'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).

Philosophy of Religion vs. Theology

What is Philosophy of Religion? Philosophy of Religion is the branch of philosophy that deals with questions related to the cultural element known as religion. It covers aspects such as the existence of god, how we know that god exists, etc. The questions that are asked are directed at religion in general or a specific religion but still in a general framework.

What is Theology? In any specific religion there are questions that arise related to its specific beliefs, values, rules of behavior, practices, principles, history, creation, etc. Theology is the method that a specific religion has to answer these questions. Characteristic of a specific religion’s theology is the theology’s commitment to the religion fundamental elements.

Theology of a specific religion is restricted in as much as it is not permitted to challenge these fundamental elements less risk disproving that which it is meant to defend and create support for. For this reason theology is restricted in it pursuit of truth: another way to look at it is to state that truth begins at these fundamental elements (i.e., first principles).

One thing that concerns me is the presents of those that claim to be religious but are unable to take part in their religion’s theology because they either do not know the method or they do not know the debated issues. This is also true for those that while do not proclaim to belong to any specific religion claim to belong a universal category such being Christian, etc. It concerns me because it may lead a claim that god does not exist.

It concerns me because if the members of a religion or a universal category do not know their theology then what prevents their religion from changing, and if this occurs when does it become a new religion. Furthermore, if a religion changes into a new religion then what defense can be put forth to argue that we know nothing of god(s) and if this happens why cannot an argument be put forth that we cannot be assured that god exist: that leads to an argument that because we cannot be assured that god exists then god does not exist as it would sound reasonable that if god exists then he would want us to know.