Conflict between OT priests and OT prophets?

[OldRegular]

I have not posted on this thread in sometime because it seemed futile to attempt to address Michael Wrenn's problems!

However, it seems to me that "The Biblicist" has continually attempted to engage Michael Wrenn in a reasoned discussion on the question of the Biblical teaching regarding animal sacrifice; all to no avail. The readers of this thread can decide for themselves!

It is my opinion, and I have expressed this previously, that Michael Wrenn is a heretic because he insists that the Levitical system of sacrifice, a system endorsed by jesus Christ, was derived from pagan practice.

It is my opinion, and I have expressed this previously, that Michael Wrenn is an apostate because he has denied the necessity of the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Biblicist and OR can post all the lies they want about me, say that I am not a Christian all they want, call me an apostate and heretic all they want -- in clear violation of forum policy, and get away with it.

That's okay. They will face judgment by Someone who matters far more than a forum moderator, and Who can exact a more appropriate justice than any forum moderator. I am content to let God and my Lord Jesus Christ fight my battles; They can do that much more effectively than I ever could.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

To highlight once again the OP:

This thread has clearly shown the conflict between priest and prophet on how God approaches humans, how humans can approach God, and what God requires of humans. And this conflict and difference determines many other doctrines.

These differences can be seen in the various denominations and their doctrines, to the degree that they follow one tradition more than the other -- priestly or prophetic.

 

[The Biblicist]

To highlight once again the OP:

This thread has clearly shown the conflict between priest and prophet .

The sad thing is the handful of passages you rely on to repudiate whole books of the Bible and make Christ contradict Christ simply show your own inability to understand and righly intepret scriptures.

It is so simple to demonstrate that in context ever single passage you depend on refers simply repudiates HYPOCRITICAL worship.


The only conflict between God's Priests and God's Prophets in your own heretical mind. The problem is contained between your ears.

The absolute proof that you are wrong is that your handful of passages can be easily harmonized and interpreted with the massive Biblical evidence for the Divine instituted sacrificial system but you cannot provide any rational objective interpretation to harmonize the massive Biblical evidence with your handful of scriptures.

Trying to reason with you is like trying to reason with a three year old who is throwing a fit.

 

[Yeshua1]

To highlight once again the OP:

This thread has clearly shown the conflict between priest and prophet on how God approaches humans, how humans can approach God, and what God requires of humans. And this conflict and difference determines many other doctrines.

These differences can be seen in the various denominations and their doctrines, to the degree that they follow one tradition more than the other -- priestly or prophetic.

Jesus said that ALL of the OT pointed towards Him / BOTH prophets/Law/priests etc

ALL of them were inspired by God....

Do you see only a partial revelation/inspiration from God in the OT books than?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Jesus said that ALL of the OT pointed towards Him / BOTH prophets/Law/priests etc

ALL of them were inspired by God....

Do you see only a partial revelation/inspiration from God in the OT books than?

I see a progressive revelation, based on people's ability to comprehend God, from the ancients up through Jesus.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Compare my post with Biblicist's and see who is responding maturely and without insults.

Even for those like him who are rabid defenders of blood-spilling as the only acceptable way to approach God and be forgiven by Him, they must admit that even in the OT Jewish sacrificial system, God is presented as allowing and accepting sacrifices other than blood-spilling. If anyone doubts that, I suggest you read the scriptures.

Instead of presenting only a handful of passages as was charged, what I have done is present numerous and much more than adequate scriptural evidence to support my views, even from the mouth of Jesus Himself, and yet Biblicist and some others accuse me of doing what they are in fact doing -- picking and choosing which scriptures to believe and which to reject. For such biblical literalists as they claim to be, it is quite amusing seeing the contortions they have to make to justify such -- bet they would have been quite nimble at the old game called "Twister".

And I still continue to have my salvation not only questioned but denied -- and the culprits continue to get away with it. Is that because they are in the favor of those in charge here, and I am not?

Such action is really quite sad, considering how I have faithfully stood up for cherished Baptist principles on this forum against attacks by Lutherans and others. Now maybe my views are not all Baptist -- I don't know. But the core of them are.

Well, despite one post I made yesterday and what a part of it may have seemed to imply, I actually would not want to see anyone here hurt. But to say I should be banned, and to be consigned to hell by some after all my posts over the years here is very sad to me.

 

[The Biblicist]

Compare my post with Biblicist's and see who is responding maturely and without insults.
.

The issue here is purely a matter of honesty. You are dishonest in your handling of scripture.

Every single text you present simply does not contextually support your theory. If you would be honest with the context of every text you claim supports your theory, the only thing you can show is that God rejects HYPOCRITICAL worship and thus demands a RIGHT HEART as the precedent for acceptable worship through the sacrificial system. But you are not willing to be honest with the scriptures.

