Romans - Outside In

[mikesw]

Do you see any other juridical parables in the Jewish scriptures besides 2 Sam 12? ChatGPT (becoming a close friend of mine) also notes 2 Sam 12 as an example of a juridical parable but gives no other examples. It also notes that Rom. 1:18-32 lacks some of the characteristics of a juridical parable. I am not saying it is not a juridical parable. I am simply noting what ChatGPT says.

I did my MA Theology thesis on Rom 1:18-2:1 as a juridical parable, so I had some ideas from that process.
Some say 2 Sam 14 presents a juridical parable. I briefly had noted "In 2 Samuel 14, David was asked to avoid prosecution of his son Absalom who had murdered his brother. The passage has legal issues which are not about David’s guilt. Thus, 2 Samuel 14 presents an unusual juridical parable."

Even less so is Isa 5 considered one. The juridical parable term may be applied too widely. Isaiah 5 has been described as leading people to judgment only to show the text is talking about them. So far I have not been convinced of that. The best juridical parables use the force of judgment of the parable content to be turned back on the guilty party.

It is nice with AI that some ideas can be examined without having to figure out where the info will be.

I have also wrestled with the idea that Rom. 1:18-32 is a commentary on Israel's failure and exile, but I think the text better first a description of Roman culture, particularly Nero's propensity for theatrics in his personal life.

It is interesting and helpful to share that you looked at 1:18-32 as possibly applying to Israel. I had not found anyone else evaluating the text as being about Israel's history. Just this summer I have written out more detail about 1:18-32 being a better match to Israel history than to gentiles. Romans 2:1 then exposes the gentiles' judgmental attitude while applying Rom 1:18-32 to their fleshly behavior in addition to exposing the judgmental attitude. It is 22k words to show this and to express how well it fits the pattern of 2 Sam 12, but adapted to a letter, where the reaction of the gentile audience would have been anticipated by Paul.

 

[Swordman]

I did my MA Theology thesis on Rom 1:18-2:1 as a juridical parable, so I had some ideas from that process.
Some say 2 Sam 14 presents a juridical parable. I briefly had noted "In 2 Samuel 14, David was asked to avoid prosecution of his son Absalom who had murdered his brother. The passage has legal issues which are not about David’s guilt. Thus, 2 Samuel 14 presents an unusual juridical parable."

Even less so is Isa 5 considered one. The juridical parable term may be applied too widely. Isaiah 5 has been described as leading people to judgment only to show the text is talking about them. So far I have not been convinced of that. The best juridical parables use the force of judgment of the parable content to be turned back on the guilty party.

It is nice with AI that some ideas can be examined without having to figure out where the info will be.

It is interesting and helpful to share that you looked at 1:18-32 as possibly applying to Israel. I had not found anyone else evaluating the text as being about Israel's history. Just this summer I have written out more detail about 1:18-32 being a better match to Israel history than to gentiles. Romans 2:1 then exposes the gentiles' judgmental attitude while applying Rom 1:18-32 to their fleshly behavior in addition to exposing the judgmental attitude. It is 22k words to show this and to express how well it fits the pattern of 2 Sam 12, but adapted to a letter, where the reaction of the gentile audience would have been anticipated by Paul.

It certainly is an avenue that bears investigation. When we cover that section in session 3, I will note your framework and that one as alternatives.

 

[praise_yeshua]

The problem is, the original audience would not have read the text. They would have heard it. Most people were not literate in the first century.

Are you suggesting we would better understand it than the original audience?

Nonsense. Gentiles ruled the known world including Israel. Even Hebrews learned written Gentile languages. The idea that 1st century humanity is illiterate is preposterous. It is nothing more than conjecture.

 

[mikesw]

It certainly is an avenue that bears investigation. When we cover that section in session 3, I will note your framework and that one as alternatives.

It is premature to share what is a minority view ( me, as 1 person) among the other views. The possible similarity to the juridical parable is a bit more something to share.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I did my MA Theology thesis on Rom 1:18-2:1 as a juridical parable, so I had some ideas from that process.
Some say 2 Sam 14 presents a juridical parable. I briefly had noted "In 2 Samuel 14, David was asked to avoid prosecution of his son Absalom who had murdered his brother. The passage has legal issues which are not about David’s guilt. Thus, 2 Samuel 14 presents an unusual juridical parable."

