+- Jewish Forums (https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Main Forums (https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Counter-Missionary Forum (https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=27)
+--- Thread: To Veil or Not to Veil (/showthread.php?tid=645)
RE: To Veil or Not to Veil - searchinmyroots - 04-04-2021
(04-04-2021, 05:00 PM)Ismq Wrote:(04-04-2021, 01:11 PM)searchinmyroots Wrote:(04-04-2021, 04:44 AM)Ismq Wrote:(04-04-2021, 12:50 AM)searchinmyroots Wrote: Thank you for all of your replies. it's interesting to hear of your thoughts on the verses.But that verse does not say that he put the veil "when he spoke with the israelites".
So is Paul saying - "Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelite's from gazing at the end of what was fading away"
The problem I see with that is Moses never had a veil or covering on his face when he either spoke to the Israelite's or when he spoke with G-d. The text clearly says when he put the covering on and it never was when he spoke to either of them.
So how could the Israelite's be gazing at Moses face covering if he never had it on when he spoke to them?
What was fading away? It couldn't possibly be the Torah that was just given moments ago, could it?
Which verse are you referring to Ismq, the one in 2 Corinthians or the one in Exodus?
Corinthians,of course.
Okay, thanks.
So it says Moses would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelite's from gazing.
Moses never had a face covering on when he was with the Israelite's.
So in your opinion, as per the Christian bible, what does the veil stop the Israelite's from gazing at?
RE: To Veil or Not to Veil - Ismq - 04-05-2021
(04-04-2021, 06:02 PM)searchinmyroots Wrote:In exodus 34:33-35 it doesn't prove that moses never had a face covering on when he was with the israelites.so as paul says,moses put the veil so the israelites cannot gaze when the bright of his face fade away.(04-04-2021, 05:00 PM)Ismq Wrote:(04-04-2021, 01:11 PM)searchinmyroots Wrote:(04-04-2021, 04:44 AM)Ismq Wrote:(04-04-2021, 12:50 AM)searchinmyroots Wrote: Thank you for all of your replies. it's interesting to hear of your thoughts on the verses.But that verse does not say that he put the veil "when he spoke with the israelites".
So is Paul saying - "Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelite's from gazing at the end of what was fading away"
The problem I see with that is Moses never had a veil or covering on his face when he either spoke to the Israelite's or when he spoke with G-d. The text clearly says when he put the covering on and it never was when he spoke to either of them.
So how could the Israelite's be gazing at Moses face covering if he never had it on when he spoke to them?
What was fading away? It couldn't possibly be the Torah that was just given moments ago, could it?
Which verse are you referring to Ismq, the one in 2 Corinthians or the one in Exodus?
Corinthians,of course.
Okay, thanks.
So it says Moses would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelite's from gazing.
Moses never had a face covering on when he was with the Israelite's.
So in your opinion, as per the Christian bible, what does the veil stop the Israelite's from gazing at?
RE: To Veil or Not to Veil - searchinmyroots - 04-05-2021
(04-05-2021, 02:56 AM)Ismq Wrote:(04-04-2021, 06:02 PM)searchinmyroots Wrote:In exodus 34:33-35 it doesn't prove that moses never had a face covering on when he was with the israelites.so as paul says,moses put the veil so the israelites cannot gaze when the bright of his face fade away.(04-04-2021, 05:00 PM)Ismq Wrote:(04-04-2021, 01:11 PM)searchinmyroots Wrote:(04-04-2021, 04:44 AM)Ismq Wrote: But that verse does not say that he put the veil "when he spoke with the israelites".
Which verse are you referring to Ismq, the one in 2 Corinthians or the one in Exodus?
Corinthians,of course.
Okay, thanks.
So it says Moses would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelite's from gazing.
Moses never had a face covering on when he was with the Israelite's.
So in your opinion, as per the Christian bible, what does the veil stop the Israelite's from gazing at?
I don't see anything in 2 Corinthians that says "cannot gaze when the bright light of his face fade away."
It says -
"gazing at the end of what was fading away. 14But their minds were closed. For to this day the same veil remains at the reading of the old covenant. It has not been lifted, because only in Jesus can it be removed."
What was fading away? The next few lines seem to indicate it was what Paul calls the old covenant.
Dana's post explains it quite well.
To me, if this is that is the message that is given, it is a twisting of scripture as the covering had nothing to do with the Israelite's minds being closed.
RE: To Veil or Not to Veil - robrecht - 04-05-2021
(04-04-2021, 06:02 PM)searchinmyroots Wrote: What was fading away? The next few lines seem to indicate it was what Paul calls the old covenant.
