191004 - Toward a Better Understanding of Paul - Paul within Judaism Ch 9

Okay, so Lord, we ask your blessing on us as we begin this last session going through this book addressing this idea toward a better understanding of Paul. We thank you for being with us all along the way and we pray that you will guide us and lead us tonight. You are living God.

And you give us the ability to listen to each other? And to hear what each other saying and to consider all these things. So we ask your blessing as we attempt to listen to this opponent. Of what we've been studying for almost a year. Please guide us lead us teach us. And your ways amen and amen? Chapter 9 Paul within Judaism critical event of a critical evaluation from a new perspective perspective.

I would have had the kind of Happiness to a half new perspective perspective cuz he's kind of these kind of siding with the author's he's been persuaded there there in an ice academic discussion and their friends. I don't think these are our enemies. So I'm I'm glad that we have an opposition View. But I'm glad it's a friendly opposition. Often I've read authors. One thing in the other guy. I'll kick back against the other guy in the other girl kick back and see in it and I have a whole series of books back and forth, but the problem is that Sometimes we don't realize it they're actually friends riding antagonistic texts towards each other in the purpose and intent of selling books.

I don't know. I don't know if you've ever encountered that or not, but I've encountered more than more than I thought possible. It's pretty amazing. This guy doesn't seem to be in that vein. He's he's actually trying to think what they're saying and relate to what they're saying in a way that is Meaningful to him and to his his audience friendly enough Guy. This is him.

Now this is from this YouTube thing here. And he teaches a course at waycliffe College Toronto.

Theological Seminary of Toronto University of Toronto and he also is the it's been a point of the academic dean of that school. So he's not he's not just a professor but he's the he's the academic Dean and he continues to teach his primary course and his main course is entitled early Christian self-definition, which is an interesting course. He's been he says in this in this YouTube video. He says that he has been captured his whole life with the idea of how did this parting occur between Judaism and when did they stop being Apostolic Jews and become and start becoming Christians. So I think you don't have a lot in common with him or about the same age. And he can kind of colloquially calls. His course from the gospel to the gospels. So he his argument is that there's a gospel front of the gospels which drives the gospel that the gospels are not the gospel. The gospel is the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the gospel to All Nations will come in to the kingdom of God. And this is the gospel. It stands. This is kind of a paraphrase quote that stands at the heart of the early church and the Heart of the New Testament. So once I saw this interview, I thought I'm okay listening to what he has to say. We might not agree on everything but there's a lot we can agree on and he just kind of throws in there. And it is.

One of my questions is how did they do themselves or you didn't like the photo vault communities and the more you read this chapter the more you'll see that all the way through it's not just at the end. It's it's a continuous thread all the way through it hits.

Probably has doctoral Theses it since it's a it's a thing as his one class. If you look him up on the on the internet and find out what class. Is he teaches this is the only one listed he might have other classes he teaches from time to time to from time to time. But this is the one that this is the only one that's listed early early Christian self-definition and he prefers to call it from the gospel to the Gospels.

Overview so I've got an introduction. We kind of have to Wade through three main points a scatological inclusion of the ethne the FDA in the fatherhood of Abraham Paul within Judaism and then a conclusions discussion that I'd like to have at the end of snot in the book. Paul within Judaism is his last section when I kind of want to spend some time. What's this worth going through learn? What do we think is valuable Where Do We Go From Here discuss. He begins off give me and rejection by saying he doesn't have enough time in this chapter to talk about what the New Perspective is or what his view on it is and then he gives it to you kind of like Hebrews. We don't even have time to talk about all of these things. I need to listen for you. well Paul

If Paul can do it, so can Donaldson. He writes calling interpreters must make distinction between pulse fundamental convictions and the defense arguments used with those convictions. So. What are his actual convictions is what he's trying to figure out not what did he write about them? He's trying to figure out one of the underlined Baseline. beliefs if you will convictions that Paul holes EG as an example justification by faith is not a theological first principle conviction. And Paul, it's an argument to defend fundamental convictions. So I thought that's that's radical for A New Perspective guy actually to say that justification by faith is not a first principle. It's an argument that defends a conviction that the conviction he's arguing is underneath that statement. and I sat back and I thought

Okay, I hear what you're saying.

