[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

He was a man. This "fully" label is fraught with insistences about what that means and requires definitions concerning the inner workings of the whole of Jesus that are not provided to us. I am content to note the parts that are provided and ignore the rest.

So what...he was partially God and partially man?

And I do not presume that I have found the answer. At some level, I have found that I know less and have less support than what so many want to declare as doctrinal fact.

Me too.

And that provides yet another vagary into the discussion. What is the human soul? Does it include what is referred to as the "spirit" in the scripture?

For me it is the human psyche including both conscious and unconscious aspects.

But if Jesus was effectively a marriage of God and man in a single person, having a true human body and even as complete soul does not mean that all aspects of it were there creating internal havoc that the God side of the equation always had to deal with. Could have, but not necessarily.
The problem I have with the fully God and fully man argument is not that it couldn't be true. It is that it is being put forward as a "must accept and believe" while I do not see evidence that makes it necessarily so. (Gershwin anyone?)

It is literally incoherent. Here's an analogous object:https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...VP-xaG8BZ6M%3A I can only understand it as a paradoxical symbol.

I buy the trinity as taught. But not so strongly that I would defend it to the letter. It is a hodgepodge of ideas forced together in a way that was not even attempted by the writers of scripture. Yet it is reasonable.

Same as above. It is absurd.

This one is of similar origin, but somehow seems of less importance to me. It could be true — fully or partly — but I cannot see that there is support to make it fully so. Therefore to insist upon it is to drive a wedge into the heart of the body of Christ and give it a reason to be even less harmonious. It is far from the only doctrine or other issue that is in that camp. 6-day creation v creation, degradation and restoration v a lengthy creation (of whatever form wanted). Uber Calvinism v Arminianism. And on and on. (I find fault in both and reasonable positions in both.)

They tried to understand the mystery of the Incarnation using the best science of the day i.e. Greek and Roman philosophy which wasn't up to the task. Even more unfortunate, they judged and excommunicated people who thought differently. This is a dark side of organized religion similar to the LCM.

That could be an argument for something. But it could also be evidence of the more Three kind of trinity in which they are of one essence but are not simply each other. The God-man was, by design, going to spend several hours in excruciating pain. Yes, God can simply overcome it — probably even ignore the pain altogether. But it would appear to have been part of the plan that he would endure it as a man would, therefore feel it in full. With that put upon him, the thought that maybe we just skip that part is not necessarily an ungodly idea. Almost like a very short "are we sure this is how it is to go?" followed by, "but I will go with the plan."

The symbol of Incarnation points to the mystery of being which we experience as life itself. It cannot be explained and we make fools of ourselves when we try. Rather, we should enter into the experience and be grateful for it.

I am convinced that there was a man named Jesus in which the Son of God, part of the godhead, lived for somewhere north of 33 years. The accounts provide some evidence that the limitation of human frailty were felt by the combined person due to things like hunger, thirst, fatigue, etc. But I have not come up with a reason that the union needs to look like (fill in the blank). I surely cannot find the evidence of this completely dual person with two minds, wills, sets of emotion, etc. Maybe some aspects in part. But nothing that indicates something approaching the two headed president of the galaxy with added ability on the God side to keep the other completely squashed except where he wanted to let it out for show. (I said it that way because it seems that Lee's version of the three of the trinity seemed to be more of an aspect of show rather than an important distinction or fact.)

I think Jesus was a man who experienced God in an intimate, new and revolutionary way that he sought to share with others. The New Testament books are the record of how he was received and interpreted by significant early followers.

And my position is that the Son of God, one of the Three of the godhead dwelt in the man Jesus. Not just as an alter ego or like a parasite. But also not in such a way that everything except the appearance of a human was overtaken. That person would never know pain. Would not go through puberty (well maybe not). And so on. And if you can figure out why I need to refine it to the point that I have fairly narrow boundaries around what I think it is, then I will try. In the mean time, I am willing to accept what the scripture actually says and live with it as being less than fully explained.

Yes. Tell me why you think it is important to understand Christ this way.