[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

I think you misunderstood me. I did not say that God was not man or that he was not God. Pointing to the thirst, fatigue, etc., experienced by Jesus are not evidence of "fully man."

No, I asked if you had a problem with it and, it seems that you do. So, you don't think Jesus was fully man?

But there is nothing that indicates that there were 2 wills at war (rather than physiological urges which the will of God would recognize and concerning which he would choose correctly).

No one said anything about 2 wills. On the other hand, "the will of God" recognizing and choosing among physiological urges as you put it, seems to overlook the notion that if Jesus was a true man then he would have a human soul.

The "fully God and fully man" argument is something forced onto the discussion that I do not see the Bible as doing.

Then, it seems you don't subscribe to the Chalcedonian definition which says:

Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcedonian_Definition

There is nothing indicating that Jesus dealt with an unrighteous human will (or even a righteous one for that matter).

No? Wasn't he tempted? Didn't he say, "Not my will but thy will be done?"

So parsing through my post makes me wonder. Did you think I was supporting the fully-fully argument and you needed to dispute me? We are referred to the "mind of Christ" by Paul. He does not refer to the "God-mind of Christ" which would stand opposed to the "human-mind" of Jesus. I would suggest that there is really only one mind involved.

No. I think the "fully-fully" argument represents the orthodox Christian view. So if you don't accept it, I'm curious about what your position is. Of course Witness Lee had his "mingling" . To me it's a mystery. How we" parse" it defines where we are on the conservative-liberal spectrum. Generally, it seems that if we lean toward the human side, we're more liberal. If we lean toward the God side, we're more conservative.

The man, Jesus was not:

Data. A human-looking robot with a programmed mind that could not understand the irrational aspects of the humans that he was part of in appearance only.The bug in an Edgar suite. An alien being that has taken over a human body, probably after essentially killing all aspects of that body.
One of the penguins after being zapped by the Medusa-serum fed ray that could be snapped back into a state of penguin thinking (with a nearly 4-year old grandson, the Penguins of Madagascar just seemed to be a reasonable yet ridiculous analogy).

The fully God and fully man contingent that wants it to be 100% of both would effectively insist upon a complete non-divine human with mind, emotion, and will that also houses the fullness of the godhead (yet only the Son in terms of the three) who also has a mind, emotion, and will. That would of resulted in something that looked more like the two-headed president of the galaxy (in Hitchhiker's Guide) that was constantly at war and for a period with one of the heads removed. You can imagine the arguments that would have the crowds rethinking things when Jesus would say to himself "what did you say?" "exactly what I meant" "oh really?" and so on.
Even the reference to Jesus having emotions does not insist that it be human emotion. God was not a cold-hearted being with no emotion. He needed no human body (and all that came with it) to have emotions.
Even the reference that Jesus experienced the problems of man does not insist that he was the kind of 100% fully man that those web sites talk about.Given what we are supposed to believe by the Church, it is always easier to say what Jesus is not then to coherently say what he is.
Maybe, even despite the poor analogy, it was more like the Force. God is in a man. The man is not a robot or a puppet. He has feelings and needs. The God within registers all of it. But what happens with it is controlled by God, not the man. (That makes them sound more separate than I believe they actually were, but I am not sure how perfect any way of describing it is relative to how it really was.)
There are no "this is it" statements in here. But from where I sit, the 100% fully-fully crowd is making things up. They are forcing their presumptions onto the scripture. Every one of the verses they use has a context. And from what I could see, none of them helped establish the 100% fully-fully God-man. Jesus was a God-man. I just can't see it as being the one that those people argue for.

It apears that you have succeeded in saying what Jesus was not. But, to my mind, you fail to positively imagine what he is. And how could you without getting inside his head as it were and seeing things from his perspective? All we have are his words and deeds as described in the NT. In so far as he was God, he is incomprehensible to us humans.