If we line up with our convictions what we think we know about the Bible. We may not be ready to hear what the Bible's actually sang. He's right.

It's not a theological first principle or conviction. I can imagine groups. I would read this in and they would say heresy.

Can you imagine that happening?

Doesn't mean it's not true?

Then you'd really expect it all the time and every riding you'd expect it more than once and and it is true. It shows up at a couple places and it seems really important to us because we've made a first principle conviction out of it.

So busy it is true that sparked an argument to the churches would let her go. So, this is Sanders. This is Donaldson's review of Sanders Sanders is a long time ago almost ancient history

almost ancient history When were you born Kyle? 40 years ago

40 years ago. Let me think. That's later than 1970.

I live in the Carter Administration.

I won't tell you what I was doing during the Carter Administration. I was getting out of the Air Force. Actually, I was retiring. That's another story altogether galaxy far far away. The pattern of religion arising from Paul's convictions. According to Sanders is participatory eschatology. I thought what did Sanders mean by this is about the fifth time. I've encountered Sanders writing. This is participatory eschatology. And each time I look at it and think about it. I have pull myself back from what's that mean? What's that mean Rob? What's he talking about?

I have to go.

He's working it out. He knows it's going to happen. He doesn't know what it means. He's trying to figure out what it means and he's working it out and he's going to be a participant in it. This isn't something he's working at as a theological abstract academic argument. This is something he is part of that. He's trying to figure out how he fits in with this eschatological truth. That will happen. That's why I think it means. participatory eschatology And then the last point from Sanders that he makes his pulse fundamental conviction is a belief that God sent Christ to bring Salvation to all Gentiles and Jews on equal terms.

Arguably not totally Sanders. But that's in the in the part that he gives us on Sanders. He's the father of the New Perspective since we can make sense of the first perplexing perplexing. And apparently disjointed arguments. We encounter and Paul on the surface level. I actually don't believe this at all. We cannot make sense of the perplexing and apparently disjointed arguments there. There is a there's a conflict in many of the things Paul writes that do not make sense. They may be true.

But they don't make logical sense. You can't say if this then not this know they're both true.

You all know the story about the rabbi and the rabbi's wife and the two guys that come to talk to him. Do you know the story? Okay, so the rabbi has two guys in this community and they're and they're arguing and it's unreconcilable their argument and one of them goes to the rabbi and he explained the situation to the rabbi and the Rabbi says yes. Yes. I appreciate what you are, right. And he sends the man home in the second man comes in and he listens to his argument and he says yes, yes. Yes. Yes. What you say is absolutely true. You are right you are right and that man goes home and the rabbi's wife comes in and says

is it?

I thought I had its famous. It's it's older than Fiddler on the Roof Fiddler on the Roof capture the essential truth this tension between things that seem to be mutually exclusive but are both bound together. And what is true and correct and good is a fundamental principle of I have to say early judeo Christian understanding of God's word. You don't have to get the right answer. You have to figure out what is what is right true and good and sometimes what is right true and good may seem in conflict with what is right true and good and accepting that tension and working through it. Is the essence of I'll put in very simple terms marriage.

most of your life actually so perplexing and apparently disjointed arguments

a result of maybe developments in Christianity or some of these letters being pulse Paul students and not palms or is that just a n n o I don't know and in Paul, what do I think that's the whole purpose of this class has been to try to understand Paul better cuz some people try to play with. These are I don't I don't I don't accept that. I can't accept that. I can't I can't accept that. The church has deemed these letters canonical. So the church has deemed these letters not heretical. So the church has deemed these letters. Scripture, who is this normal thing to do for a student to write in their master degree agree. Well Hebrews.

Hebrews is an is an excellent example is probably not huh? Got nobody's name on it, but it's obviously Pauline.

into Greek then you would get that.

But clearly Pauline book.

