Replies

... if you're sure you want me to open this can of worms, I will. If you or others will join in the theological/spiritual mental experiment.

I will, albeit late. Since this is my first Christmas vs. Easter debate I have to warn you that my arguments are very unpolished. :)

The Incarnation is the defining moment of Christianity. Cosmos-shaking, The Word was God, the Word became flesh. This, fully contemplated, cannot be fully contemplated. ...

The Incarnation cannot be the defining moment of "Christianity". Think of it this way: in order for Christianity to even exist, the Incarnation was necessary, but not sufficient. Christ could have been incarnated, walked around for a while, said "hello" to some folks, and then went back to heaven. The result is no Christianity. God doesn't "need" Christianity, we do. So, its existence and meaningfulness has to be taken from our POV.

Only the Resurrection was both necessary AND sufficient for Christianity to exist. You agreed that it was the proof of what Christ claimed. If He had not risen, then He would have been rightfully exposed as a liar, and Christianity would have fallen on its face immediately. This makes the Resurrection superior to the Incarnation, even though the latter is still necessary. The "birth" of Christianity was much more tied to His being risen than to His being born.

The Incarnation is inseparable from the Trinity; it defines the Diety for Christianity, it is unique. It unites God and Man like no other event, like no other religion.

But the only value that definition has owes itself completely to the Resurrection. If Christ does not rise, then there is no definition. We can play chicken/egg which I assume many do. I ask myself, which was the bigger event from man's POV? Christ could have been born and walked among us, but that doesn't mean there ever would have been Christianity. Only the resurrection meant, as absolute proof, that Christianity was real and true.

Thanks for playing. :) This is one of those seemingly useless exercises that, IMHO, is useful to explore and learn from. And, of course, I'm gonna take the opposing side.

Only the Resurrection was both necessary AND sufficient for Christianity to exist.

Nope. Necessary only in "proof." Had God been incarnate and not claimed resurrection, or visible resurrection, Christianity would still exist. The trinity, the passion, the sacrifice, all there. Resurrection was mostly proof, and what do we hear about those who require miracles to believe?

If He had not risen, then He would have been rightfully exposed as a liar…

True, but for this exercise, I'm stipulating that if He wasn't going to resurrect, He wouldn't have said He was, hence no claim of resurrection, thus no liar.

But the only value that definition [Trinity] has owes itself completely to the Resurrection. If Christ does not rise, then there is no definition.

Sure there is, the Trinity still exists with or without the resurrection.

Now here's where you've got me thinking. The Ressurrection is proof, but also one thing more in Christianity: it describes/defines a great deal of Christian eschatology.

So I'm gonna concede a tad, it's more than just proof. Without the Resurrection, Christian eschatology would not be as clear - absent additional teaching or theology from other sources.

thanks for your reply.

I forgot one other, important argument: You proposed, what if there was Incarnation but no Resurrection. Turn that around.

What if there was Resurrection without Incarnation? What would we have then? No Trinity, no perfect sacrifice, no "For God so loved the world..."

So, I claim, Chrisitianity would be much less, or more different, without the Incarnation than without the Resurrection.