Here is a comment that Andrew made to me in another thread in answer to my asking if he believes Jesus was fully God and fully man:
“The Apostles’ Creed does a rather poor job of situating Jesus in the biblical narrative, but I think it gets the relationship between Jesus and the Father about right:
I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord…
Would that do?
I believe that Jesus is my Lord and Saviour.
Otherwise, I will simply repeat my basic point, which is that whether or not it is a valid theological conclusion to draw that Jesus is fully God and fully man, there is a strong likelihood that we will misunderstand the New Testament narrative if we try to make everything it says about Jesus fit that grid.
I believe that the controlling argument of the New Testament is that Jesus has been given—as a “reward” for his obedience and suffering—authority to judge and rule at the right hand of God until the final enemy is put under his feet. To say that Jesus is fully God and fully man is one way of restating that argument, perhaps one that is hinted at in the New Testament itself. But I do not believe it was the main point about Jesus that the New Testament was trying to get across.”
This quote was in the article “Did Jesus Claim to Be God” on this site. (I am having a computer war and I can’t get the article to link this a.m.)
Since we know from what Andrew has said elsewhere that being God’s Son and being Lord doesn’t mean that He was God in Andrew’s understanding, that whole statement is indeed ambigous at best. It may or may not be a valid theological conclusion, it is perhaps hinted at in the NT itself that He is God, but he doesn’t believe that is the main point the NT is trying to get across. Ambiguity and no definitive answer at all.