Neither are you willing to be honest with the scriptures that show that Jesus directed his followers to offer up sacrifices according to Moses. You simply refuse even to address those scriptures.

Neither are you willing to be honest with the vast bulk of explicit scriptures that prove that God Himself from Genesis 3-4 instituted the sacrificial system and that the whole book of Leviticus clearly and repeatedly over and over again says so.

The issue is honesty and you are not an honest man when it comes to dealing with God's word and it is easy to show that you are not being honest.

Instead you willfully choose to pit scripture against scripture to satisfy your own belly (desires) rather than to be honest with God's Word.

 

[The Biblicist]

Jesus Christ commanded the leper to go shed the blood of an animal in Luke 5:12-15 according to the Mosaic Law in Leviticus 14.

Lk. 5:14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

Lev. 14: 4 Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop:
5 And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water:
6 As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water:

WOULD YOU OBEY THIS COMMANDMENT BY CHRIST?

Here is my answer to your question! YES, I would obey this command of Christ to shed the blood of the animal if I had been the one healed by him of lepersy and he commanded me to do so.

WOULD YOU?

The above post, I have posted and reposted and yet Michael refuses to even address it other than merely dismissing it altogether and pitting other scripture against it.

We do address his handful of scriptures, we can harmonize them with the rest of scriptures and do so by simply interpreting each by its own context and that is sufficient to expose his abuse of them.

However, Michael is unable to address and deal contextually with the MASS bulk of scriptures that directly and explictly contradict his INTERPRETATION of the handful of texts he uses. So instead of being an honest Bible interpreter he simply chooses the cultic route of PITTING scripture against scripture without any attempt to harmonize scripture with scripture.

So once again I provide the above post.

 

[Yeshua1]

I see a progressive revelation, based on people's ability to comprehend God, from the ancients up through Jesus.

the Holy Spirit moved upon those writers of the OT Books JUST as he did on the Apostles, so there was a progressive revelation, but the institution of sacrifice as atonement for Sins, as to appease the wrath of Gos all the way back in the garden, when God killed first sacrifice, and he promised a messiah to come and to die on behalf of his people!
That was the progressive revelation, as the Apostles were able to get the full understanding of the death of Christ, but that does NOT mean the OT system was NOT from/of god, its just that it all pointed to the Cross!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Biblicist has falsely accused me of dishonesty and being cultic; he has called me a heretic and worse.

Anyone who reads these threads can see who the liar is.

I have answered all questions. I have posted at least sixteen scripture passages that affirm what God desires and requires of man, from OT and NT, and from the mouth of Jesus.

Biblicist does what he accuses me of doing - pitting scripture against scripture, and he has the nerve to call me dishonest.

As I have stated before, even within the OT Jewish sacrificial system, there are numerous verses where God is represented as accepting other things as a sacrifice or sin offering other than animals.

The truth is that there is a conflict between the priestly and prophetic concerning how humans may approach God, how God and humans relate to each other, and what God desires and requires of humans. Those who desire to follow the priestly tradition and view of God may do so, but I choose to follow the way of Jesus Whose lineage was the prophetic tradition.

I suggest that Biblicist and his cohorts should become dispensationalists if they are not already; that way they could help to prepare the way for the reinstitution of the temple blood-letting when the parenthesis church is removed.

A question: What part of Jesus's repetition of God's words do these people not understand?: " I desire mercy, and not sacrifice."

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I partially regret starting this thread. I don't fully regret it because I hope it will make some people think, and because I will never regret posting scriptural and spiritual truth and exposing mistaken notions.

But I wondered if it would become a platform for lying, hate-mongering, false accusations, and vile, black-hearted attacks -- and it has. I have been called cultic, a heretic, blasphemer, childish, dishonest, apostate, and maybe more that I missed; I have been told that I should be banned because I am a blasphemer and apostate. These things are a clear violation of forum policy, but what is done about it?

Something I have often thought and said comes to mind again: I am glad God is in charge, and not some "Christians" I know.

 

[The Biblicist]

I have answered this rediculous question already. But let me answer it in a way you cannot possibly respond and that will show exactly what you really are - a heretic

Jesus Christ commanded the leper to go shed the blood of an animal in Luke 5:12-15 according to the Mosaic Law in Leviticus 14.

Lk. 5:14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

Lev. 14: 4 Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop:
5 And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water:
6 As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water:

WOULD YOU OBEY THIS COMMANDMENT BY CHRIST?

Here is my answer to your question! YES, I would obey this command of Christ to shed the blood of the animal if I had been the one healed by him of lepersy and he commanded me to do so.

WOULD YOU?

It is a matter of honesty. Michael is simply a dishonst person as his last post is one lie after another lie and everyone on this thread knows he is lying.

I have now resposted the above post five times and the only response by Micahael was to ignore it and pit other texts against it as though PITTING scripture against scripture is an answer.

