Much in modern Christological arguments strikes me as ridiculous. In these arguments, theologians try to figure out what Christ was like, given that he was a combination of God and man. I don't purport to comprehend the arguments, but from what I understand, there's higher Christology (emphasis on God) and lower Christology (emphasis on human nature).
Well, we simply cannot know and we cannot even come anywhere near knowing. Why? Because we have no knowledge of God (hence the use of apophatic theology–understanding God by defining what he is not), except for what he reveals to us, which he primarily did through Jesus Christ. And it strikes me as futile to rely upon Jesus Christ for purposes of understanding Jesus Christ's nature (you get yourself in a Christological circle).
We also don't fully understand human nature. We understand it better than God, but there are still uncertain and wholly unknown variables.
Still not convinced that the modern Christological arguments are largely pointless? Find "x"–or even a rough ballpark of "x"–in the following: a x b = x, where "a" might be 4, 5, or 6, and "b" is a number anywhere from negative infinity to positive infinity.
The monk told us to imitate Christ, not understand him.
