JW Burgeson wrote:
> George, commenting on my depiction of Marcus Borg, wrote: "1) & it's rather
> puzzling that today, when we are coming more & more to
> an understanding of the human as body-soul-spirit-mind unity, that some
> Christians want to talk about some sort of disembodied survival as
> meaningful in the case of Jesus."
> I do not claim to completely understand Borg, but I see no claim of
> "disembodied survival" in what he writes. I may, of course, be misreading
It would seem to me that any understanding of resurrection without a
body would be by definition one of disembodiment.
> "Abandonment of belief in resurrection of the body (i.e.,
> transformation of the body which has died) means also abandonment of the
> idea that the material world has any significance for the future God intends
> for creation."
> You will have to try harder on this one. That's a claim you have made; what
> are your grounds for it? Obviously, I do not see it the way you do.
If there is no resurrection of the body then the final future that God
intends for us (assuming that that's a meaningful concept) is one without
bodies. & by extension, it would seem that the final future that God intends
for the world is one without bodies - i.e., immaterial. One can't have it both
"Paul's emphasis on "Christ crucified" shows the identity of Jesus the
> man and Christ the Lord. It is the Christ who was crucified. The
> resurrection is significant because it is the resurrection of the
> I believe Borg speaks to this, arguing otherwise of course. Borg argues that
> it was Jesus who was crucified and Christ who was resurrected. In his
> lecture series at Montview Blvd Presbyterian Church, Denver, in MArch, he
> was asked the question "What do you think happened to the physical body
> (corpse) of Jesus?" Borg responded that the question was of essentially no
> interest to him -- that if it turned out that the corpse of Jesus had been
> eaten by the wild birds, it would make no difference to his theology.
All of the gospels speak of the one who was risen (however that be
understood) as the one who was crucified - e.g., Mark 16:6. That is the point
of the identification of the risen Christ by the stigmata - & that's the case
whether one thinks of these appearance stories as historical or not. What does
the phrase "Christ crucified" (Christon estaurpomenon) means if not that Christ
can be identified with the one who was crucified? The acclamation "Worthy is
the Lamb who was slain" means that the one confessed as Lord is the crucified.
I could go on and on. The intention of the whole New Testament when it speaks
of the resurrection is to say this. One can argue of course that the whole New
Testament is wrong, but then why are we wasting our time with this?
> Again I point out that Borg's theology is not mine. Clearly Borg would
> disagree with your last sentence I have quoted above. He says, of course,
> that the resurrection is significant, but on the basis of different
> reasoning than yours.
> The book THE MEANING OF JESUS, co-authored by Borg & Wright (Wright is a
> conservative theologian) is probably a good way to study all this stuff.
> Wright's position, George, I see as very close to yours. And mine.
> Still friends. Borg & Wright. Murphy & Burgeson. I hope so.
Certainly. & Borg may be a nice guy but, as one of my seminary friends
used to say, I'm "real unimpressed" with his theology.
George L Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 02 2002 - 17:03:04 EDT