What Mulder points out is what has become the de facto doctrine of western Protestantism – that the physical Resurrection is some form of Christian “myth.” Sufficiently “mainline” that its proponents include the recent PB of TEC (and quite probably the current one, as he seems unable to present a coherent Christology). Mulder mentions several errant English theologians in his second paragraph (William Temple, Geoffrey Lampe, David Jenkins, Sandy Wedderburn- the latter known for his work which viewed the Resurrection through the lens of the various “mystery” religions/cults of the first centuries AD). It is worth recalling that Temple was originally denied ordination by the bishop of Oxford due to his heterodox views on the Resurrection (among other things). Personally, I think he might have also mentioned Benjamin Hoadley, as something of a great grandfather of doctrinal and ecclesial laxity in the Church of England. Many Anglican bishops and seemingly the majority of Anglican seminary professors throughout Britain and North America are on this particular bandwagon.
Sacrificing truth for unity.
It’s very prevalent in the CofE . Back in the day when I did my training at theological college, several of the lecturers did not believe in the physical resurrection, and a fair number of ordinands didn’t either. Wasn’t it a previous Bishop of Durham who called it a conjuring trick with bones??
One wonders what they do believe if they don’t accept even the resurrection.
That Bishop of Durham actually said the resurrection was real. That was the point. “The resurrection is *more* than just a conjuring trick with bones”. Quite the opposite of what is often reported.
I’m having a hard time visualizing what such a conjuring trick would look like. Sadly as far as I know the Bishop never explained what he had in mind. Far as I know the resurrection story doesn’t involve bones. While the sermon may have been intended to dispel doubt its mainly remembered for raising one that may have never occurred to anybody besides the Bishop.
A: it was a TV programme, Not a sermon.
B: he said it was NOT a conjuring trick with bones.
C: I’m sure we all get confused from time to time.
A: Good point, didn’t know, thanks.
B: I don’t understand how he could think anybody would think it was anything like a conjuring trick with bones. Maybe somebody else said something like that to him once and it stuck with him (as little sense at it made), or maybe he thought it up himself. In any case, not so good.
C: Yup for various reasons we don’t know could have been a momentary confusion.
D: But as far as I know he never explained why he would have said anything like that.
He did explain – he came to my college when i was studying theology and we asked him. He said it was to get people talking about the resurrection. And look – it worked!
I’m just happy we both believe in the resurrection mindunever.
Please don’t make assumptions about my beliefs.
But he did re-define “resurrection” so that it wasn’t bodily, and therefore wasn’t “resurrection” as understood by the apostles. The crowds at the Areopagus would have had no problem with Jenkins’ view of resurrection.
Paul Sound and mindunever, you seem both intent on misunderstanding the other, and both of you also seem to want the last word. Not a very edifying performance …
According to Jenkins’ BBC obituary, he considered “the resurrection was not a single event, but a series of experiences that gradually convinced people that Jesus’s life, power, purpose and personality were actually continuing.”
The phrase you two were arguing about wasn’t said in a sermon; it was said in the course of a discussion of Jenkins’ beliefs at Auckland Castle. Jenkins said, “To believe in a Christian way, you don’t necessarily have to have a belief that Jesus was born from literally a virgin mother, nor a precise belief that the risen Jesus had a literally physical body.” When people criticized his statement, he responded, “(The Resurrection) is real. That’s the point. All I said was ‘literally physical’. I was very careful in the use of language. After all, a conjuring trick with bones proves only that somebody’s very clever at a conjuring trick with bones.”
So, the issue centers on whether Jesus rose from the dead with a recognizable physical body; Jenkins seems to deny that when he says that it was not a “literally physical” body.
I wasn’t able to track down the exact quote you cited, “The resurrection is *more* than just a conjuring trick with bones,” but regardless, the problem with this statement for people who do believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus is that in conjunction with the other things Jenkins said, while he said the resurrection is real, he was not willing to say that it was, indeed, physical. In fact, he specifically says that he is not sure that God manipulates physical bodies.
So, unless someone is willing to plainly state that he believes the resurrection to have been *at least* physical, whatever else and whatever more it was, I think it is fair to say that such a person does not believe in the physical resurrection. And that applies to Tom Wright as well — if his definition of “transphysical” does not *include* physical, then I would have to disagree with him.
Wolf: the Bishop Worcester, writing just after Bishop David Jenkins death in 2016 wrote this:
“The only person I have ever met who could move himself to tears when speaking of the Christian faith during his sermons was Bishop David Jenkins. It was an embarrassment to his family but to me it was inspirational. His faith was deep and visceral and to hear him speak was to be moved and challenged for Christ. He believed intensely that God ‘is as he is in Jesus’ and in the resurrection with a passion. It’s a cruel irony that he will forever be remembered as the bishop who said that the resurrection was ‘just a conjuring trick with bones’ when what he actually said was precisely the reverse: that the resurrection was not a conjuring trick with bones. Whilst I disagree with him about the significance of the material – I feel he underestimated it – the point he was trying to make was a crucial one: that what transformed the lives of the first disciples was not the empty tomb but the appearances of the risen Christ to them. Maybe what Wilde said about all publicity being good publicity applies, though: it was extraordinary how David Jenkins provoked ordinary people into talking about the resurrection in which he believed with all his heart.”
That sounds a pretty good testimony to me.
Readers may be mystified why you are giving me and Paul a hard time considering so many of our posts have apparently been deleted by the moderator. What remains seems to be a fair overview of our more constructive posts. But I mostly concur with your assessment of the value of our discussion prior to the deletions, and do find your extended discussion helpful.
I assume he’s not merely translating on the fly from his book from Afrikaans into English but that he’s written out the English. In which case, publish that! It will be faster to read than to listen to weeks and weeks of audio.