From the Greek, it seems to me Paul is saying that it is the veil that is set aside, not the old covenant. Paul is indeed difficult to understand, but in the past few decades, great progress has been made to try and better understand his view of the Law. I've read a fair amount of work by Jewish and atheist New Testament scholars, and it seems to me that Paul actually has a generally quite positive view of the Law. Though it is debated, some argue that Paul did not think that the Law had been set aside at all, 'though he vigorously argued that gentile converts to what would become 'Christianity' were not obligated to follow some parts of the law. He may indeed have thought that the entirety of the law was still binding on his fellow Jews, except perhaps when they were engaging in missionary efforts among gentiles.
RE: To Veil or Not to Veil - searchinmyroots - 04-05-2021
(04-05-2021, 03:38 PM)robrecht Wrote:(04-04-2021, 06:02 PM)searchinmyroots Wrote: What was fading away? The next few lines seem to indicate it was what Paul calls the old covenant.From the Greek, it seems to me Paul is saying that it is the veil that is set aside, not the old covenant. Paul is indeed difficult to understand, but in the past few decades, great progress has been made to try and better understand his view of the Law. I've read a fair amount of work by Jewish and atheist New Testament scholars, and it seems to me that Paul actually has a generally quite positive view of the Law. Though it is debated, some argue that Paul did not think that the Law had been set aside at all, 'though he vigorously argued that gentile converts to what would become 'Christianity' were not obligated to follow some parts of the law. He may indeed have thought that the entirety of the law was still binding on his fellow Jews, except perhaps when they were engaging in missionary efforts among gentiles.
Thank you for your input!
I'm a little confused though as the verse says it still remains, so how was it put aside?
From what I see, studied and learned from others, Paul seems to send mixed messages. Not only on this topic, but on others as well.
RE: To Veil or Not to Veil - Blue Bird - 04-05-2021
(04-01-2021, 09:15 PM)searchinmyroots Wrote: Okay, I'll give another example then. (Emphasis mine)
How about Romans 11?
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
Is that what is written in the Hebrew bible?
What is written in the Hebrew bible is this -
Isaiah 20:And a redeemer shall come to Zion, and to those who repent of transgression in Jacob, says the Lord.
Read it carefully and then please explain to me how this is not twisted scripture.
I would like to know what you think why Moses covered his face.
Because you posted in the Counter-Missionary-Forum, allow me the question: Which missionary is hunting you this time?
You could find something good in Romans 11. For example where Paul sends a warning to the Gentile Christians in Rome: Boast not against the branches (meaning Israel) . But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
That could be someting to cheer you up, if you only wanted to see positive things.
Some weeks ago I became interested in the prophecies about Israel. There must be dozens or even hundrets of them. One or two verses can't show the whole picture. And who am I to understand the timeline?
All over the New Testament you see that repentence comes first and then salvation. In my opinion, Pauls statement can only mean that there will be a time when all Israel will repent, perhaps when Ezekiel 39 will occure.
RE: To Veil or Not to Veil - robrecht - 04-05-2021
(04-05-2021, 03:54 PM)searchinmyroots Wrote: Thank you for your input!
I'm a little confused though as the verse says it still remains, so how was it put aside?
From what I see, studied and learned from others, Paul seems to send mixed messages. Not only on this topic, but on others as well.
I think Paul is saying that the veil is removed for those Jews (and gentiles) who have accepted that Jesus is the Messiah, but it remains for those Jews who have not done so.
Critical scholars generally agree that seven of the letters in the New Testament were actually written by Paul. There are later letters that were forged in Paul's name that certainly espouse later perspectives. That is a source of some contradictions. But even regarding the seven letters considered authentic, there's debate about whether and to what extent Paul may sometimes contradict himself, and some of this is certainly due to the fact that all of his extant letters are intended to address specific issues in specific communities (almost always gentile communities that he founded). I think it is best to look for ways to understand his views as generally consistent, allowing for development over time and the variability of the issues being addressed.
For example, מקצת מעשי התורה, a document discovered at Qumran but only published in the 1990s has illuminated what Paul may have meant by some 'works of the Law' with respect to righteousness. By 'works of the law', Paul is probably referring to some specific commandments (eg, circumcision, kashrut), which he does not consider necessary for his gentile converts. Some of the other early Jewish believers in 'Christianity' thought that gentile converts (to the Jewish God, away from idolatry) should become full Jews by being circumcised and following kashrut. This allows one to rather easily reconcile some negative statements Paul makes about the applicability of some laws being forced on gentiles, while maintaining his positive attitude toward the Law and older covenants in general, and all of the Law for his fellow Jews.
RE: To Veil or Not to Veil - searchinmyroots - 04-05-2021
(04-05-2021, 04:05 PM)Blue Bird Wrote:(04-01-2021, 09:15 PM)searchinmyroots Wrote: Okay, I'll give another example then. (Emphasis mine)
How about Romans 11?
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
Is that what is written in the Hebrew bible?
