Bell and Shadows

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

At 01:47 PM 5/31/99 +0100, you wrote:

>>Christian Doscher

>>The NT says that Jesus is the "fulfillment" of the OT laws.

>>

>>Two Questions:

>>

>>1) Where does any NT author PROVE, instead of 

>>ASSUME, such? (the NT book of Hebrews does

>>nothing but assume it)

>

>Matthew Bell

>Where does the NT state its purpose as being to prove, (and by such I take

>you to mean provide logical and sound arguments), 'that Jesus is the

>fulfillment of the OT laws.' It must be some sort of fallacy to fault a

>book for not proving something it never claims to be trying to prove! So

>establish first that the NT's purpose is what you claim and then you will

>have a valid question. 

>

>>Christian Doscher

>>2) Where does the OT indicate that it's ceremonial laws were

>>only a temporary shadow, and that a future messiah was the

>>real "substance"?

>

>Matthew Bell

>Why should it need to indicate such for the NT claim to be true?

>


TILL
Oh, that's an easy one.  Let me answer it.  Unless the OT writers indicated
that they intended ceremonial laws, the tabernacle, sacrifices, and such
like to be "shadows" or "types," then it would have been pure speculation
for the NT writers to say that they were, unless, of course, you beg the
question of whether the writers were "inspired of God," and I suspect you do
want to beg that question, don't you?

Notice to Terry: The language in the above paragraph was sarcastic.

Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net

• Previous message: Bell and Shadows
• Next message: Bell and Shadows
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]