Even less so is Isa 5 considered one. The juridical parable term may be applied too widely. Isaiah 5 has been described as leading people to judgment only to show the text is talking about them. So far I have not been convinced of that. The best juridical parables use the force of judgment of the parable content to be turned back on the guilty party.

It is nice with AI that some ideas can be examined without having to figure out where the info will be.

It is interesting and helpful to share that you looked at 1:18-32 as possibly applying to Israel. I had not found anyone else evaluating the text as being about Israel's history. Just this summer I have written out more detail about 1:18-32 being a better match to Israel history than to gentiles. Romans 2:1 then exposes the gentiles' judgmental attitude while applying Rom 1:18-32 to their fleshly behavior in addition to exposing the judgmental attitude. It is 22k words to show this and to express how well it fits the pattern of 2 Sam 12, but adapted to a letter, where the reaction of the gentile audience would have been anticipated by Paul.

Why look any further than the judgement of the flood?

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

Notice the appeal to God's wrath having been revealed in and through specific peoples that "knew God". Almost every culture in humanity today contains a narrative of a particular "flood event" that took place around 10,000 years ago. (Which corresponds with dating the genealogies found in the Greek Genesis account. (Contrary to Bereshit).

The "Younger Dryas" event. Evidence is found throughout North America.

 

[Swordman]

First let me thank those here who are attending the class. I thought it might be valuable to give a quick report with some lessons learned.

We are two weeks in and it seems to be going well. The first week was an introduction to the course and we had about 24 people attending between online and personal attendance (about 12 in each category). We also have just over 40 views of the recordings, based on one I checked. Some people who missed were away and told me they would attend this week.

Last week we covered reading in the whole of the context of the letter. This was probably the most daunting task for the participants, as I encouraged people to read or listen to Romans as a whole and ask themselves certain questions.

Lessons learned so far:

First, black lettering on white backgrounds may work with direct display of slides, but not when you point a camera to a video screen. White on gray or black works much better.

Second, less on a slide with bigger fonts and more slides is better than trying to reduce the number of slides. This may seem counter-intuitive, since I was always taught to reduce the number of slides (with less on them) and do one slide every five to ten minutes. However, when posing questions to the group, larger fonts are better. For example, I tried to put the whole schedule on one slide in the introductory session and people got up out of their seats and came down to the front to write down the dates. (We did tell them we would post the slides on the web site.)

Finally, one thing that is important in teaching in a church setting is not to assume what your participants might know. I encouraged them to ask questions throughout, but sometimes people do not want to ask out of embarrassment or because they do not want to interrupt.

For example, after the class last week, one person came up to me and asked - "What is a Gentile? What does Paul mean when he speaks of "Jews and Gentiles?"

There are terms that I assume people understand because I heard them my whole life in the church. However, I do not go around calling non-Jews Gentiles. I was reminded that we live in a world far different than Paul's. To understand Paul, we need to understand his worldview and how the language works inside that world and translate that to our paradigms. I explained the meaning to this person, noting that I was a Gentile from Paul's perspective. (We will get into the Jew/Gentile dynamic in week 5.

Never assume people understand the terms you are using. In our current culture, the world has little knowledge of the scriptures and the language of scripture.

 

[mikesw]

First let me thank those here who are attending the class. I thought it might be valuable to give a quick report with some lessons learned.
...

Lessons learned so far:

First, black lettering on white backgrounds may work with direct display of slides, but not when you point a camera to a video screen. White on gray or black works much better.

Second, less on a slide with bigger fonts and more slides is better than trying to reduce the number of slides. This may seem counter-intuitive, since I was always taught to reduce the number of slides (with less on them) and do one slide every five to ten minutes. However, when posing questions to the group, larger fonts are better. For example, I tried to put the whole schedule on one slide in the introductory session and people got up out of their seats and came down to the front to write down the dates. (We did tell them we would post the slides on the web site.)
...

Never assume people understand the terms you are using. In our current culture, the world has little knowledge of the scriptures and the language of scripture.

I use OBS Studio for recording. It can even feed live to youtube. If there is a camera operator who can use that software, you could provide the slides and those slides then would be the direct digital version of what you show. Oops. I skimmed too quickly and missed that people who were there got out of their seats. It is funny about the slides. A professor teaching about presentations and slides said to remove anything like logos or titles that would just clutter the slides. Also, just show just headings rather than the details being shared. I have not checked whether this is useful for your slides -- it was just an idea I remember.