Raised his fist and I understand I'm not going to try to get into is Hebrews Pauline or not too big.

dipstick of a discussion I like Apollo's as the author some people say now it's but also we get into huge Arguments for no reason because we have no idea but but there's no question that there's no there's no argument among Scholars that Hebrews is Pauline in nature. And then you go out to the cold weather Hebrews in early manuscript. An In-N-Out you get rid of the Greek in the on the same page this weekend and then go straight into Hebrews and in the end it goes into another room with no title. With the with no title in the middle.

Are you familiar with? Onesimus who he was.

But but not outside of Philemon who was in that surmise.

He was the bishop of Ephesus. He was the early an early Christian Bishop Bishop in Ephesus and when it when I when I think about it, I pulled myself back from I'm almost done done every time I mention this because onesimus was a slave who was free according to Torah. You don't have to send the guy back to his master. If he's a slave who's escaped from his master and Torres says you don't have to do that recommends that are nests of us goes back to his honor and confess his sin for fleeing and be reconciled to his owner and then become useful instead of being useless, which is his name on Esopus. So it goes back and asked forgiveness and is apparently restored.

Heat well, it could be it could be the same an SMS. Became the bishop of Ephesus now. This is a jumped all admit, but if he is who? Would be interested in compiling Paul's letters.

Probably in my view the bishop of Ephesus. very early And he he found out where they were. I think he I think he got copies of them. I think he compiled them. I think he preserved them and I think if it weren't for him Paul's letters would be non-existent. today and my view

leave it at this is like a circular letter. I don't think it has the top of it and it just Blank or its business wide but it was composed. It was a a letterhead went in a circuit to a couple with Leah do sealants because it says and also read the letter that I sent the way they see it which we don't have.

Yes. We don't know so but that's my spin on. Paul

with Sanders according to Donaldson in great frustration provided no explanation of how Paul arrived at any of these ideas in the first place. Key elements for all salvation for all and on equal terms Jews and the FDA are simply assumed.

Santa Fe The kingdom, this is something Donaldson Russell's through.

Now we have a question and it's not resolved in this book.

if we wanted to discuss it outside this group we can and we could

come up with a lot of different ideas.

Yep me up. Yep. for all and on equal terms done who tried to correct Sanders transition translation as arbitrary and irrationally and done thinks it's Sanders kind of like instantly transformed the idiosyncratic Paul to the Lutheran polyken like switches between the two and I don't know that I I'm agree with that doesn't matter.

So we're still on the New Perspective Donaldson then tried to figure out okay. I'm not sure Dunn's right? I'm not sure Sanders is Right Sanders kind of has this black box like it goes in this black box to comes up transformed. This is the new the new understanding of what this is it goes in and the comes out.

Transform he calls this a black box. and I'm

the pain that it's a cognitive Dynamic at work must be rooted in 1st Century Jewish conceptions about that status of non-jews Salvation and their social status within the first century Jewish society and Donaldson used to call this patterns of universalism, but he's shied away from that in his recent papers. If you read old papers by Donaldson, I'll call them patterns of universe Universal has eight universalism. He's in his more recent papers calling them patterns of inclusion. Which is a lot better universalism carries a lot of baggage. If you say you are you are a Universalist today your kind of saying that all roads lead to heaven and it doesn't matter what you do. Oh and inclusion in an ethic is a as a different different understanding. So I understand this change in terminology. I don't think that my understanding is rooted in the reason he changed it. I think it may be related. But I think the reason he changed it to Saturn from patterns of universalism to patterns of inclusion. Probably predates that whole argument. I think he's this isn't universalism. It's it's equality between Jews and Gentiles and Christ. I think his term probably is rooted in that idea. He initially considered Paul's used to be a more concise Amir consequence of Jewish restoration eschatology, but it's come to realize in his words that the issue is far more complicated than that, and he appreciates that insistence that Paul can be and is to be seen in some sense within Judaism. So is critiquing the idea that Paul can be seen as within Judaism, but he absolutely insist that that this is somewhat essential to understanding Paul. So he's in conflict with what he actually believes. He's he's working through the complexities of this matter.

