Hacker News Reader

> Many times I've asked that I'm told "he was 100% human and also 100% God."

Does this surprise you? The council of Nicea where this was defined as the orthodox claim happened in A.D. 325.

> I'm sure different sects believe differently on that, but plenty do accept that. When I ask "how is it possible to be 100% human and 100% God?" you'll sometimes get answers like, "well it's like water in different for

The _vast majority_ hold that, because the vast majority affirm Nicea. The only major denominations not holding to the orthodoxy here are (in descending order of size) Latter Day Saints (Mormons), Oneness Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, and Christadelphians. They represent approximately 1.6-2.4% of the Christian population.

> you'll sometimes get answers like, "well it's like water in different forms, ice, liquid, and vapor" but that doesn't answer the question

The real (orthodox) answer depends on a metaphysics of substance that most Christians, even those who hold the orthodox view, are ill-prepared to elaborate on.

My experience in Australia and India is that increasingly commonly people, especially but not exclusively laity, don't really believe the Nicene Trinity, but more ignore the Father and make Jesus God. That’s a particularly common view among Hindus, too (I remember a school textbook saying the Christian god was named Jesus), which is almost weird given that their notion of “avatars” isn’t too bad a fit for the trinity.

There are just as many problems or difficulties with viewing Jesus as the only god as with the trinity, but comparatively few professing Christians are all that critical about it.

(For my part, I’m Christadelphian.)

this is the first time I've heard of Christadelphianism. I looked it up, expecting it to have cult-like beliefs, but it really seems pretty unobjectionable to me. I would feel more at ease around you and your Brethren than with Presbyterians, since while you don't subscribe to universal salvation, nor do you seem to believe in Predestination or a Hell of eternal torment.

If you happen to be interested in more details or discussion, email me.

Traditionally the explanation involves distinguishing between nature ("what") and person ("who"), which is the basis of the term "hypostatic union". There is one Person (which the gospel of st John refers to as "the Word"), which is of divine nature, i.e., is God; this Person assumed also a human nature, on the incarnation; and that is Jesus. This is what is meant by Jesus being truly God and truly Man: the one Person had united in himself both natures, the divine and the human.

I agree it's unfortunate that these kinds of questions sometimes get answered by inadequate metaphors or simply by dismissals. The whole joy of theology, while still requiring faith, is trying to answer these questions rationally.

Asking logical critical questions will not get you far with any hardcore believer, at least I havent met any, ever.

What you will get plenty of depends on personality - outright attack, run away in some form, or usual blanket statements with 0 actual meaning like "its faith", "you have to believe".

As if anything else mattered but a clean moral behavior. Made up rituals very specific to given sect, on different dates, some ignored, some have other meanings. You shouldn't take it all literally, but they often take it literally to absurd levels.

Yeah, I cant give much respect to believers or faith which cant handle a minute or two of critical thinking, and deeply ignore its own past and rather harsh moral failures. Mistakes not acknowledged and acted upon are mistakes waiting to happen again.

;) i love critical questions

> As if anything else mattered but a clean moral behavior

this is actually a strongly non-Christian view point: 'all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God' i.e. no morals are clean enough unless it's 100% of God (why should he accept less?). yes, our harsh moral failures, or even successes could never be enough

hence 100% humanity and divinity of Christ -- he alone provides a 100% perfect bridge, paying 100% the cost for us, one that was infinitely beyond our ability to pay

this is 100% grace, joy, freedom and surety. thanks be to him

There are plenty of denominations- Catholics foremost among them- who agree that good morals and works are not contributing to your redemption, but a natural consequence of having genuinely accepted Christ.

To "believe" without good morals or works entirely is to put on a false face, essentially. Therefore, some manner of effort is expected of believers. It's a bit of circular reasoning, but not much.

"Faith without works is dead," right?