Discovering and explaining the lynch-pin of the biblical ‘drama’ is a genius feat. Thank you 🙏🏽 so much for your ‘kingdom of presentation’ Dr Grimes. I will look out for your published works.
So at around 10 minutes he says that the resurrection was not in the earliest copy of Mark and for almost 400 years the early Christians did not have the doctrine of resurrection. If Mark was written in 72 and Paul before that and the other books after that, that DID include the resurrection. How does he come up with 400 years without a resurrection? Because Paul does talk about the resurrection and he predates all the gospels and there is not 400 years between the gospels. Unless he is saying the resurrection was inserted in to ALL of the writings? Thanks for any help, just trying to comprehend.
I think he just means the presence of the resurrected physical body in the narrative. The original ending of Mark ends with the women finding Jesus’ tomb empty…. Meaning they knew he was not dead in the tomb. So the claim of him being resurrected was there, there was just no narrative of Jesus walking and talking after the resurrection.
@@kylebarney3126 Ok cool! That may be the part that I'm missing. And I usually start all kinds of online fights when I ask So the Second coming will actually be the Third coming? 😂 thanks for your time!
@@jeffwells9431 Many preterists (partial), also consider the future "second coming" to be the "third" or "final" coming. There are interpretations of eschatological prophesies that place those events at the destruction of Jerusalem and the second temple in 70 AD. Some claim eyewitness reports from that event include people seeing Christ in the clouds returning to carry out judgement on Jerusalem fulfilling the second coming. So when he returns at the final end, it will be his third or final coming. As to your original question I think that Dr. Grimes is just overstating his claim of a Christianity without the resurrection. It happens.
It simply states there are some outside the Kingdom of God from what I remember. I think Pierre states whether it's this video or another that there is some theological affinity between Mark and Paul though he doesn't quote him. Predestination plays a role in Paul's thought (Romans 9:22); God choses to save some and not others. I suppose it's a reasoning trying to understand why some get 'it' and most others don't.
@@jeffwells9431 Mark 4:11 "He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the 'outside' everything is said in parables." It doesn't say per se as you claim he doesn't want them there.
Great lecture thank you 🌞
Discovering and explaining the lynch-pin of the biblical ‘drama’ is a genius feat. Thank you 🙏🏽 so much for your ‘kingdom of presentation’ Dr Grimes. I will look out for your published works.
A graceful way of clearing the dark clouds to let the light in.
Thank you Dr Grimes...
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:” Matthew 7:7
*if*
If you can understand 😂
Does anybody know the publication by Hengel that outlines the literary structure (Tragedy) in Mark? Much obliged.
So at around 10 minutes he says that the resurrection was not in the earliest copy of Mark and for almost 400 years the early Christians did not have the doctrine of resurrection. If Mark was written in 72 and Paul before that and the other books after that, that DID include the resurrection. How does he come up with 400 years without a resurrection? Because Paul does talk about the resurrection and he predates all the gospels and there is not 400 years between the gospels. Unless he is saying the resurrection was inserted in to ALL of the writings? Thanks for any help, just trying to comprehend.
I think he just means the presence of the resurrected physical body in the narrative. The original ending of Mark ends with the women finding Jesus’ tomb empty…. Meaning they knew he was not dead in the tomb. So the claim of him being resurrected was there, there was just no narrative of Jesus walking and talking after the resurrection.
@@kylebarney3126 Ok cool! That may be the part that I'm missing. And I usually start all kinds of online fights when I ask So the Second coming will actually be the Third coming? 😂 thanks for your time!
@@jeffwells9431 Many preterists (partial), also consider the future "second coming" to be the "third" or "final" coming. There are interpretations of eschatological prophesies that place those events at the destruction of Jerusalem and the second temple in 70 AD. Some claim eyewitness reports from that event include people seeing Christ in the clouds returning to carry out judgement on Jerusalem fulfilling the second coming. So when he returns at the final end, it will be his third or final coming.
As to your original question I think that Dr. Grimes is just overstating his claim of a Christianity without the resurrection. It happens.
So. Why doesnt Jesus want them to be saved? Why did Mark ignore Paul?
It simply states there are some outside the Kingdom of God from what I remember. I think Pierre states whether it's this video or another that there is some theological affinity between Mark and Paul though he doesn't quote him. Predestination plays a role in Paul's thought (Romans 9:22); God choses to save some and not others. I suppose it's a reasoning trying to understand why some get 'it' and most others don't.
@NGC6144 but Jesus says he talks in parables so people can't understand it and won't turn around and be saved
@@jeffwells9431 Right. That's in the context of my response, the reason behind the method of talking in parables. (word correction repost)
@NGC6144 but he doesn't say "some are outside of the kingdom" he's saying he doesn't want them there 😄
@@jeffwells9431 Mark 4:11 "He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the 'outside' everything is said in parables." It doesn't say per se as you claim he doesn't want them there.