The following warnings occurred:
Warning [2] Undefined property: MyLanguage::$thread_modes - Line: 46 - File: showthread.php(1617) : eval()'d code PHP 8.1.27 (Linux)
File Line Function
/inc/class_error.php 153 errorHandler->error
/showthread.php(1617) : eval()'d code 46 errorHandler->error_callback
/showthread.php 1617 eval




Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
To Veil or Not to Veil
#31
(04-05-2021, 05:13 PM)Blue Bird 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?

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.

You asked what I "thought" so that's where my answer comes from.

The Hebrew bible does not say why Moses covered his face as far as I can see.

I don't see where you tried to explain the differences in Romans vs. Isaiah.

Here are the differences that stand out to me, please let me know your thoughts on why they are not opposites -

Romans says the deliverer will come out from Zion.

Isaiah says the redeemer will go to Zion.

Romans says the deliverer will turn away ungodliness.

Isaiah says Jacob will turn away transgression.


So does the redeemer/deliverer go to Zion or does he come out of Zion?

Does the deliverer turn away the sins of Jacob or does Jacob turn away from sin?
Reply
#32
(04-05-2021, 04:21 PM)robrecht Wrote: 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.

I've also heard this explanation, but I tend to reject it.

I don't think that what Paul was explaining as "out of works of law" (ἐξ ἔργων νόμου [Gal 2.16 among others]), since his treatment of the idea of Torah observance as servitude "to those things which are by nature not gods" (τοῖς φύσει μὴ οὖσιν θεοῖς [Gal 4.8]). He specifies what he counted as servitude (slavery) when he specifically "marveled" that those whom he had preached to were being convinced by Judaizers to observe specific holidays of the year (Gal 4.10), which made Paul think that he had worked in vain (Gal 4.11). In fact, he stated clearly that the Torah was a guardian to lead you to the Messiah, and once faith has come you are no longer under the guardian (Gal 3.25) and "if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law" (Gal 5.18).

Paul's position on the Torah was very clear, and it had nothing to do with sectarian practices in Qumran or anywhere else.
Reply
#33
Hi, Jason. I'm certainly not saying that Paul's attitude toward 'works of the law' was the same as that of the sectarian group at Qumran. Quite the contrary. Merely that it would not have been all that unusual for some specific 'works of the law' to be discussed in relation to justification, which is what Paul seems to be doing elsewhere.

Paul is speaking in his letter to the Galatians about gentiles who were being encouraged/constrained to become Jews by circumcision, which he did not think was necessary for his gentile communities. He also highlights there a disagreement he had with other Jewish 'Christian' leaders about whether or not they can eat with gentiles when they are visiting and ministering to gentile or mixed communities.

To get a fuller appreciation of Paul's generally positive attitude toward the Law, consider several of his statements:
  • “… the doers of the law … will be justified” (Rom 2,13)
  • “… the righteousness of God … is attested by the law and the prophets” (3,21)
  • “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law” (3,31).
  • “So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good” (7,12).
  • “For we know that the law is spiritual” (7,14)
  • “I agree that the law is good” (7,16)
  • “For I delight in the law of God in my inmost self” (7,22)
  • “Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law” (13,8)
  • “Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law” (13,10)
  • “Is the law then opposed to the promises of God? Certainly not!” (Gal 3,21)
  • “For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’ (5,14)
Reply
#34
(04-05-2021, 05:38 PM)searchinmyroots Wrote:
(04-05-2021, 05:13 PM)Blue Bird 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?

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.

You asked what I "thought" so that's where my answer comes from.

The Hebrew bible does not say why Moses covered his face as far as I can see.

I don't see where you tried to explain the differences in Romans vs. Isaiah.

Here are the differences that stand out to me, please let me know your thoughts on why they are not opposites -

Romans says the deliverer will come out from Zion.

Isaiah says the redeemer will go to Zion.

Romans says the deliverer will turn away ungodliness.

Isaiah says Jacob will turn away transgression.