Agrees with Chris Dorst end all this is my other favorite first. Our vision is more often struck by what we think we know them by a lack of knowledge. He agrees to the terms like Christianity Judaism FNAF Alesia and on and on are problematic because we attach understandings to these words that were not relevant in the first century. And he appreciates how the author's tried to dislodge the question of Paul and Judaism from abstract Concepts and place them in a discussion that considers the context of actual first century social realities and lived experiences. I loved that little floor that he wrote on that. But they have to be considered within the context to first century social realities and first century lived experience.

Believer still have some so I told him build stuff from there. That's not that's not in that they're working through it. I understand what you're saying.

Yeah, yeah, every time I go to that that idea I go. Okay. Well, I have it. All right today. I don't have any errors in my life at all.

And then I chuckle. And we all are working through. The idols in our life every year when we get to the readings in in Exodus. God pass judgment on all the gods of Egypt every year when I get to that that section. I realize every day. I'm working through what Idols are still active in my life. I'm I still worshiping this health. Am I still worshiping this? Well, am I still worshiping this success? Am I still worshiping this recognition? Am I still worshipping? We have these items. female idols Less pain in childbirth, this was an actual idle. So so I need to if they weren't praying to sheep and crickets and bugs and different thing. They were praying to the idol that this image represented and it had to do with the things that we want in life. And this is actually very Hindu

right and in my conversations with Hindus do Hindus at least I've gotten to the point of saying well, I believe in one God but you believe in many gods so you don't have kind of conversation and in two cases the guy listening to what I have to say and we're in a war in a nice discussion said will you don't understand Wilson? All of the gods are manifestations of the one Lord.

I don't remember reading that. I've read dozens and dozens maybe hundreds of books on Hinduism. I've never really thought about that but it stays the two guys I talk to they said as a matter of fact and I think we might be closer than we think. If if they realize there's one Lord behind all these gods. I mean every year I sort through what idles am I still guilty of worshiping and every year I try to put down those idols. So as catalogic were in the first section now of the book and the last chapter eschatological inclusion of the ethne. And I wanted something to capture the essence of this up front before we go through Donaldson and he mentions both of these versus Romans 11 and Zechariah eight. And these are two views. Let's look at these is too independent views presented by our Bible. There will be a partial hardening on his real till the fullness of the Gentiles comes in in this way. All Israel will be saved when I take away their sins. So is really as hardened. And the Gentiles come in and that's how is real comes to Salvation. That's what we've been reading through this whole book. That we are the ones who are the Agents of God to bring about in some sense the salvation of Israel. And that's very appealing. And Donaldson says this is very appealing. But then we go to Zechariah and we say ten men from the nations of every tongue shall take hold of the robe of a Jew. Sing let us go with you for we have heard that God is with you. Now it sounds like the Gentiles are coming to South coming to Salvation through the Jews. The Jews are the ones who leading the Gentiles to Salvation. And here's this tension who's first?

You know and I can't help but think who's on first you know it. Can't help that I grew up in the air when the Marx brothers were famous.

Who's on first?

So this is a tension and scripture. It's a real tension. This was one of the signing up for it doesn't seem like this is a critique necessarily of the authors are in this volume. But of the biblical tax or Paul's argument in the hall is the one that created this scenario. That doesn't seem like it's even lying right Donaldson's Point. Paul doesn't seem to be consistent with first century Jewish eschatological of use Paul's views don't seem to be within Judaism. They seem to be outside of first century. eschatological Judaism and that's what Donaldson keeps keeps arguing. He's listening to the authors. He's saying he agrees with them on this and that but then he says but but this fault Paul is outside of this boundary Paul's doing something Beyond this boundary if if worth were relying on these authors to tell us how Paul is within Judaism they fall short.

Of the mark, they don't make their point persuasively. I'm not convinced. I'd like to be convinced but I'm not convinced. That's what he's really saying here. Paul is out of line with first century thought

everything we know.

Right. I'm in the Dead Sea Scrolls have of you on exotic exotic outside the realm of what we already know, but we don't have any evidence. That's really what Donald since point is. We don't have evidence. They're not proving their point. And he even says that they're so caught up in what they want to say that they're not even interested in listening to this discussion. He actually says that how it seems I can't remember where that is, but anyway, this is this that these verses aren't his main argument, but

It seems that Paul has used a new time frame.

