This question is a continuation of an earlier question, linked to at the bottom of my answer. The question was asked in several parts, so I have compiled all of the questions together here, and will answer them all at once.
In full, the questioner asks:
"You mentioned that Jesus has two seperate identities. How? Did not Jesus say that he was 'the son of man'? Mr McCabe, the difference between man and God is clear cut, if Jesus therefore has both man and God in him, which is he more? Is he more immortal or mortal, when he is a human, who's looking after the rest of his Godly affairs, since you said they are seperate and distinct? Your car example can be broken down similarly, they both will have to die down in the end, and they will both need battery recharges and oil changes. We both know that man needs to eat and be refreshed, but does God? The cars need a frame, meaning the metal encompassing the motor and other stuff, and so does man, he needs flesh and blood, but God does not need a body, there are other problems too. If you have another example that'd be welcome, because it's still confusing that two beings: God and man, with two different minds, one is limited but the other is all-knowing are inside one and the same person."
Let's look at the scripture in question.
Romans 1:22-25 (NASB):
Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
This text was written by the Apostle Paul. Paul also wrote the following at the beginning of this same chapter:
Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name's sake, among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ; to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Note here that Paul calls Jesus the Son of God, Lord, and the One who gives grace which brings about obedience for the sake of Himself. He announces that Jesus rose from the dead, and while being the Son of God, was also a son of David.
The reason I point this out is to make it absolutely clear that the Apostle Paul, who wrote the text in question, is unquestionably not condemning anyone in verses 22-25 for worshiping Jesus, as he himself clearly does so in this same chapter. That is therefore obviously not the author's intent. So, what is his intent in verses 22-25?
God is the creator of men, who are made in His image. Paul is simply condemning those who would re-create God in THEIR OWN image, worshiping their own creation rather than the Creator Himself.
Paul did not re-create God in Paul's image when He called Jesus the Son of God. He simply identified Him as who He was. Jesus was not a creation of Paul's. Rather, Paul recognized Jesus as being the creator of all things (Romans 11:36), including Paul himself.
Many of the Greek and Roman gods were nothing more than inventions of the imaginations of men, wherein the gods or goddesses are designed to be much like men, often reflecting many of the negative moral characteristics that men frequently have. Roman gods are famous for their short tempers and sexual escapades, their tendencies to be lazy and to drink too much, etc. The true God has none of these characteristics.
Now that Paul's meaning is clear in verses 22-25, let's go to the questioner's concerns.
"You mentioned that Jesus has two seperate identities. How?"
Not two "identities", but two "natures". And the how of it is quite frankly a mystery, as are many of the things of God, but it is not logically contradictory as I demonstrated in my example with the automobiles.
"Did not Jesus say that he was 'the son of man'?"
Yes, He certainly did (Matthew 8:20, 9:6, 11:19, 12:8, 20:18; Mark 8:31, 8:38, 10:33, etc). Paul agrees with the wooden-literal interpretation of that phrase in the very chapter in question when he informs us that Jesus is the son of David, a man (Romans 1:3). We should also note that Jesus likewise refers to Himself as the Son of God (John 3:16-18, 5:25-27, 10:36, 11:4).
It's important, though, contextually, to remember that neither of these terms, "son of God" or "son of man", necessarily mean that the subject is being ontologically equated with the object in the phrase. In Mark 3:17, for example, Christ gives two of the apostles a nickname, "Sons of Thunder". Christ is not claiming that these men, James and John, are a "crashing or booming sound produced by rapidly expanding air along the path of the electrical discharge of lightning" (American Heritage Dictionary definition of "Thunder").
So, linguistically, these phrases need not be taken to mean that Christ is either a man or God. However, contextually, throughout scripture, it is clear that Christ is in fact both.
"If Jesus... has both man and God in him, which is he more? Is he more immortal or mortal, when he is a human, who's looking after the rest of his Godly affairs, since you said they are seperate and distinct?"
Why would He need to be more one or the other? Jesus is fully God and also fully man, at the same time. Note, however, that as man is a created being, and God is from eternity, it has always been the case that the Son is God, but it has NOT always been the case that the Son is man. He became man at a given point in history, when He was conceived inside of His mother, Mary (Luke 1:31).
His human nature is mortal, and this was demonstrated through that nature's death on the cross. However, His divine nature is not mortal, and was able to raise His dead human body back to life. Thus, Jesus raised Himself from the dead! (John 2:19-21)
The natures are fully distinct in the sense that the one is not the other and there is no mixture between them, however, they are inseparably bound together in the person of Christ, and will be forever.
"Your car example can be broken down similarly, they both will have to die down in the end, and they will both need battery recharges and oil changes. We both know that man needs to eat and be refreshed, but does God? The cars need a frame, meaning the metal encompassing the motor and other stuff, and so does man, he needs flesh and blood, but God does not need a body, there are other problems too."
The car analogy was simply that -- an analogy. No analogy is perfect. The basic point I was making was that a single person can have two different things ("natures" or "cars", for example) that are in some ways the exact negation of each other without that being logically contradictory.
A person can have hair that is long and hair that is not long at the same time. He can have teeth that are rotten and teeth that are not rotten. He can have a broken toe and toes that are healthy; a pierced ear and one without holes; a nature that dies and one that does not.
None of these are logically contradictory.
"If you have another example that'd be welcome, because it's still confusing that two beings: God and man, with two different minds, one is limited but the other is all-knowing are inside one and the same person."
Hopefully the examples I provided immediately above will be of assistance. Recognize, though, that we are not talking about two different "beings" or two different "minds", rather, one "person" with two different "natures". The language is actually extremely important. Using even slightly different words often opens the doors to heretical and anti-Biblical doctrines such as Modalism or Arianism. Trinitarians strongly insist that Jesus has exactly one "mind", not two, and is only one "being", not two.
In answer to your question about the knowledge of Christ, God knows all things. God is one essence, but three persons. I currently subscribe to the idea that the omniscient knowledge of God is distributed between the three persons. The Son does not necessarily know everything, but the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together, do. This understanding acknowledges that (1) Jesus is God; (2) Jesus is man; (3) Jesus alone is not omniscient. The scriptures demonstrate that He knew far more than normal people, yet He did not know everything.
Other Christians propose an alternate solution -- the concept that knowledge is not a property of the "person", but rather a property of the "nature". Thus, when Jesus says, for example, that He does not know when He will return (Mark 13:32), He is speaking as a man and not as God. As God He does know, but as man He does not. I find this view mildly problematic, as it seems to me that knowledge is in fact a property of the person and not a property of the nature.
However, the key point here is that this issue of Jesus' knowledge is not contradictory in the least, even though it may be difficult to understand.
Thanks for your questions and God bless.