RE: [asa] Physicalism and Incarnation

From: Alexanian, Moorad <>
Date: Thu Mar 01 2007 - 09:45:44 EST

One must understand what the word "incarnation" means and see if one can
define it in purely physical terms. If one cannot, then the incarnation
of Christ is incompatible with physicalism.




From: [] On
Behalf Of Johan Jammart
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 5:28 AM
Subject: [asa] Physicalism and Incarnation


I have read articles on claiming that incarnation of Christ was
incompatible with physicalism ==>

I have read a discussion on this also on an blog:

JJ: Trenton Merricks in an unpublished paper entitled 'The Word Made
Flesh: Dualism, Physicalism, and the Incarnation' presents a different
view. We are human organisms. To be human is to be a human organism. So
a divine subject becomes human by becoming a human organism. So an
immaterial simple becomes a material composite. I think that no
immaterial being can become a material being and that no simple can
become a composite. So I do not hold this view.

BV: You are a wise man.

JJ: But the strategy is a coherent one.

BV: How? It appears to be absurd on the face of it. An immaterial simple
becomes a material composite without ceasing to be an immaterial
Next stop: The Twilight Zone.

Is really physicalism incompatible with incarnation? Can an immaterial
Christ became only material?



To unsubscribe, send a message to with "unsubscribe
asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Mar 1 09:46:23 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 01 2007 - 09:46:23 EST