Paul's using something unusual

the standard Logic on its head Right. So he makes that point actually for about three pages of yesterday, on the Hills Hills of everything.

Yep, it's problematic. So will continue will hit will hit this again. It's not going away. This is going to stay with us. It's a long first section.

Do you know what you're laying a little shot of the people for we know one thing about them? we know one thing about jamali else, so We know one thing about kamalia like they go. What are we going to do with these Christians? That's not the term they use, but that's what they're talkin about these Believers in Christ, and he said leave me alone. And this is in our scripture leave him a lot. That's all we have leave them alone. If if what they're doing is of God. We're not going to be able to stop it and if what they're doing is not of God. It's going to end on its own jamali Elsa that and Paul ignored his teacher. And went and tried killing him.

So could you know if you're talking about a student listening to his teacher Paul's not a good example.

Tell Jesus hit him upside the head. An argument for the sake of Heaven is the one that said that he is. He is it will endure not going on. This isn't going away announcement. So this is Donald's second contributors are unanimous that falls communities of non-jewish Christ Believers represented fulfillment of Jewish expectation that nations would abandon Idols worship the god of Israel and Sharon the promised they'd promised blessings of the age to come several agree that this is not all the authors but several of the authors in this book several agree that God's larger plan requires Gentiles to worship God as Gentiles not as proselytes Hodge. He keeps referencing Johnson Hodge and I kept thinking have I read Johnson Hodge and I didn't realize it's Carolyn Johnson Hodge.

Yeah.

I caught me a little bit sideways and that Jewish literature and visitors Gentiles turning to God as non-jews not as proselytes of some of them think they're going to proselytize to Judaism and some of them think that they're going to remain as non-jews news is not unanimity of opinion on that and in these authors as expressed in what was red

Donaldson finds this reading of Paul appealing but not persuasive. He finds pertinent material to be ambiguous. And then he begins with his two three four, whatever it is to difficulties.

So one of them is it do poles expectations equal Jewish eschatology and his view is no since inconsistent with Jewish eschatology. And the second point is that he finds a Troublesome that someone would forbid non-jews to follow God's Torah.

Ian the second point I heard him say that but I don't remember the author's saying that they're forbidden only that it wasn't the the Anthony will become Believers without converting including including including circumcision possibly kashrut and speaking specifically of the inclusion of some of these things into their wives at Paul's teaching them to do this at that. He doesn't just leave then With no with no attic.

Yeah, I thought you stated it further than they did. He did he did.

why can't

the restoration of Israel begin with Messiah and then it is the time.

Is that is the appropriate time table at the restoration of all things? He's beginning with the Messiah and therefore people stream. And so

I don't know if it well, I guess Paul it is saying yeah, you're on Dangerous Ground as far as Paul's concern. I get what you're saying. It's it's not about this. It's not about this. It's about this. and if it's about the rest of the restoration Messiah through But that would only talk but one half of the equation Paul's making an argument hardening and then then is the timing. He'll make it work. My eschatological inclusions of the ethnic Romans 11. So now he's gone on to the three or four aspects the Anthony's inclusion possible by Israel's failure. No is real stumbling if Israel doesn't stumble than the FDA will never get in. The eschatological trigger there's a trigger when all Israel as saved apparently all the ethne are already in that are going to get in then all shall be saved. So in Donaldson's understanding and there's no opportunity for ethnic to come in after that.

parallel

Right one the trigger event trigger event.

Together all three of these things. The scenario is not consistent with Jewish eschatology. And one thing that he keeps insisting on is we focus on the failure of Israel is why Gentiles of come in but that was never the focus of Paul Paul. Paul said that is a fact but the goal the whole emphasis of the whole argument is on the incredible blessing that's going to come when is real comes in so

But among the Gentiles. in

you know that I am. There was some yeah.

