Was Immanuel Fully God and Fully Man?

[Minister Monardo]

The claim Son of God according to Jews at that time was not anything divine.

Is that what they said at the Council of Chalcedon?
You should stick with the scriptures.
John 10:
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him.
32 Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father.
For which of those works do you stone Me?”
33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You,
but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’?
35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came
(and the Scripture cannot be broken),
36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘
You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

Your assertion is false. Jesus was crucified on the charge of blasphemy
for claiming to be the Son of God.
Matthew 26:
62 And the high priest arose and said to Him, “Do You answer nothing?
What is it these men testify against You?”
63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him,
“I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!”
64 Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you,
hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power,
and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
65 Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy!
What further need do we have of witnesses? Look,
now you have heard His blasphemy! 66 What do you think?”
They answered and said, “

I think I said enough about this topic now.

You had already said too much, now you have confirmed that what
you are teaching is the doctrines of men by citing some stuffy
Council of religious clerics. I would love to join you in silence,
but there remains a few points to address.

Further, only in the gospels do we find the term son of man associated with the definite article, the. Jesus always called Himself “the Son of Man,” as in the only one there is. In using the definite article, Jesus contrasts Himself with other personalities in the Bible associated with the same term. Ezekiel is never called “the son of man”; he is always just a “son of man,” as in one among many.
Son of man is a rather common term in the Bible, and it simply means “man.” It emphasizes the humanity of a person.

This is wrong on "so many levels". Having a definite article is the New Testament is just Greek grammar. What is the definite article in Hebrew? Translations are as biased as the opinions of men, because they are the work of men.
I thank God for them, to have a Bible in English, but to formulate doctrine based on the work of men is the error. To cite what Jews believed at the time is thoroughly ludicrous. You are deferring to the understanding of the very men who conspired to crucify Christ, and had not the Spirit. Let me quote Peter, who I hope you believe spoke by the Spirit.
1 Peter 1:
10 Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, 11 searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.

The Lord addressed prophets as son of man because they spoke by the Spirit of Christ. Jesus said that Abraham saw His day and rejoiced. That is because the Christ is the seed of Abraham, the son of man spirit and the fulfillment of every promise of God to man. For though it is only a man's covenant, it cannot be annulled, for God cannot lie.
Hebrews 6:
3 For when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself,
14 saying, “Surely blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply you.”
15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.
16 For men indeed swear by the greater, and an oath for confirmation is for them an end of all dispute.
17 Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel,
confirmed it by an oath,
18 that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie,
we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us.

2 Corinthians 1:20 For all the promises of God in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God through us.

And you are doing it again. You wrote in your OP that 'The Son of God and son of man were separated by sin and had to be restored to One.' which is completely false, and when I challenged you, you posted bunch of verses which did not answer anything. Christ's divine and human nature are inseparable, but you wrote that they were which is completely wrong, they were not separated, and definitely not separated by sin.

No, you are doing it again. I said the son of man was perfected by being glorified at the cross. This perfection was required for the spirit of all men could be justified by the perfected obedience of One. This was supported by several citations from Hebrews, which you apparently don't recognize as Canon, as you not only ignored them, you claim that I don't know what they mean.
I would suggest that the men of your holy convocation would have been greatly assisted by those verses. And if you are going to correct someone on the application of scripture then do so, don't tell them they are wrong and cite a Council of men. The traditions of men. Where have I heard that before?
To say that Jesus was "fully God' ignores the full implications of that statement based on the scriptures, rather than seminary Christology. If Jesus would have been fully God, as opposed to the Son of God who left His glory in heaven, men would not have been able to sit at a table with Him.
The presence of God would have annihilated them. Split open like Uzzah laying his hand on the Ark.
Microwaved like the sons of Aaron.
Jesus prayed:
John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself,
with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

Only Peter, James and John got a glimpse on the Mount.
But the more important significance is that they heard the Voice of God.
2 Peter 1:
17 For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory
“This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”
18 And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.

The spirit of Christ, the seed of Abraham, the son of man was perfected and glorified on the cross to fulfill all righteousness.
Hebrews 12:
22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God,
the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels,
23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven,
to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect.
Halleluyah!
Hebrews 5:
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.

Christ, the son of man, was glorified and perfected on the cross, not the Son of God.
John 12:23 And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the son of man should be glorified.
John 13:31 So, when he had gone out, Jesus said, “Now the son of man is glorified, and God is glorified in him.
32 If God is glorified in Him, God will also glorify Him in Himself, and glorify Him immediately

 

[Grip Docility]

Minus the glory He left behind in heaven.

I’m out and about, but I want to expound on the importance of this statement, when I’m back in front of my laptop. It’s one of the most important concepts in scripture!

@Mr. M , This is your OP and I don't want to rearrange your intent of writing this. I can write this matter out in plain words, but I don't want to do that if you feel it is a disrespectful thing to do so. Should I leave it be or go ahead and give it a go?