In direct contrast to michales PITTING scripture against scripture method, I have directly addressed his texts in thier context and demonstrated by context he is abusing every text he uses. I have repeatedly demonstrated that every single text he presents is by context simply condemning HYPOCRTICAL worship and there is not one solitary sinlge text he asserts that rejects BIBLICAL sacrificial worship - NOT ONE!

Again, Michael is simply being dishonest and HE KNOW IT!

 

[The Biblicist]

I have answered this rediculous question already. But let me answer it in a way you cannot possibly respond and that will show exactly what you really are - a heretic

Jesus Christ commanded the leper to go shed the blood of an animal in Luke 5:12-15 according to the Mosaic Law in Leviticus 14.

Lk. 5:14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

Lev. 14: 4 Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop:
5 And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water:
6 As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water:

WOULD YOU OBEY THIS COMMANDMENT BY CHRIST?

Here is my answer to your question! YES, I would obey this command of Christ to shed the blood of the animal if I had been the one healed by him of lepersy and he commanded me to do so.

WOULD YOU?

The only way Michael can PRETEND the scriptures support his rediculous theory is to use dishonest methods of Bible interpretation and dishonesty.

For example, The texts Michal present to counter the above post by Christ are texts that in context are directed toward HYPOCRITS (Pharisees) whereas the above text by Christ is directed toward BELIEVERS.

Every text Michael presents to defend his case is found in a context of HYPOCRITICAL WORSHIP and NEVER in a context to believers.

Moreover, he takes a mere handful of texts found in the context of HYPOCRTICAL worship and PITS them against the OVERWHLEMING MASS of Scriptures directed toward God's people for PROPER WORSHIP that clearly demonstate that Leviticual sacrificial worship comes directly from God.

This is so self evident that only a person who is dishonest or mentally disturbed could not see it as there is no excuse for any sane honest person to deny it.

This is so self-evident as Michael simply refuses to deal with WHOLE BOOKS of the Bible (Genesis, Leviticus; Hebrews - 1-2 Sam. 1-2 Chronicles, etc.). Instead he cherry picks proof texts taken OUT OF CONTEXT and PITS them against whole books of the Bible.

The only plausible explanation for anyone being that blind is that they have a seared conscience (1 Tim. 4:1-2).

 

[The Biblicist]

The only way Michael can PRETEND the scriptures support his rediculous theory is to use dishonest methods of Bible interpretation and dishonesty.

For example, The texts Michal present to counter the above post by Christ are texts that in context are directed toward HYPOCRITS (Pharisees) whereas the above text by Christ is directed toward BELIEVERS.

Every text Michael presents to defend his case is found in a context of HYPOCRITICAL WORSHIP and NEVER in a context to believers.

Moreover, he takes a mere handful of texts found in the context of HYPOCRTICAL worship and PITS them against the OVERWHLEMING MASS of Scriptures directed toward God's people for PROPER WORSHIP that clearly demonstate that Leviticual sacrificial worship comes directly from God.

This is so self evident that only a person who is dishonest or mentally disturbed could not see it as there is no excuse for any sane honest person to deny it.

This is so self-evident as Michael simply refuses to deal with WHOLE BOOKS of the Bible (Genesis, Leviticus; Hebrews - 1-2 Sam. 1-2 Chronicles, etc.). Instead he cherry picks proof texts taken OUT OF CONTEXT and PITS them against whole books of the Bible.

The only plausible explanation for anyone being that blind is that they have a seared conscience (1 Tim. 4:1-2).

In posts 23-26 I have taken his proof texts and placed them back in their context and shown from the context that Michael has JERKED EVERY ONE OF THEM OUT OF CONTEXT because in context they all are condemnations not of the Levitical sacrificial system ordained by God but the HYPOCRITICAL use of it by the Jews. Not one is directed toward obedient believers - not one! The scriptures he quotes from Jesus to PIT against Luke 5:12-17 is taken from a context of HYPOCRITS and HYPOCRITICAL WORSHIP - not one from a context of obedience believers.

Michael cannot respond to posts 23-26 and does not even attempt to respond. His only kind of response has been to PIT scripture against scripture and when he responds by that method he repeats the same error as the texts he uses to PIT against these other texts are texts JERKED OUT OF THEIR CONTEXT. When those texts are placed back in context, they too are found only to condemn HYPOCRITICAL worship.

Now, Micahel will not be honest and deal straigh forward with the context or with the scriptural facts. Instead he will cry foul play and then continue to PIT scripture against scripture! Why? Because honesty would expose all of his arguments as EISGESIS and so moaning and complaining and pitting are his only refuge.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I have answered everything asked of me, and I have posted a multitude of scripture, even Jesus's own words, to affirm the truth.

