Bell and Shadows

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

<snip>


>>>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?


<snip>

Matthew Bell
I don't need to beg the question, nor raise the subject of inspiration. It
would be more correct to say the following:

That the OT does not indicate that it's ceremonial laws were only a
temporary shadow, and that a future messiah was the real "substance" shows
that:

a) either they were merely speculating or
b) that, after who they believed was the Messiah had appeared to them, they
received, accepted and adopted new teachings on the ceremonial laws as
being but a temporary shadow.

Now you show me that why I should give more credence to a) than to b)?

Thanks
M.Bell

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