When a Type is not a Type

Well, when authenic types are mentioned in the New Testament, they are always used to elaborate on teaching/doctrine.
peace to youraying:

 

So, do you have Scripture to back up this doctrine that you're pushing?

 

What doctrine would that be?

peace to youraying:

 

The one that I quoted in which you cited "authentic" types. You're claiming that there is some authority that only types that are mentioned in the NT are "authentic", and I'm curious as to your authority for this. If it's scriptural, show it.

 

What is Heb 11:17-19 teaching?

peace to youraying:

 

You didn't understand my post. When the authors of the New Testament specifically use the word "type" to identify a type, they use the comparison to teach or elaborate on doctrine.

These are "authentic" in that since the authors specifically use the word "type" there is no doubting their intention to use it for that purpose.

Since that is the model shown to us in scripture (specifically using the word "type"), then it is certainly scriptural to follow the lead of Holy Spirit and limit the identification of "types" to those that are specifically mentioned as such in scripture.

It is also scriptural to limit the scope of such a "type" to the scope mentioned in scripture (i.e. the scope of the Gal.4 passage is that Isaac is a "type" of believer, born of the promise and not born under bondage which signifies the Mosaic Law in context).

peace to youraying:

 

There is something somewhere said about "Fools jump in where angels fear to tread." I have not got into this until now, but "Ker-Splash!!" (Thankfully, there was water in the pool!) & (Too bad I don't have a better smilie for this!) :laugh:

Am I the only one who has noticed that "type" and "antitype" are "theological" words primarily, as opposed to "Biblical" words?

In fact, among most of the twenty versions I find on Bible Gateway©[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif], aside from AMP and YLT, these words and/or synonyms very seldom are even found. And in the few instances they are, these seem, at a quick glance, to be limited to exactly four passages: Rom. 5:14; Gal. 4:24; Heb. 11:19; and I Peter 3:21, where baptism is said to be an antitype by the NKJV.

So we therefore, as far as I can tell anyway, have only three clearly declared "types" or "antitypes" in Scripture. They are Adam [Rom. 5:14 - NKJV, ESV, ('prototype' - HCSB)] and Isaac twice (Heb. 11:19, and Gal. 4:24)- both of which as well as Adam, were types of Christ, and baptism, which is an antitype (NKJV) of the Flood, Noah, the Ark, or Jesus preaching unto the 'spirits in prison', depending on how one actually interprets this in its context.

There simply are not a great number so defined by Scripture.
>
>
>


'Now climbing back up out of the pool soaking wet and dripping water everywhere.'

Language Cop

P.S. For any who might still not be aware, Language Cop is the alter-ego of EdSutton. :thumbsup:
[/FONT]

 

So, you're claiming the only types in the OT are the ones that are mentioned by the NT authors? Perhaps we should simply throw out the entire NT, unless it's mentioned in the NT.