The response I have gotten is to deny, twist, contort, and try to put the focus on me instead of the plain words of scripture. And to try and deflect from that, I am accused of pitting scripture against scripture and picking and choosing what to believe, which the person making that accusation is actually doing himself. And to further distract from the truth of what I have posted, I am accused of having a "seared conscience" -- just the latest in a long list of personal attacks by Biblicist and his buddy, OR.

What I have posted earlier bears repeating, as evidence from within the priestly tradition itself destroys the notion that God without exception absolutely demands and requires blood-letting in order to forgive sins:

"As I have stated before, even within the OT Jewish sacrificial system, there are numerous verses where God is represented as accepting other things as a sacrifice or sin offering other than animals.

The truth is that there is a conflict between the priestly and prophetic concerning how humans may approach God, how God and humans relate to each other, and what God desires and requires of humans. Those who desire to follow the priestly tradition and view of God may do so, but I choose to follow the way of Jesus Whose lineage was the prophetic tradition.

I suggest that Biblicist and his cohorts should become dispensationalists if they are not already; that way they could help to prepare the way for the reinstitution of the temple blood-letting when the parenthesis church is removed.

A question: What part of Jesus's repetition of God's words do these people not understand?: " I desire mercy, and not sacrifice."

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I think it's about time I stood down from the battleground, and, as the Quakers say, quietly withdraw from the scene of confusion. It's not doing my health problems any good.

Besides, I don't know how much worse the personal attacks and charges could be, so those who desire to continue with this, knock yourself out. Maybe it will make you happy, feel good about yourself, and bolster your self-esteem.

 

[humblethinker]

I think it's about time I stood down from the battleground, and, as the Quakers say, quietly withdraw from the scene of confusion. It's not doing my health problems any good.

Besides, I don't know how much worse the personal attacks and charges could be, so those who desire to continue with this, knock yourself out. Maybe it will make you happy, feel good about yourself, and bolster your self-esteem.

MW, would you say that God dealing with man as you've proposed (ie. leading mankind out of Pagan sacrificing to greater truth) in this thread was indicative of God's divine accommodation? That sacrifices of animals instead of humans is indicative of a progressive revelation of himself culminating in the teaching of Christ?

 

[humblethinker]

The only way Michael can PRETEND the scriptures support his rediculous theory is to use dishonest methods of Bible interpretation and dishonesty.

This is so self evident that only a person who is dishonest or mentally disturbed could not see it as there is no excuse for any sane honest person to deny it.
...
The only plausible explanation for anyone being that blind is that they have a seared conscience (1 Tim. 4:1-2).

I don't think this is a fair assessment. Your attacks on him above in no way add strength to the weight of your main argument. In fact, to me it reveals a sense of frustration and an inability to entertain an idea for which you disagree.

I believe MW's view is held by many respectable, scholarly people and is congruent with orthodox Christus Victor view of atonement. You have accused MW and MANY more people of being either dishonest, mentally disturbed and insane. While this kind of slander and malevolence is not uncommon by some on this board it is below you and you can do better than that.

 

[The Biblicist]

A question: What part of Jesus's repetition of God's words do these people not understand?: " I desire mercy, and not sacrifice."[/I]

Simple abc's of bible hermeneutics demands you ask who is talking, who is being talked to and what is being talked about.

You rightly say it is Jesus talking.

But who is he talking to???? Is he talking to His disciples? No! Is he talking to true believers? No! He is talking to Pharisees and Scribes!

Who are they? They are HYPOCRITS as Jesus says they are whited on the outside but full of death on the inside. Their religious service to God is HYPOCRISY because EXTERNALLY they go through all the motions of the Law - including sacrifices - but what they do externally is not true of themselves internally. The sacrifices were to be offered by those whose hearts were right with God through faith in what the sacrifices symbolized.

Why is he talking to them? He is talking to them because they are criticizing him for fellowshipping with publican's and sinners so that they might be saved.

What is he talling these HYPOCRITS about? "I desire mercy not sacrifice"! Where does MERCY originate? It originates INSIDE with a RIGHT heart before it can be applied OUTSIDE to others. Where does "sacrifice" originate? It originates OUTSIDE. He does not want sacrifice from HYPOCRITS because it would be nothing but HYPOCRITICAL WORSHIP. However, he tells the leper he cleansed whose heart is right, to go offer a sacrifice as commanded by Moses - Lk. 5:12-17. Is Christ a schizophrenic? According to Michael he is! According to Michael God is a schicophrenic because it is God that gave the sacrificial system to Israel and the whole book of Leviticus clearly and explicitly says so.

What are the sacrifices God accepts? The sacrifices of a broken and contrite heart. That is precisely the kind of person God intended to make external sacrifices where the INTERNAL condition harmonized with the EXTERNAL types.

Michael, wants to make this whole thing about persecution of himself when he simply is not being honest with the Word of God. It is a matter of simply being honest with God's Word.