Talk:David Edward Jenkins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

	Anglicanism Portal David Edward Jenkins is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Anglicanism To-do:

[edit] Conjuring trick

OK, I'm confused: why would there be such a strong objection to him saying that the Resurrection was 'not a conjuring trick'? If you mean that he was misquoted as saying that it was a conjuring trick, when he'd actually said the opposite, and the fuss was over the misquoted version, then you should say that. If you're saying that mainstream Anglicans felt that the Resurrection really was a conjuring trick, and were upset at a theologian telling them it was genuine (which seems fairly unlikely... but this is what the article at present seems to imply), then say that. If you're saying something else, then the article should make it clearer what the complaint was about. Anaxial (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think his point was something along the lines of that many people have reduced the significance of the resurrection by portraying it as if it were a mere conjuring trick. Thus he was making a fairly orthodox point but possibly portraying mainstream opinion in somewhat offensive language. However, he was widely misquoted as having said the precise opposite of what he did say. Also, it must be put in the context of his belief that the risen Jesus may not have had a physical body and that he wouldn't be coming back, both of which are quite unorthodox views (even if admirable).--Oxonian2006 (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)