 

[mikesw]

Nonsense. Gentiles ruled the known world including Israel. Even Hebrews learned written Gentile languages. The idea that 1st century humanity is illiterate is preposterous. It is nothing more than conjecture.

A child would generally learn basic skills for about 3 years. Citizens and higher, usually of wealthier families, could get educated further. But most people would have very little reading material let alone reason to write much. Their main communication would be through talking to each other or hearing orators on the streets. This does not mean the people could not comprehend the information shared, since the ability to talk and listen is largely gained by immersion. Note that foreigners and slaves would probably not have the same access to even minimal education.

 

[praise_yeshua]

A child would generally learn basic skills for about 3 years. Citizens and higher, usually of wealthier families, could get educated further. But most people would have very little reading material let alone reason to write much. Their main communication would be through talking to each other or hearing orators on the streets. This does not mean the people could not comprehend the information shared, since the ability to talk and listen is largely gained by immersion. Note that foreigners and slaves would probably not have the same access to even minimal education.

I disagree entirely. There are claims of such in certain "circles". You ask for evidence to establish this, and you never get it. Interaction with government and local municipalities required knowing written languages. Such has been true for centuries. The idea that past generations were so much "dumber" than today is conjecture. Every generation desires to believe they are smarter than the previous. It happens all throughout history.

Just brief evidence to the contrary....

1. Rosetta Stone is marvelous and comes from 196 BC. Much more that "pictorial" representations in stone.
2. The Greek OT in written form were used throughout society. In synagogue service it was passed around for the congregation to read.
3. Those at Thessalonica searched the Greek OT to know if what they apostles were teaching them were true or not.
4. The Greek OT were widely distributed to the point that Christianity exploded across the known world in the matter of a few short decades.

There are many reasons not to believe such narratives.

I gave up following such narratives a long time ago. I encourage everyone to reconsider everything they've learned from modern academia. The issue we have today in Christianity run much deeper than most people realize. The false narrative of Christianity has been around since the apostles died. Paul foretold that after his death "wolves would entire... not sparing the flock". He was right.

 

[mikesw]

I disagree entirely. There are claims of such in certain "circles". You ask for evidence to establish this, and you never get it. Interaction with government and local municipalities required knowing written languages. Such has been true for centuries. The idea that past generations were so much "dumber" than today is conjecture. Every generation desires to believe they are smarter than the previous. It happens all throughout history.

Just brief evidence to the contrary....

1. Rosetta Stone is marvelous and comes from 196 BC. Much more that "pictorial" representations in stone.
2. The Greek OT in written form were used throughout society. In synagogue service it was passed around for the congregation to read.
3. Those at Thessalonica searched the Greek OT to know if what they apostles were teaching them were true or not.
4. The Greek OT were widely distributed to the point that Christianity exploded across the known world in the matter of a few short decades.

There are many reasons not to believe such narratives.

I gave up following such narratives a long time ago. I encourage everyone to reconsider everything they've learned from modern academia. The issue we have today in Christianity run much deeper than most people realize. The false narrative of Christianity has been around since the apostles died. Paul foretold that after his death "wolves would entire... not sparing the flock". He was right.

You are conflating writing and reading skills with intelligence. Fewer people had the ability to write let alone have the extra money to buy parchment. This does not imply they were ignorant. If you note they were better thinkers, I would pretty much agree. Some scholars have pointed out that people in the Middle East who could hear something once (like a letter from Paul) and repeat it verbatim.

 

[praise_yeshua]

You are conflating writing and reading skills with intelligence.

Everything written is intended to be understood or it it worthless. There is no need for writing without readers. You treat literacy relative to intelligence yourself.

Fewer people had the ability to write let alone have the extra money to buy parchment.

Study papyrus. Papyrus was common and easy to use. However, it did not LAST as well as parchment. Don't judge 1st century solely by what has survived. Papyrus is fragmented now. Most papyrus did not survive. Neither does paper. What is different is the wars and destruction that took place throughout history that damaged and destroyed information. It happens over and over ago. It might just happen again.

This does not imply they were ignorant. If you note they were better thinkers, I would pretty much agree. Some scholars have pointed out that people in the Middle East who could hear something once (like a letter from Paul) and repeat it verbatim.

I don't believe it. Memory is limited. A sentence. Sure. A paragraph? Maybe. A book, no way. Even "Eli" in the 2010 movie took some time to memorize it all...