No, we do not have a figure. on many of these items I particularly on the idea that we don't have any evidence that this is consistent with Jewish eschatology. I reflect on reading Jacob van. and often and Jacob van, I read something like it's only due to the dearth of writings of Jewish writings about what happened for a century that we have to rely on the Christian Bible to figure out what you were doing. I'm paraphrasing. It's there's a dearth of evidence. There's a is a huge absence of how do we know they read Torah in the first century and a half to rot? from the Gospels That's the only way we know it's not in Jewish writings at all.

Much later. So in the in the in the interim we have a dirt. And that's so we have to rely on Christian scripture to know what Jews did. And I think it's every time I read come across that I go Christianity save Judaism for the juice.

they saved Christianity for us but So I was kind of a long thing here apologize for that. The Ebony's future inclusion is predicated on Israel's restoration sequence. Or not but this is Noah. Actually a sequential Israel's restoration brings a heart change to the ethne. It is precisely the Divine preservation of the sons of the great God through the time of final judgment that leaves all all islands and City stores with God at the temple and to ponder the law of the god most high speaking in a different register Fila suggest when the prospects of the Jews began to flourish each Nation will abandon its ways and turn to honoring Israel's laws alone. In the strand of Jewish restoration eschatology that I anticipated a positive place for the ethne than the inclusion of the ethnic comes about as a result of the restoration of Israel. We've been talking about this whole scenario in which the inclusion of the ethnic is made possible by the failure of Israel seems to turn it on its head and I think I'll already read that sentence.

Eschatological inclusion of the app day. So we have two issues three or four aspects and two or three concessions. So he goes through criticizing finding fault all that with all this at the end of this section. Donaldson says I have to make some concessions. 1 Indebtedness, the Anthony will share in the spiritual blessings of Israel. The Olive Tree analogy. We only obtained our what is good and through the through the route or crafted in. the Olive Tree analogy I've often heard it taught that we bear the fruit of the root. And there's some truth in that when you graft olive trees. You grabbed a strong branch? To a route that has good fruit. So you have the benefits of the branch and the benefits of the root, but the fruit Is mainly the fruit of the root. That's true. Absolutely true. When you grabbed wild olives 22 cultivated the cultivated olives in actual Olive Tree grafting techniques today. You may combine two good olives to get a new Olive by blending the fruit of the root and the fruit of the branch, but they're Blended by grafting. So the idea that it is only the fruit of the root is a misnomer.

That's why you know you who you got roses.

Pig crafts the fruit of the route goes through the craft.

No, it's the same kind of olives in the route. Arguably primarily the same all of this in the root is What comes forth not like an apple tree if if you have an apple tree, you can actually grab 10 kinds of Apple on the same tree and we had one of those wasn't perfectly healthy tree, but we had a multi apple apple tree when I was a kid and I was faced with this fruit of the root idea. So I've read a lot about it. Olives are little bit different than apple trees. You don't graft a branch on an olive tree to Bear the fruit of the graft. Then you'd be bearing a wild Olive. Not very tasteful you want the fruit of the route. You want the good Olive and use the branch that Graft in the Wild Olive to give you the branch that can support these is good olives from the root, but the roots what you want. There is some blending. There is some genetic blending. And with some olives they purposefully blend them to genetically but grafting a while Olive onto a cultivated Olive. You mainly want the fruit of the root. You don't want the fruit of graft. different from apples

check it out.

I'd love I'd love to hear what you can find out about that. I've read hours on it, and I'm very confused.

And the third concession he doesn't make this it's kind of like both of the two above combined into the one Abraham's blessings are passed on to the FDA to the Gentiles. So now we're on to the second main point the ethne in the fatherhood of Abraham.

This is the key Pauline verse. He received Abraham's a sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised to make him the father. I've always believed without being circumcised so that righteousness would be counted to them as well and father of the of the circumcised father of the uncircumcised and father of the circumsized who walk in the footsteps of the faith that our Father Abraham had before he was circumcised. So Paul's making the point that the faith of Abraham is passed on to the circumcised and uncircumcised so that they can bear the faith of the father before he was circumcised. All this is very interesting. Were it not for this unusual word? seed which isn't here

