[count-your-change]

I understand types and anti-types, pretty basic concept.

You quoted Deut.:
Take a look at Deuteronomy 21:23 for instance,it says .. “for he is accursed of God that hangeth on a tree”

Paul said in quoting this Scripture:
“Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:” Gal. 3:13.

So while the cut and paste “From scripturecatholic.com” is interesting , it really doesn't pertain to the question of whether Paul was what you described , a “fundamentalist, literalist” does it?

And of course it doesn't say anything about Christ “ being made a curse for us”, does it?

Nor have you suggested how Gal. 3:13 might be understood if NOT literally.

Thanks anyway.

[stfassisi]

First of all, I never said or implied Saint Paul was a fundamentalist,you guessed that I might think that. I don’t believe he was!

Some of Saint Paul’s writings have important typological significance that shows that people who deny things like the Trinity are in grave error,thus I believe Paul’s writings are inspired by God for the reason to show truth in the Trinity

Secondly, what was posted from Scripture Catholic is completely backed up with the writings of Early Christians as I illustrated.

Those who deny the Trinity have NO such typology of Scripture and NO writings from Early Christians to back their heretical claims of denying the Trinity

[rbmillerjr]

“Maybe another time.”

Good idea. Objectively, I cant find your alleged Matthew wording in any Bible. Perhaps you have a different Bible that we dont know about.