'fully man' and 'fully god' (continue #2)

I have been thinking of the 'fully god 'and 'fully man' issue a little more. It seems to me that if one considers the union as combining the two together in one flesh without either of the two losing any part of them then it could be said that there is not a contradiction.

If we begin by asking the question what is man (irrespective of sin) and what is God? Then we may see that there is no contradiction in saying that what is man and what is God being put in flesh together: to say the answers of the above questions? I think to most Christians this might find this acceptable as for them it has already occurred (i.e., Jesus). As I have said previously, part of theology rests on faith as trying to prove it (or disprove with actual evidence), especial physical, would be quite challenging to say the least. I thin some would go far to argue that we must also be careful of crossing the line between understanding the relationship between the 'fully man' and 'fully god' and being so conceited to think that our conception will determine the relationship between the two. In other words, we need to remember that Jesus was/is Jesus regardless of what we think the relationship is/was; the relationship does not change even if our conception of it does. Our job is to understand the relationship and not to determine it.

I think a remaining question would be is Jesus without sin because he is 'fully God' or is it because he rested temptation, but unlike any other human is not sinful? I think if the argument that the two exists in one flesh, but are separate then the answer to be consist would have to be the later (i.e., rested temptation despite being fully man).

This I think this might bring back the argument that if Jesus was 'fully God' then he had an advantage on the rest of us (i.e., knowing what was right and wrong, how to go about things in a rightful manner, etc.). With the response being that we too can have access to this knowledge through first Jesus (as it is through him that we find entrance to the Kingdom of Heaven and through him we are brought to God--the father).

'fully man' and 'fully god' (continue)

I suppose the best way in philosophy terms I can explain “conceptually separate” is, for example, to keep them epistemology and metaphysically separate in how we think of them.

I think it is important to realize there is a 'first principle' (as I said in my original posting) in Christianity and that is Jesus was God: this principle either rests of faith alone or very little evidence. The theologians would point to Jesus rational when people accused him of driving out demons by being a demon himself: it simply does not make sense that demons would expel one another because it would defeat the purpose of what they are trying to do: "[25]Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined...[26]If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself..." (Matthew 12). This passage could be interpreted to show either one or two things that either Jesus is the Son of God (and as such God himself) or at the very least he is on the side of divinity (i.e., doing god's work).

Once the 'first principle' is accepted then the argument might go: [second principle] we know Jesus was man as well as god (and not god alone) because he humbled himself in front of God and was obedient to his heavenly father (it makes no sense, some may argue, that a God would humble himself in front of himself and be obedient to himself). The response could be simply why not, if they are equal to each other? Who says a God could/should not humble himself in front of himself? Who are we to question a God's practice? In Christianity, there seems to be a debate that some like to perpetrate of whom is more important/powerful/etc. Jesus or God: it seems to me that most church's response have been the God is above Jesus (because of the humbling and obedience of Jesus to God (the father) in importantance (for a lack of better phrasing), but they are both equal in stature.

If we accept these two principles then this leads to the third principle, that Jesus is fully god and fully man (or at least some combination of both--I think it would be difficult to argue that Jesus was more man then God so if you are going to argue anything else then it must be that Jesus was more God than man, which according to some would not simply make sense. Remember there has been thousands of years in how religion has made us culturally think of Jesus--this is not to say the 'not make sense' group is correct or incorrect it just to make the point of cultural and religious bias and the changes of them over time.

Once you accept that Jesus is ‘fully god’ and ‘fully man’ then the next step is to pick an approach that best causes understanding for us. I think it is to keep them conceptually separate (as I explain the meaning of at the start of this posting) so we can work with them in our minds to understand them.

If you are looking for a coherent concept of ‘fully god’ and ‘fully man’ do you mean linear? It would be my opinion that theology cannot be completely linear as components of it rest on faith alone (for example, Jesus was a God--try actually proving it with evidence, especially physical?) and faith is rarely linear or even logical. I am now wondering if this means if faith is incoherent.

fully man and fully god

I think maybe a way that people can handle the "fully man” and "fully god" thing is to keep them conceptually separate. I am not sure if people would be just willing to do this or if they need a reason for doing so. If they do not need a reason then it works fine; if they do then a reason needs to be come up with.

On a theological said of things, I think a reason could be that Jesus himself while realizing he was God humbled himself in front of God (his father). I think for the Christians this might do; for those coming from the atheistic said of things I think they might want something else which is not based on theology as well as they would say: why was it necessary or why would Jesus humble himself in front of God as this could be thought as Jesus humbling himself in front of himself.

The response from the Christians would be either you do not understand our perceptive/understanding of the make-up and nature of the trinity (in it components or its whole) or that was part of what made Jesus so great and it is the goal of Christians to focus on God and the Kingdom of Heaven and not earthly issues (as Jesus demonstrated i.e., ‘walking the walk,’ rather than just preaching which is the message behind ‘God sending his only Son to us’). The atheistic (I mean from an intellectual side of things) might say that was fine-and-dandy for Jesus to do as he is God and thus at no risk for damnation or that because of being God he knows without a doubt that God exists and he knows without a doubt what is expected to be done and how to rightfully go about achieving it.

This leads us to the issue of whether or not Jesus was fully God and fully man (a circular issue). I think the Christians would respond by saying Jesus is shown to be fully man and fully God because he was faced by the same temptation in human form as rest of us (that he is God is an untouchable/should not be touched first principle of faith): I think this open the question of that if Jesus fell for temptation (such as that by Satan and offering the world) would he have faced damnation like the rest of us. I think the response would be it is not in the nature of Jesus to fall for temptation (I think they would be forced to say this as to suggest that Jesus had a nature that might have permitted him to have fallen would be blasphemy); however, the response to this could be, in that case is it fair to say Jesus was ‘fully man’ if he did not have the same nature as us. The response to this would be Jesus was the type/nature of person that would have not chosen (i.e., Free-will) to fall for temptation but he could have if he wanted to: which brings us into a debate about what makes a person fall for temptation and more importantly what prevent someone (in both cases here more specifically Jesus) including questions down the line of what is Free-will? Some also might consider it blasphemy to consider Jesus not having Free-will.

The aesthetics would respond saying what about Jesus’ inside understand of God existence and what is expected and how to go about it? The Christians would explain the knowledge is ours through Jesus and/or the Bible. The aesthetics would respond what about uncertainty. The Christians would respond uncertainty does not exist through Jesus or the Bible it exists either through not understanding what is being taught (i.e., limited capacity) or things (or ourselves) blocking/distracting us from understanding i.e., temptations, sin, etc.

I think to break the circular issue we need to say theology and atheism or even theology and philosophy (to say that theology and philosophy are two very different things) should not meet. I think too many people conceive theology as the Philosophy of Religion (which it is not as Philosophy of religion is the application of principles of philosophy on religion or religious issues) or they conceive theology as Religious Philosophy (which it is not as to say ‘religious philosophy’ is to suggest that its base root is philosophy that in my understanding that philosophy has its own rules/way-of-doing-things which do not rely on religious principles or beliefs for its base).

In short, (1) we need to keep fully man and fully god conceptually separate to understand them (and have faith in reality the two exists together in symbiosis); and (2) that theology and atheism or even theology and philosophy cannot be reconciled together, paired respectively.