So does the redeemer/deliverer go to Zion or does he come out of Zion?

Does the deliverer turn away the sins of Jacob or does Jacob turn away from sin?

That's a good point. I never stumbled over these texts, perhaps because Zion is so far away.  You said, the parallel to Romans 11 is Isaiah 20. Is it possible that you meant Isaiah 59, verse 20? 

My study bible has no explanation why in Isaiah it says TO Zion and in Romans OUT OF Zion. In the internet I found only one sentence that writes about that. Here I try to translate:

It's interesting that Paul changes Isiahs quote from "to Zion" to "out of Zion" and consequently emphasizes the origin of the redeemer out of the city of David and out of the middle of the people of Israel.

To the question if the deliverer turns away the sins or does Jacob turn away from sin. Aren't both statements correct? 

Isaiah 44,22 comes to my mind: "I erased your transgressions like a thick cloud, and like a cloud have I erased your sins; return to Me for I have redeemed you." 

and Isaiah 58, 8+9: "Then your light shall break forth as the dawn, and your healing shall quickly sprout, and your righteousness shall go before you; the glory of the Lord shall gather you in.Then you shall call and the Lord shall answer, you shall cry and He shall say, "Here I am," if you remove perverseness from your midst, putting forth the finger and speaking wickedness."
Reply
#35
(04-06-2021, 07:42 PM)Blue Bird Wrote: That's a good point. I never stumbled over these texts, perhaps because Zion is so far away.  You said, the parallel to Romans 11 is Isaiah 20. Is it possible that you meant Isaiah 59, verse 20? 

My study bible has no explanation why in Isaiah it says TO Zion and in Romans OUT OF Zion. In the internet I found only one sentence that writes about that. Here I try to translate:

It's interesting that Paul changes Isiahs quote from "to Zion" to "out of Zion" and consequently emphasizes the origin of the redeemer out of the city of David and out of the middle of the people of Israel.

To the question if the deliverer turns away the sins or does Jacob turn away from sin. Aren't both statements correct? 

Isaiah 44,22 comes to my mind: "I erased your transgressions like a thick cloud, and like a cloud have I erased your sins; return to Me for I have redeemed you." 

and Isaiah 58, 8+9: "Then your light shall break forth as the dawn, and your healing shall quickly sprout, and your righteousness shall go before you; the glory of the Lord shall gather you in.Then you shall call and the Lord shall answer, you shall cry and He shall say, "Here I am," if you remove perverseness from your midst, putting forth the finger and speaking wickedness."

You are correct, thank you! I mistakenly left out the chapter.

My point is that this specific verse has been changed. From out to in and who does the "turning away".

So in this case the other referenced verses are irrelevant.
Reply
#36
(04-06-2021, 10:21 PM)searchinmyroots Wrote: You are correct, thank you! I mistakenly left out the chapter.

My point is that this specific verse has been changed. From out to in and who does the "turning away".

So in this case the other referenced verses are irrelevant.

I thought that each person does the "turning away" for himself. 

We have a saying "The scripture interprets itself." That's why I like to look at different verses that correlate with your verse.
Reply
#37
(04-07-2021, 06:59 AM)Blue Bird Wrote:
(04-06-2021, 10:21 PM)searchinmyroots Wrote: You are correct, thank you! I mistakenly left out the chapter.

My point is that this specific verse has been changed. From out to in and who does the "turning away".

So in this case the other referenced verses are irrelevant.

I thought that each person does the "turning away" for himself. 

We have a saying "The scripture interprets itself." That's why I like to look at different verses that correlate with your verse.

Yes, that is what Isaiah says!

But what Paul says in Romans is the opposite, that is my point -

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.


The way I read it, Paul is saying there will be a deliverer (referencing Jesus) who will come out of Zion and Israel will be saved as this deliverer will take away their sins.

Clearly, that is not what is written in Isaiah.
Reply
#38
(04-07-2021, 02:14 PM)searchinmyroots Wrote: Yes, that is what Isaiah says!

