Re: [asa] Physicalism and Incarnation

From: <>
Date: Thu Mar 01 2007 - 12:24:38 EST

Of course it involves the physical body of Jesus, because
the tomb was empty.

That is not to say however, that we will be resurrected in
the same way. I do not believe in resurrection of the
body either, with the special exception of Christ.

And that is what Paul is talking about in I Cor. 15. Our
physical bodies will decay, and a new incorruptible
spiritual body will rise. But Christ and his body, never
saw decay because his body was without sin.

On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 11:54:29 -0500
  "Robert Schneider" <> wrote:
> Nor do I. "Bodily resurrection" does not entail the
>physical body of Jesus. That would be resuscitation, not
>resurrection. I believe that what the disciples
>experienced was the real presence of the risen Messiah,
>but read carefully 1 Cor. 15 to see how Paul wrestled
>with this matter.
> Bob
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael Roberts
> To: Alexanian, Moorad ; Johan Jammart ;
>; Janice Matchett
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 10:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Physicalism and Incarnation
> Like Bishop Tom Wright I do not believe in a physical
> Michael
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Janice Matchett
> To: Alexanian, Moorad ; Johan Jammart ;
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 3:07 PM
> Subject: RE: [asa] Physicalism and Incarnation
> At 09:45 AM 3/1/2007, Alexanian, Moorad wrote:
> 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. ~ Moorad
> @ For those interested, the commentary at this link
>touches on that subject:
> The Impossible Faith Or, How Not to Start an Ancient
>Religion - James Patrick Holding
> [snip]
> Below I offer a list of 17 factors to be considered
>-- places where Christianity "did the wrong thing" in
>order to be a successful religion. It is my contention
>that the only way Christianity did succeed is because it
>was a truly revealed faith -- and because it had the
>irrefutable witness of the resurrection. I may add more
>factors as my research continues. For now, this should be
>enough to keep the skeptics busy if they aren't otherwise
>engaged in such scholarly pursuits as looking for
>contradictions between numbers in 1 Kings and 1
>Chronicles or digging up obscure and irrelevant pagan
>figures who sold snake oil. Veteran readers will note
>that there is little new actually reported in this
>article that is not found elsewhere on this site; indeed
>much of what is below is taken verbatim from other
>articles -- it is only the application that is new.
> [snip]
> Factor #3 -- Getting Physical! The Wrong
> As we have shown here, the resurrection of Jesus,
>within the context of Judaism, was thought by Gentiles to
>be what can be described as "grossly" physical. This in
>itself raises a certain problem for Christianity beyond a
>basic Jewish mission. We have regularly quoted the dictum
>of Pheme Perkins: "Christianity's pagan critics generally
>viewed resurrection as misunderstood metempsychosis at
>best. At worst, it seemed ridiculous." It may further be
>noted that the pagan world was awash with points of view
>associated with those who thought matter was evil and at
>the root of all of man's problems. Platonic thought, as
>Murray Harris puts it, supposed that "man's highest good
>consisted of emancipation from corporeal defilement. The
>nakedness of disembodiment was the ideal state." Physical
>resurrection was the last sort of endgame for mankind
>that you wanted to preach.
> Indeed, among the pagans, resurrection was deemed
>impossible. Wright in Resurrection of the Son of God
>quotes Homer's King Priam: "Lamenting for your dead son
>will do no good at all. You will be dead before you bring
>him back to life." And Aeschylus Eumenides: "Once a man
>has died, and the dust has soaked up his blood, there is
>no resurrection." And so on, with several other quotes
>denying the possibility of resurrection. [32-3] Wright
>even notes that belief in resurrection was a ground for
>perseuction: "We should not forget that when Irenaeus
>became bishop of Lyons he was replacing the bishop who
>had died in a fierce persecution; and that one of the
>themes of that persecution was the Christians' tenacious
>hold on the belief in bodily resurrection. Details of the
>martyrdom are found in the letter from the churches of
>Vienne and Lyons to those of Asia and Phrygia. The letter
>describes how in some cases the torturers burnt the
>bodies and scattered the ashes into Rhone, so that no
>relic of the martyrs might still be seen on earth. This
>they did, says the writer, 'as though they were capable
>of conquering god, and taking away their rebirth
> Judaism itself would have had its own, lesser
>difficulty, albeit not insurmountable: there was no
>perception of the resurrection of an individual before
>the general resurrection at judgment. But again, this,
>though weird, could have been overcome -- as long as
>there was evidence! Not so easily in the pagan world. We
>can see well enough that Paul had to fight the Gnostics,
>the Platonists, and the ascetics on these counts. But
>what makes this especially telling is that a physical
>resurrection was completely unnecessary for merely
>starting a religion. It would have been enough to say
>that Jesus' body had been taken up to heaven, like Moses'
>or like Elijah's. Indeed this would have fit (see here)
>what was expected, and would have been much easier to
>"sell" to the Greeks and Romans, for whom the best
>"evidence" of elevation to divine rank was apotheosis --
>the transport of the soul to the heavenly realms after
>death; or else translation while still alive. So why
>bother making the road harder? There is only one
>plausible answer -- they really had a resurrection to
> [snip] Continue here:
> ~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Mar 1 12:23:56 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 01 2007 - 12:23:56 EST