it's here. If you are Christ's you're Abraham's seed. That's a strong word. In the Greek is Sperma. Okay, so we don't As Americans today? We don't really have to think much about what's Perma means it's pretty clear. we actually have a basic understanding. And Zera, I would be the equivalent Hebrew word. Seed equals circumcision equals Covenant. These are synonymous in Genesis 17 between me and you and your seed the uncircumcised will be cut off. They have broken my Covenant. So throughout the Old Testament Sperma in the lxx Sera and the Hebrew the note is real versus the FDA or the guardian. It's the sea promise. It's not the nation's. Yes. Abraham is father to the nation's but in their seed is the big big deal and is real seed and there's no non Sperma Sera analogy for what Paul is saying within Judaism. I don't know of a single one.

I can write.

Did the Cozy one being different?

You could make a stretch that the verse in Ezekiel is talking about that. You could make that stretch.

But I don't think you can cuz he's not just talking about rocks. He's talking about the valley of Bones. So now you're talkin about genetic material. from the stones on the son of Jesus

I don't know.

See, I thought it was John the Baptist baptized Jesus.

It's a play on the word on the words of Father and Sons songs. Write in bed and Evan can look that up after I'm through this light traffic.

if you want anyway. Donaldson doesn't have any president in Judaism for this non seed seed argument. And I don't either. I really don't I've never come across.

This this argument so circumcisions a big deal seed is a big deal the fatherhood of Abraham the father of all these nations. Yes, no issue in the seed Knotts a specific seed not all Seed of Abraham, but

Yeah, we took real quickly you get to universalism.

It is on April 10th. ideas for I'm not I'm not making that argument.

A Donald dump. Donaldson is saying there's no precedent. He's not he's not arguing. Paul can make up whatever he wants to. Is he saying we have no evidence? And so I go back to man and I go do to the dearth of evidence.

It is point is since I don't see this it's not there outside. Outside of Judaism not he can't prove it's within Judaism. I'll leave it at that. He's not saying it's definitely outside of Judaism. He say he can't demonstrate a proof that it's within Judaism. Okay. Yeah, that's why I said to okay, okay.

This is the final Fortune part 3 of Donaldson Paul within Judaism. He says there are three activities that we have to evaluate this on and I kind of agree and he gives it a fourth taxis. So the first three of the main ones that domain from which this is Viewed are we saying Paul is within Judaism based on a conceptual Jewish symbolic words and understandings and eschatological principles. If we are it's one thing.

Okay. My sister my brother is about to answer her.

is it in concept there were talking about Paul within Judaism within the arguments words scriptures documents or is it in society is Paul functioning in Judaism in the societal Matrix. And if I had to give this first one domain and answer I would say I think

only because we have a dearth of evidence. Does it mean it wasn't there? I think that first century dies for Judaism may have been dancing around some of the concepts. Paul was dancing around.

And I like to believe that and I can use as a kind of proof text to that the examples that we have from DS for Judaism that were elsewhere expressed in this book. So we could we could say given the idea that Arab I didn't have a problem bathing in a bathhouse dedicated Aphrodite.

There's a lot going on in the ass for Judaism that we're not aware of. and if we had more written down about this we might find some of what Paul's sang in evidence elsewhere as my own view, but that would Place Paul in the societal actually happened in society. Until we actually find some proof of conceptual agreement. What do you think? See what sound reasonable. with Peter member bangs with the toes people in the Nicholas people get from Tuesday.

around with them social norms with with them belly disciples. Yeah, we can do a lot of arguments about what actually happened there with Peter.

and the kill and eat and he went to eat and a gentleman.

Yeah, which letter A. Coronavirus right where he says, I think it's snacks. I think it's axe.

And I posted his face that he was clearly in the wrong.

could be So domain one access is are we talking about Paul and a Jew in a semi in a conceptual domain or in a sociological to me? I tend to think it's more sociological.