 

[Swordman]

Nonsense. Gentiles ruled the known world including Israel. Even Hebrews learned written Gentile languages. The idea that 1st century humanity is illiterate is preposterous. It is nothing more than conjecture.

So - Chat GPT, which pulls from multiple sources, places the literacy rate among Greeks at 5% to 10%. Among Jews - 10% to 15%. Literacy depended on social class as well. In addition, it was quite expensive to write a letter as long as Romans, so only one copy would have been produced.

If you attended my class tonight, we discussed authors and audiences.

 

[Swordman]

Lesson learned from last night - Don't schedule a session on Halloween. Everyone will be out with their kids or grandkids. Attendance was half of the usual.

We covered genre, authors and audiences, with a review of Romans 1:1-17 via the participant questions.

I proposed that the authorship of Romans was a collaboration of individuals with Paul as the primary author. Others included Tertius (amanuensis or scribe), Phoebe (agent of the letter and maybe participant of the implementation team), Aquila and Prisca (head of a Jewish house church that would work towards resolution of the issues), Timothy (Paul's co-laborer), and possible others.

I view the audience as primarily Gentile (a term I had to define for some), but Jews have a stake in this letter as well. I also think the broader synagogue community is in view as a tertiary audience.

That is it for now. Next week we are covering Romans 1:18-32 with a brief discussion of Roman cultural values.

We ran overtime by about 10 minutes, so my apologies for anyone who attended and had a fixed schedule.

 

[mikesw]

Lesson learned from last night - Don't schedule a session on Halloween. Everyone will be out with their kids or grandkids. Attendance was half of the usual.

We covered genre, authors and audiences, with a review of Romans 1:1-17 via the participant questions.

I proposed that the authorship of Romans was a collaboration of individuals with Paul as the primary author. Others included Tertius (amanuensis or scribe), Phoebe (agent of the letter and maybe participant of the implementation team), Aquila and Prisca (head of a Jewish house church that would work towards resolution of the issues), Timothy (Paul's co-laborer), and possible others.

I view the audience as primarily Gentile (a term I had to define for some), but Jews have a stake in this letter as well. I also think the broader synagogue community is in view as a tertiary audience.

That is it for now. Next week we are covering Romans 1:18-32 with a brief discussion of Roman cultural values.

We ran overtime by about 10 minutes, so my apologies for anyone who attended and had a fixed schedule.

I think that the discussion on group participation was over-emphasized for the examination of authorship when teaching to a church group (compared to a deeper scholarly study). On the authorship, the genius and theology of the letter most likely had to come through Paul, with his experience as a Pharisee and as one familiar with the OT and Christ.
It might have helped also to emphasize that there have been multiple interpretations of the letter's recipients. Also share Das' argument --just a quick view of why it seems addressed to gentiles. Then say the popular view is of a majority gentile crowd and minority of Jews. Tell the attendees they can dig deeper to see what evidence there is about the composition of the audience.
As to the length, I hardly noticed it as I slept through two attempts to listen to it. That was just because I was resting and appear to have been more sleep deprived than i realized.
For Rom 1:18-32, you could identify why many people thought it was speaking of gentiles and how that finding suggested to previous commentators that Paul was addressing Jews with his approach in 1:18-2:1. You might ask them how the passage could be speaking of the history of Israel. Also, ask them if this passage could stir up emotions (righteous indignation) among the original readers. This point about emotions would be the most interesting point.
Anyhow, it was nice to sit in even though by body interfered several times.

 

[praise_yeshua]

So - Chat GPT, which pulls from multiple sources, places the literacy rate among Greeks at 5% to 10%. Among Jews - 10% to 15%. Literacy depended on social class as well. In addition, it was quite expensive to write a letter as long as Romans, so only one copy would have been produced.

If you attended my class tonight, we discussed authors and audiences.

They are wrong. The AI is only pulling from sources it is trained to pull from. Much like your theology. You only use what others give you.

It is preposterous. I can school you on the subject if you'd like.

You should know already that Atheists use this argument to discredit Jesus Christ. The want everyone to believe that Jesus was culturally influenced by his contemporaries to believe He was more than He actually was. They want you to believe that He is just another barely literate nobody.

Satan has done a very good job at confusing others. You have no depth of knowledge whereby to even judge what I'm say to be true or not. You're rely upon "AI" to get your answers. It really is pitiful.

Today's AI is yesterday's bookshelf full of commentary specifically tailored to keep you where others want you to stay. I can reason. I can stack fact upon fact to equal an undeniable conclusion.