But what Paul says in Romans is the opposite, that is my point -

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.


The way I read it, Paul is saying there will be a deliverer (referencing Jesus) who will come out of Zion and Israel will be saved as this deliverer will take away their sins.

Clearly, that is not what is written in Isaiah.

In Isajah, what is the redeemer supposed do with those who repent of transgression in Jacob? Why do you need a redeemer if you can do everything yourself? 

There are other verses in Isaiah which I mentioned earlier that show that the meaning of Pauls statement isn't wrong. Why stick to this one verse? 

The problem is that Paul is writing a letter and it's not clear when he stops quoting or when /why he changed the quote intentionally. Because he was a well educated man, I'm sure he knew the exact quote in Isaiah.
Reply
#39
(04-07-2021, 02:58 PM)Blue Bird Wrote:
(04-07-2021, 02:14 PM)searchinmyroots Wrote: Yes, that is what Isaiah says!

But what Paul says in Romans is the opposite, that is my point -

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.


The way I read it, Paul is saying there will be a deliverer (referencing Jesus) who will come out of Zion and Israel will be saved as this deliverer will take away their sins.

Clearly, that is not what is written in Isaiah.

In Isajah, what is the redeemer supposed do with those who repent of transgression in Jacob? Why do you need a redeemer if you can do everything yourself? 

There are other verses in Isaiah which I mentioned earlier that show that the meaning of Pauls statement isn't wrong. Why stick to this one verse? 

The problem is that Paul is writing a letter and it's not clear when he stops quoting or when /why he changed the quote intentionally. Because he was a well educated man, I'm sure he knew the exact quote in Isaiah.

The redeemer will help rescue them and help them recover, he cannot take away their sins. Only G-d can do that and the redeemer is not G-d.

To me, it looks like Paul is focused on this specific verse as it is almost identical with a couple of twists. He has a habit of changing the meanings of verses he quotes from the Hebrew bible.

Here is another example -

Deuteronomy 30:11-14

Paul quotes these verses but strangely leaves out a very important part of one in Romans 10. He talks about righteousness by faith, not by the law. He seemed to forget the end of verse 14 which clearly says you can keep the law.

It is clear in Deuteronomy 30 the last verse 20 that keeping the law is life and will lengthen our days.
Reply
#40
(04-07-2021, 11:49 PM)searchinmyroots Wrote:
(04-07-2021, 02:58 PM)Blue Bird Wrote:
(04-07-2021, 02:14 PM)searchinmyroots Wrote: Yes, that is what Isaiah says!

But what Paul says in Romans is the opposite, that is my point -

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.


The way I read it, Paul is saying there will be a deliverer (referencing Jesus) who will come out of Zion and Israel will be saved as this deliverer will take away their sins.

Clearly, that is not what is written in Isaiah.

In Isajah, what is the redeemer supposed do with those who repent of transgression in Jacob? Why do you need a redeemer if you can do everything yourself? 

There are other verses in Isaiah which I mentioned earlier that show that the meaning of Pauls statement isn't wrong. Why stick to this one verse? 

The problem is that Paul is writing a letter and it's not clear when he stops quoting or when /why he changed the quote intentionally. Because he was a well educated man, I'm sure he knew the exact quote in Isaiah.

The redeemer will help rescue them and help them recover, he cannot take away their sins. Only G-d can do that and the redeemer is not G-d.

To me, it looks like Paul is focused on this specific verse as it is almost identical with a couple of twists. He has a habit of changing the meanings of verses he quotes from the Hebrew bible.

Here is another example -

Deuteronomy 30:11-14

Paul quotes these verses but strangely leaves out a very important part of one in Romans 10. He talks about righteousness by faith, not by the law. He seemed to forget the end of verse 14 which clearly says you can keep the law.

It is clear in Deuteronomy 30 the last verse 20 that keeping the law is life and will lengthen our days.

Thank you for the answer.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)