What is written in the Hebrew bible is this -
Isaiah 20:And a redeemer shall come to Zion, and to those who repent of transgression in Jacob, says the Lord.
Read it carefully and then please explain to me how this is not twisted scripture.
I would like to know what you think why Moses covered his face.
Because you posted in the Counter-Missionary-Forum, allow me the question: Which missionary is hunting you this time?
You could find something good in Romans 11. For example where Paul sends a warning to the Gentile Christians in Rome: Boast not against the branches (meaning Israel) . But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
That could be someting to cheer you up, if you only wanted to see positive things.
Some weeks ago I became interested in the prophecies about Israel. There must be dozens or even hundrets of them. One or two verses can't show the whole picture. And who am I to understand the timeline?
All over the New Testament you see that repentence comes first and then salvation. In my opinion, Pauls statement can only mean that there will be a time when all Israel will repent, perhaps when Ezekiel 39 will occure.
I think Moses covered his face so that when he was coming down the mountain he didn't want the Israelite' to focus on any radiance they may see. And then when he spoke to them he removed his face covering so they may concentrate on his words and nothing else.
So now it's your turn to let me know your thoughts on why Romans 11 says the opposite of what Isaiah 20 does.
RE: To Veil or Not to Veil - searchinmyroots - 04-05-2021
(04-05-2021, 04:21 PM)robrecht Wrote:(04-05-2021, 03:54 PM)searchinmyroots Wrote: Thank you for your input!
I'm a little confused though as the verse says it still remains, so how was it put aside?
From what I see, studied and learned from others, Paul seems to send mixed messages. Not only on this topic, but on others as well.
I think Paul is saying that the veil is removed for those Jews (and gentiles) who have accepted that Jesus is the Messiah, but it remains for those Jews who have not done so.
Critical scholars generally agree that seven of the letters in the New Testament were actually written by Paul. There are later letters that were forged in Paul's name that certainly espouse later perspectives. That is a source of some contradictions. But even regarding the seven letters considered authentic, there's debate about whether and to what extent Paul may sometimes contradict himself, and some of this is certainly due to the fact that all of his extant letters are intended to address specific issues in specific communities (almost always gentile communities that he founded). I think it is best to look for ways to understand his views as generally consistent, allowing for development over time and the variability of the issues being addressed.
For example, מקצת מעשי התורה, a scroll discovered at Qumran but only published in the 1990s has illuminated what Paul may have meant by 'some works of the Law' with respect to righteousness. By 'works of the law', Paul is probably referring to some specific commandments (eg, circumcision, kashrut), which he does not consider necessary for his gentile converts. Some of the other early Jewish believers in 'Christianity' thought that gentile converts (to the Jewish God, away from idolatry) should become full Jews by being circumcised and following kashrut. This allows one to rather easily reconcile some negative statements Paul makes about the applicability of some laws being forced on gentiles, while maintaining his positive attitude toward the Law and older covenants in general, and all of the Law for his fellow Jews.
Interesting information!
RE: To Veil or Not to Veil - Blue Bird - 04-05-2021
(04-05-2021, 05:00 PM)searchinmyroots Wrote:Hm, I can't see a hint that Moses wanted to avoid the Israelites to focus on the radiance. Where is that in scripture?(04-05-2021, 04:05 PM)Blue Bird Wrote:(04-01-2021, 09:15 PM)searchinmyroots Wrote: Okay, I'll give another example then. (Emphasis mine)
How about Romans 11?
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
Is that what is written in the Hebrew bible?
What is written in the Hebrew bible is this -
Isaiah 20:And a redeemer shall come to Zion, and to those who repent of transgression in Jacob, says the Lord.
Read it carefully and then please explain to me how this is not twisted scripture.
I would like to know what you think why Moses covered his face.
Because you posted in the Counter-Missionary-Forum, allow me the question: Which missionary is hunting you this time?
You could find something good in Romans 11. For example where Paul sends a warning to the Gentile Christians in Rome: Boast not against the branches (meaning Israel) . But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
That could be someting to cheer you up, if you only wanted to see positive things.
Some weeks ago I became interested in the prophecies about Israel. There must be dozens or even hundrets of them. One or two verses can't show the whole picture. And who am I to understand the timeline?
All over the New Testament you see that repentence comes first and then salvation. In my opinion, Pauls statement can only mean that there will be a time when all Israel will repent, perhaps when Ezekiel 39 will occure.
I think Moses covered his face so that when he was coming down the mountain he didn't want the Israelite' to focus on any radiance they may see. And then when he spoke to them he removed his face covering so they may concentrate on his words and nothing else.
So now it's your turn to let me know your thoughts on why Romans 11 says the opposite of what Isaiah 20 does.
As I tried to explain, Romans says not the opposite of Isaiah. Who is challanging you with 2. Corinthians and Romans 11? If there is nobody, it's quite interesting that you chose those two verses.