So lets begin....

Define literacy in the 1st century. Go for it.

If you start trying to answer this question from Google or AI... you've already lost. Their normalized classifications and categorizations are designed to normalize your information. There are few left anymore that do not want this to happen. Even Musk has his agenda. He is not really for free speak at all. He just wants to control the narrative. All those that gain power seek to stop the opposing narrative.

 

[mikesw]

They are wrong. The AI is only pulling from sources it is trained to pull from. Much like your theology. You only use what others give you.

It is preposterous. I can school you on the subject if you'd like.

You should know already that Atheists use this argument to discredit Jesus Christ. The want everyone to believe that Jesus was culturally influenced by his contemporaries to believe He was more than He actually was. They want you to believe that He is just another barely literate nobody.

Satan has done a very good job at confusing others. You have no depth of knowledge whereby to even judge what I'm say to be true or not. You're rely upon "AI" to get your answers. It really is pitiful.

Today's AI is yesterday's bookshelf full of commentary specifically tailored to keep you where others want you to stay. I can reason. I can stack fact upon fact to equal an undeniable conclusion.

So lets begin....

Define literacy in the 1st century. Go for it.

If you start trying to answer this question from Google or AI... you've already lost. Their normalized classifications and categorizations are designed to normalize your information. There are few left anymore that do not want this to happen. Even Musk has his agenda. He is not really for free speak at all. He just wants to control the narrative. All those that gain power seek to stop the opposing narrative.

Funny that you deny the ability to memorize books when that can be a sign of an excellent mind.
I'm not sure what you're issue is. You do not have to argue that every Christian in the first century was a great author and had the money to buy the materials to write documents. That ability or lack of it does not have any relevance to the validity of the gospel, no matter what the atheists say.
The use of AI is okay in the sense of quickly checking common knowledge. If someone only is casually relying on that information, there is no harm. It also is helpful for getting initial resources to examine further.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Funny that you deny the ability to memorize books when that can be a sign of an excellent mind.

I explained what I said. I never denied memorizing books. A sentence. Sure. A paragraph maybe. 10s of thousands of lines. NO. So don't misconstrue what I said.

I'm not sure what you're issue is.

My problem is always the same. Mistakes. Errors. Wrong information endless repeated to the point they become fact.

You do not have to argue that every Christian in the first century was a great author and had the money to buy the materials to write documents.

I pointed you in the right direction. Papyrus has been used for at least 5 thousands years. We have no idea who invented it. We only know that ancient Egyptians used it. We know what Enoch "The seventh from Adam" wrote a book that survived the flood. Papyrus wasn't expense. Your false narrative is deceitful because you insist that papyrus cost too much money for the average person to buy. You have no idea. You're just repeat nonsense without thoughts of how you could be wrong. In fact, you purposely spoke of parchment to avoid papyrus. You did so to drive you own false narrative.

There were many readers. Fewer writers. Most anyone could read. It was requirement in every civilization that had any form of government. Those are the facts. Most anyone could read. It takes significant time learn how to write and some didn't learn to write. You have no idea how many made the transition.

If what you say is true, then poor ole shepherd boy David couldn't write. We know better. If an Atheist says anything, I'm always skeptical. I've even skeptical if a Christian says it. I'm asking you to think for yourself. If there is anything you should do... it is think for yourself.

That ability or lack of it does not have any relevance to the validity of the gospel, no matter what the atheists say.
The use of AI is okay in the sense of quickly checking common knowledge. If someone only is casually relying on that information, there is no harm. It also is helpful for getting initial resources to examine further.

No it is not. Any AI only has limited information and nothing more than a search engine with a purposely limited "vocabulary" on most any subject. You're too trusting and you're teaching others to accept your methodology. In fact, you are becoming the problem. Everyone that promotes normalization of knowledge is the problem. No AI can contain the vast information of knowledge known through all various cultures and society. Christians have always lived in the minority and helding truths this world rejects.

Do you know what normalization is? Ask your AI.

That is what has happened throughout every civilization. They all start with organizing while accepting each others differences. Loving and caring about one another usually around a common goal that is more important than their differences. That fact is soon lost in peaceful times. Soon people begin trying to control everyone else. Sometimes it happens very quickly and sometimes it takes hundreds of years but their uniqueness is abandoned and everyone starts repeating the same things over and over again. Without competition for the narrative, everything becomes a lie or a half truth without detail enough to argue otherwise.

