard]

John 10:17-18 [NKJV] "Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father."

You need to read John 10 again … nobody TOOK anything (or do we need to reject John along with Paul?).

Christus Victor … Jesus laid down His life and Jesus took it up again and in doing so: the promise to Eve was fulfilled and DEATH was defeated.

 

[Stravinsk]

You need to read John 10 again … nobody TOOK anything (or do we need to reject John along with Paul?).

Christus Victor … Jesus laid down His life and Jesus took it up again and in doing so: the promise to Eve was fulfilled and DEATH was defeated.

We do not need to reject John's testimony here. Jesus knew he was going to be murdered, and He embraced it. Jesus was resurrected. Neither of these things absolve or justify the wickedness of those who murdered Him, nor do they absolve those who agree/deem it necessary that He was murdered. Every man dies, and will be resurrected - to face judgement.

 

[atpollard]

We do not need to reject John's testimony here. Jesus knew he was going to be murdered, and He embraced it. Jesus was resurrected. Neither of these things absolve or justify the wickedness of those who murdered Him, nor do they absolve those who agree/deem it necessary that He was murdered. Every man dies, and will be resurrected - to face judgement.

Jesus claimed more control than your statements imply. He was not a mere “willing participant” that submitted to events … Jesus chose to both live, die and live again by HIS POWER AND AUTHORITY.

 

[Stravinsk]

Jesus claimed more control than your statements imply. He was not a mere “willing participant” that submitted to events … Jesus chose to both live, die and live again by HIS POWER AND AUTHORITY.

I have no argument here. This does not address the question in the original post, however.

 

[atpollard]

I have no argument here. This does not address the question in the original post, however.

The original question …

If the husbandman and his fellow men are wicked for murdering first the servants (the prophets of the old testament) then the Son (Christ) in order to attempt to "seize the inheritance for themselves" - then how are you different from them if you believe that the murder of the Son was necessary to receive your inheritance (entry into Heaven, forgiveness, redemption etc)?

… was answered in pointing out that the two examples:

• murdering first the servants (the prophets of the old testament)
• murder of the Son

are not equivalent.

Jesus claimed more control than your statements imply. He was not a mere “willing participant” that submitted to events … Jesus chose to both live, die and live again by HIS POWER AND AUTHORITY.

 

[Stravinsk]

The original question …

… was answered in pointing out that the two examples:

• murdering first the servants (the prophets of the old testament)
• murder of the Son

are not equivalent.

Because Christ chose to lay down his life by "his own power and authority".

Where does this screwed up thinking come from? The Stranger who rescues the woman against her would be murderer with a knife and gets stabbed (taking her place) also lays down his life by "his own authority".

Are you seriously arguing that if the murder (of the Stranger taking the place of the woman - saving her) was witnessed and the murderer put on trial, a valid defense would be "but the Stranger laid down his life on his own power and authority...therefore I'm not guilty"?

No, the murderer continues to be guilty, and those who agree with his action are guilty also of agreeing with evil. The Stranger does not have to agree with murder any more than if he threw himself in front of a bus to save a child.

But Christians who believe in blood atonement *must* agree with Christ's murder, making themselves murderers by proxy in their hearts.

 

[atpollard]

Which part of “Jesus was not a victim, so your analogy is hopelessly flawed“ is so hard to understand?

You keep asking what I am “seriously arguing” when I think that I am explaining it fairly clearly.

 

[atpollard]

But Christians who believe in blood atonement *must* agree with Christ's murder, making themselves murderers by proxy in their hearts.

No, they don’t.

First, I don’t even believe in penal substitutionary atonement, but even those that do are not “murderers by proxy” … your argument and analogy is hopelessly flawed. (Apples to Oranges)

Second, unless one rejects the Bible, one MUST acknowledge that the blood of Christ atones for the sins of men. Clearly the issue is not “blood atonement”, per se.

 

[Stravinsk]

Which part of “Jesus was not a victim, so your analogy is hopelessly flawed“ is so hard to understand?

You keep asking what I am “seriously arguing” when I think that I am explaining it fairly clearly.

The parable of the landowner clearly depicts both the previous servants and the son as the victims. It really doesn't matter if one or more of the victims *knows* he or she will be a victim by standing up to the wicked husbandman. That they know and continue is really mute on this point. You're previous argument that they (or He) knew they were going to be killed and embraced it does not lesson their victim status.

To give a simple analogy - someone threatens your child. You step in the way, knowing the danger. You are stabbed and the child is saved. This has not decreased your status as a victim.

 

[Stravinsk]

Second, unless one rejects the Bible, one MUST acknowledge that the blood of Christ atones for the sins of men. Clearly the issue is not “blood atonement”, per se.

Which parts mate?

Would that be Isaiah 1st chapter....no..

Would that be "I desire MERCY NOT SACRIFICE".....no...

But I know....the Christ says He does NOT desire sacrifice but mercy....but it's really a trick! He desires mercy through sacrifice, contradicting His words! Only Christians can see the super mysteriousness of it, making them all-wise! lol