The Entity within whose domain are we talkin about it we talkin about with impulse or mean or within the communities of Paul Paul within Judaism are we talkin about Paul and Judaism or his communities in Judaism? I think probably both depending on how far out in the DS for you get but I think that Paul is clearly trying to demonstrate that he's within Judaism in and what he did in Jerusalem. He wanted to demonstrate that he was a good Jew. But I think I think that his communities in the D asper also would apply so I wouldn't have to say entity would be both. Perceiver from whose point of view do we view Paul within Judaism this Paul think he's within Judaism. I think he clearly does cuz of the way he writes. But he said he was from The Tribe of Benjamin do the FDA in Christ is communities the Gentiles in Christ. Did they view him as in Judaism? I would have to say probably yes, but over time increasingly less I think. right other Jews, I would say even more than the Jewish Christ Believers and outsides call Alia servers. I would have to say probably yes, but I can see we're outside skarloey's observers could get into big arguments about whether we view is Paul within Judaism or not. And then the fourth domain is the flow of time. Do we view Paul within Judaism during Paul's Light?

Or after that when the Apostle Epistles were written after his death. When does when do we view him as being within Judaism after the destruction of Jerusalem? At the time of Justin Martyr and marcion or some other time. And I think that this time question is really the issue today. We as Christians typically don't want to consider that Paul was a Jew the book early on said that there's an incredible resistance to admit the idea that Paul was a Jew than practice within Judaism.

War books AR book A book says that Christians don't like that idea. We opposed it. We we fight against it. And and I've had I've been in a break with your Christian me long enough that I do remember I'd go in in the mid-90s and I'd say will you know, Jesus was a Jew and often I would get your heretic.

And I said say will you have you read the scriptures? He was a Jew. That understanding has transition today. If you say that in a community of Christians everyone, what kind of global yeah, Jesus was a Jew I am okay with the I understand I've heard that.

Maybe not what I learned when I was a kid. But yeah, but if you say Paul was a Jew and a Christian Circle today, you will get incredible resistance and this book says Christians don't want to I know Paul was a Christian.

Here's a Baptist.

So can we view exactly can we view tall within Judaism? And if you're if you're talkin about these for axies, I think that this is actually a good framework to discuss it. I think I think when we're saying Paul was a Jew within Judaism. I think that if we if we understand where we're coming from On on these four axies. We have a better way of saying what we're saying rather than what we're trying to.

Prove. I almost apologized for the Paul within Judaism for axes. Cuz it does read a lot like we're grinding axes here.

We're not these are acts these it happens to be spelled the exact same way.

Okay, so we're at work my conclusion Donaldson shares many views with the contributors but remains critical of their lack of attention on relevant versus an issue. He appreciates an even applaud their efforts to to better appreciate Paul within Judaism, but he concludes that much more work needs to be accomplished and provides input regarding possible directions for this work. That's my best summary of this chapter that he agrees but is critical and he thinks more work needs to be done in this area and it gives us a basis for I think moving forward and discussing it and I thought that's actually a really good way to end this book.

So that's That's all I have. Open discussion on this whole thing. We've been through.

for a while

Baptist at the names were changed to protect the innocent were all just it's all about Christianity.

Call today from a twister. Don't they see him as a heretic outside of Vienna?

You remember?

and basically if I called a heretic I'm

Opposite of the Christian thank you for not raising your hand. That was wisdom. some of the answers to weather

Julie people's today at sea Paul as heretical, I mean that that that is a lot of 12 taught from what I have read in the schools cheapest good Paul is the best but it's just that it's especially the anti-war Paul like that's really the Crux of the issue for them. It's one of the issues.

if they thought he wasn't ripping up Torah, then I think cuz it's because that's why you quite assured himself is is

do you not do quite the same way because he's seen as If there's too much evidence, he's not real.

but Paul is seeing his repackaged why Christianity and passed back, but especially in this area of well Christian Mira packages Paul and various forms of Judaism repackage Paul and they sometimes repackage Paul in the same ways. And sometimes in different ways. Paul is not a simple. This is what they're doing with Paul 98% of Me and you could take a survey of Christian churches in this town.

Will teach that Jesus did away with the law?

Right. There's nobody saying office.

I've never heard anybody. Say the album. I I normally in Christian circles don't hear Paul push to hear Jesus push that he did away with the law that he completed the law that he fulfilled the law. I understand Paul picks up on it in their mind and they take that as as if they take their pre-packaged.