It is happening again in the US and AI will help foster that change over to a single narrative without any thought otherwise.

 

[mikesw]

I explained what I said. I never denied memorizing books. A sentence. Sure. A paragraph maybe. 10s of thousands of lines. NO. So don't misconstrue what I said.



My problem is always the same. Mistakes. Errors. Wrong information endless repeated to the point they become fact.



I pointed you in the right direction. Papyrus has been used for at least 5 thousands years. We have no idea who invented it. We only know that ancient Egyptians used it. We know what Enoch "The seventh from Adam" wrote a book that survived the flood. Papyrus wasn't expense. Your false narrative is deceitful because you insist that papyrus cost too much money for the average person to buy. You have no idea. You're just repeat nonsense without thoughts of how you could be wrong. In fact, you purposely spoke of parchment to avoid papyrus. You did so to drive you own false narrative.

There were many readers. Fewer writers. Most anyone could read. It was requirement in every civilization that had any form of government. Those are the facts. Most anyone could read. It takes significant time learn how to write and some didn't learn to write. You have no idea how many made the transition.

If what you say is true, then poor ole shepherd boy David couldn't write. We know better. If an Atheist says anything, I'm always skeptical. I've even skeptical if a Christian says it. I'm asking you to think for yourself. If there is anything you should do... it is think for yourself.



No it is not. Any AI only has limited information and nothing more than a search engine with a purposely limited "vocabulary" on most any subject. You're too trusting and you're teaching others to accept your methodology. In fact, you are becoming the problem. Everyone that promotes normalization of knowledge is the problem. No AI can contain the vast information of knowledge known through all various cultures and society. Christians have always lived in the minority and helding truths this world rejects.

Do you know what normalization is? Ask your AI.

That is what has happened throughout every civilization. They all start with organizing while accepting each others differences. Loving and caring about one another usually around a common goal that is more important than their differences. That fact is soon lost in peaceful times. Soon people begin trying to control everyone else. Sometimes it happens very quickly and sometimes it takes hundreds of years but their uniqueness is abandoned and everyone starts repeating the same things over and over again. Without competition for the narrative, everything becomes a lie or a half truth without detail enough to argue otherwise.

It is happening again in the US and AI will help foster that change over to a single narrative without any thought otherwise.

If you have trusted sources on literacy in the city of Rome in the first century, you certainly are welcome to share those sources.

As to AI, sure there are concerns and likely outcomes that they will use that to control information, just like Wikipedia. That is not a sufficient reason to reject it totally. Anyhow, you are free to hold priorities on what information you follow. I just am not convinced by your arguments about literacy rates.

 

[praise_yeshua]

If you have trusted sources on literacy in the city of Rome in the first century, you certainly are welcome to share those sources.

I explained myself. I took very specific positions. I don't need to prove you anything of the sort. You haven't referenced a single 1st century source will I quoted the Scriptures proving you wrong.

As to AI, sure there are concerns and likely outcomes that they will use that to control information, just like Wikipedia. That is not a sufficient reason to reject it totally. Anyhow, you are free to hold priorities on what information you follow. I just am not convinced by your arguments about literacy rates.

I gave details and you're avoiding them.

 

[Swordman]

I think that the discussion on group participation was over-emphasized for the examination of authorship when teaching to a church group (compared to a deeper scholarly study). On the authorship, the genius and theology of the letter most likely had to come through Paul, with his experience as a Pharisee and as one familiar with the OT and Christ.
It might have helped also to emphasize that there have been multiple interpretations of the letter's recipients. Also share Das' argument --just a quick view of why it seems addressed to gentiles. Then say the popular view is of a majority gentile crowd and minority of Jews. Tell the attendees they can dig deeper to see what evidence there is about the composition of the audience.
As to the length, I hardly noticed it as I slept through two attempts to listen to it. That was just because I was resting and appear to have been more sleep deprived than i realized.
For Rom 1:18-32, you could identify why many people thought it was speaking of gentiles and how that finding suggested to previous commentators that Paul was addressing Jews with his approach in 1:18-2:1. You might ask them how the passage could be speaking of the history of Israel. Also, ask them if this passage could stir up emotions (righteous indignation) among the original readers. This point about emotions would be the most interesting point.
Anyhow, it was nice to sit in even though by body interfered several times.

lol (to your last comment) - I am a sympathetic soul.

Next week we move to Romans 2.