Incarnation in A Nutshell

A suggested paradigm of understanding the revelation of Incarnation via the experience of your own consciousness of existence. (better look up the word ‘noumenal’ now as it the only big word that you might not know)

Image

Said very tersely on purpose as I think the explanation of the paradigm is the important thing. To begin with anyway. Understanding usually takes a while to unpack the important things in life and this is no different.

Your are conscious of personal identity. You can’t prove it phenomenologically yet you are more sure of your own reality than your are of any other fact. The world of the noumenal as opposed to the phenomenal exists and is realized by you without anyone explaining it to you. The world of ideas is uncoupled from the phenomenal world as you control where and what your are going to do even though you are swimming in a sea of air (oxygen, nitrogen etc) and are constantly electrified by that means. That awareness of duality of the inner and the outer person is the jumping off point for understanding the notion of Incarnation.

In John chapter 10 was the only time that Jesus himself spoke of His own ontology as Son of God and all that that meant to a Jewish mindset. Just hold that for a second. The syllogism he gave has this form.

1.) you (the Jews) acknowledge that you are parity in kind with God, because “He calls you ‘little’ gods and He speaks to you.

2.) Scripture cannot be broken.

Two statements of reality. The implication of their agreement that they can experience dynamic interaction with God affirms their understanding of what it means to be made (created) in the image and likeness of God. It is all spiritual, because Jesus tells us that God’s ontology is purely spiritual (john 4: 24).

The implication of that affirmation is that the Incarnation is possible because man is made as a miniature finite of the Divine Being.

Now hear Jesus’ discourse on the paradigm of Incarnation (this assumes plurality of Persons in the Godhead, one of which self empties down to functional equivalence of “Man”)

“The Jews answered him, “We are not stoning you for a good work but for blasphemy. You, a man, are making yourself God.”  Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”‘? If it calls them gods to whom the word of God came, and scripture cannot be set aside, can you say that the one whom the Father has consecrated and sent into the world blasphemes because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I do not perform my Father’s works, do not believe me;
38 but if I perform them, even if you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may realize (and understand) that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” (Joh 10:33-38)

The syllogism is now complete. The first step of grasping what is possible to finite minds concerning the Incarnation is just conceptualizing the symbols of description.

For the Jews who had been cultivated by the Father for millennia got the implication with greater intuition than those without. But it was to them that God had called out to be witnesses to His Redemption and the custodians of the Divine oracles until Messiah came.

My suggestion is to think about it long enough for the paradigm only to be understood. Then carry it around in your mind and keep chipping away at it. That coupled with a reverential attitude and prayer will go a long way to cracking the nutshell.