What Mulder points out is what has become the de facto doctrine of western Protestantism – that the physical Resurrection is some form of Christian “myth.” Sufficiently “mainline” that its proponents include the recent PB of TEC (and quite probably the current one, as he seems unable to present a coherent Christology). Mulder mentions several errant English theologians in his second paragraph (William Temple, Geoffrey Lampe, David Jenkins, Sandy Wedderburn- the latter known for his work which viewed the Resurrection through the lens of the various “mystery” religions/cults of the first centuries AD). It is worth recalling that Temple was originally denied ordination by the bishop of Oxford due to his heterodox views on the Resurrection (among other things). Personally, I think he might have also mentioned Benjamin Hoadley, as something of a great grandfather of doctrinal and ecclesial laxity in the Church of England. Many Anglican bishops and seemingly the majority of Anglican seminary professors throughout Britain and North America are on this particular bandwagon.
Sacrificing truth for unity.
It’s very prevalent in the CofE . Back in the day when I did my training at theological college, several of the lecturers did not believe in the physical resurrection, and a fair number of ordinands didn’t either. Wasn’t it a previous Bishop of Durham who called it a conjuring trick with bones??
One wonders what they do believe if they don’t accept even the resurrection.
That Bishop of Durham actually said the resurrection was real. That was the point. “The resurrection is *more* than just a conjuring trick with bones”. Quite the opposite of what is often reported.
I’m having a hard time visualizing what such a conjuring trick would look like. Sadly as far as I know the Bishop never explained what he had in mind. Far as I know the resurrection story doesn’t involve bones. While the sermon may have been intended to dispel doubt its mainly remembered for raising one that may have never occurred to anybody besides the Bishop.
A: it was a TV programme, Not a sermon.
B: he said it was NOT a conjuring trick with bones.
C: I’m sure we all get confused from time to time.
A: Good point, didn’t know, thanks.
B: I don’t understand how he could think anybody would think it was anything like a conjuring trick with bones. Maybe somebody else said something like that to him once and it stuck with him (as little sense at it made), or maybe he thought it up himself. In any case, not so good.
C: Yup for various reasons we don’t know could have been a momentary confusion.
D: But as far as I know he never explained why he would have said anything like that.
He did explain – he came to my college when i was studying theology and we asked him. He said it was to get people talking about the resurrection. And look – it worked!
I’m just happy we both believe in the resurrection mindunever.
Please don’t make assumptions about my beliefs.
But he did re-define “resurrection” so that it wasn’t bodily, and therefore wasn’t “resurrection” as understood by the apostles. The crowds at the Areopagus would have had no problem with Jenkins’ view of resurrection.
Paul Sound and mindunever, you seem both intent on misunderstanding the other, and both of you also seem to want the last word. Not a very edifying performance …
According to Jenkins’ BBC obituary, he considered “the resurrection was not a single event, but a series of experiences that gradually convinced people that Jesus’s life, power, purpose and personality were actually continuing.”
The phrase you two were arguing about wasn’t said in a sermon; it was said in the course of a discussion of Jenkins’ beliefs at Auckland Castle. Jenkins said, “To believe in a Christian way, you don’t necessarily have to have a belief that Jesus was born from literally a virgin mother, nor a precise belief that the risen Jesus had a literally physical body.” When people criticized his statement, he responded, “(The Resurrection) is real. That’s the point. All I said was ‘literally physical’. I was very careful in the use of language. After all, a conjuring trick with bones proves only that somebody’s very clever at a conjuring trick with bones.”
So, the issue centers on whether Jesus rose from the dead with a recognizable physical body; Jenkins seems to deny that when he says that it was not a “literally physical” body.
I wasn’t able to track down the exact quote you cited, “The resurrection is *more* than just a conjuring trick with bones,” but regardless, the problem with this statement for people who do believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus is that in conjunction with the other things Jenkins said, while he said the resurrection is real, he was not willing to say that it was, indeed, physical. In fact, he specifically says that he is not sure that God manipulates physical bodies.
So, unless someone is willing to plainly state that he believes the resurrection to have been *at least* physical, whatever else and whatever more it was, I think it is fair to say that such a person does not believe in the physical resurrection. And that applies to Tom Wright as well — if his definition of “transphysical” does not *include* physical, then I would have to disagree with him.
Wolf: the Bishop Worcester, writing just after Bishop David Jenkins death in 2016 wrote this:
“The only person I have ever met who could move himself to tears when speaking of the Christian faith during his sermons was Bishop David Jenkins. It was an embarrassment to his family but to me it was inspirational. His faith was deep and visceral and to hear him speak was to be moved and challenged for Christ. He believed intensely that God ‘is as he is in Jesus’ and in the resurrection with a passion. It’s a cruel irony that he will forever be remembered as the bishop who said that the resurrection was ‘just a conjuring trick with bones’ when what he actually said was precisely the reverse: that the resurrection was not a conjuring trick with bones. Whilst I disagree with him about the significance of the material – I feel he underestimated it – the point he was trying to make was a crucial one: that what transformed the lives of the first disciples was not the empty tomb but the appearances of the risen Christ to them. Maybe what Wilde said about all publicity being good publicity applies, though: it was extraordinary how David Jenkins provoked ordinary people into talking about the resurrection in which he believed with all his heart.”
That sounds a pretty good testimony to me.
Readers may be mystified why you are giving me and Paul a hard time considering so many of our posts have apparently been deleted by the moderator. What remains seems to be a fair overview of our more constructive posts. But I mostly concur with your assessment of the value of our discussion prior to the deletions, and do find your extended discussion helpful.
I assume he’s not merely translating on the fly from his book from Afrikaans into English but that he’s written out the English. In which case, publish that! It will be faster to read than to listen to weeks and weeks of audio.