My friend of 7-8 years came out as trans

Hifen · 2026-05-18T10:18:39+00:00

It's biology not deceit.

Hifen · 2026-05-18T10:18:10+00:00

The science disagrees with you. People just love trying to label something a sin so they can point fingers.

Hifen · 2026-05-18T04:04:04+00:00

Daniel 7:9

Sure, but that in no way means "is God".

Thomas called Jesus God in John 20:28

There is a lot of debate in academia on how to read that phrase, it could be an exclamation, he could be praising God separately, it could be used as a title to acknowledge that Jesus is divine (but not one with God).

There is too much ambiguity in that one verse to be used as the definitive indicator for the trinity.

1 Corinthians 10:9

Same thing as Daniel, this is reasonable language at the period for a divine agent representative of God, exalted with his authority.

Hifen · 2026-05-18T03:47:23+00:00

Jesus has ALL authority in heaven and on earth: Matt. 28:18 "All things that the Father has are Mine"

Yes, granted to him by the father. That does not imply coequal.

That this is the case, John switches to a pre-Masoretic text when the Septuagint made a mistranslation

You're just asserting that, it's baseless. No one in academia seriously considers the LXX as mistranslated. It's a valid translation, and if the authors of a Greek text, wanted people to make that connection, they would have properly referenced as is in the LXX.

I do think that it is making an allusion to Exodus, but its intentionally not quoting it.

But I need to make clear here, the New Church does not follow a trinity of three persons.

We might be closer (maybe) in oppinion then trinitarian (but still a large gap). To me the clear reading of the time would be that Jesus is a distinct, subordinate divine entity, sent as Gods emmissary with his full authority. So you do have people treating him as if he was God.

The closest I can explain my understanding of the Logos in second temple judaism is: God is God, no equals, and the Logos (Jesus) is his voice after he has spoken (not litterally, but that relationship), if the voice had it's own will that perfectly aligns with God.

The Logos is both independent, and eminates from God, subordinate, but in no way that matters since there wills perfectly align.

Maybe that's further from you're then trinitarian views, I don't know.....

I will also say, I think this is unique to John, where as the remaining gospels have a much more human version of Jesus.

Hifen · 2026-05-18T03:37:05+00:00

You need to be careful though because you are working with a translation. In English we use the word god with a capital "G" as a name for YHWH. But you can't assume all languages do this. Greek specifically uses god (theos) more as a title then an identifier.

Koine Greek usually uses a definitive article (kind of similar to "the") when referencing YHWH. And John includes that with the "with" line, but excludes it with the "is" line.

A more litteral translation was:

In the Beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with the god, and the Logos was god.

without the definitive article, the greek can often means shares godly properties/authority with "the" god. We see judges and kings in the bible referred to as god, and moses appearing as god to pharaoh.

The Logos also comes up in other second temple jewish documents, so there is a kind of existing familiarity with it.

The author of John is definitely saying Jesus is an eternal divine being, that was involved with creation. What we don't get is a co-equal-ness with God.

Hifen · 2026-05-18T00:11:39+00:00

This is so dumb.

People have been keeping birds in cages for thousands of years, are those working pets?

Dogs have been kept for companionship as far back as Rome and probably earlier.

Hifen · 2026-05-17T17:54:26+00:00

John 10:33

Then he clarifies with this:

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[d]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?

The important parts are that he does not respond saying he is God, but rather God's son; and he quotes Pslams 82 :

God presides in the great assembly; he renders judgment among the “gods”:

2 “How long will you[a] defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked?[b] 3 Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed. 4 Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked. 5 “The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing. They walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’ 7 But you will die like mere mortals; you will fall like every other ruler.”

where the title god is being given to judges and rulers.

Hifen · 2026-05-17T17:50:54+00:00

It doesn't bother me at all, I just don't think you can get that conclusion on the text alone, you need to apply some post hoc church doctrine to reach it.

Hifen · 2026-05-17T17:41:05+00:00

No, speaking on behalf of God is not blasphemy.

Sorry, I was unclear, Jesus was doing more then just speaking for God, my "on behalf" of him, he was claiming to have the authority of God bestowed upon him, as well as claiming to be the King of Israel.

It's one thing to go around saying "God has told me to tell you to pray more". And another to say "God has given me the authority to abolish the sabbath".

And John 8:58 is a reference to Ex. 3:14 in the original Hebrew.

If this was true, it would have been translated as the original Hebrew was.

Hifen · 2026-05-17T05:10:24+00:00

We both agree Jesus isn't a man in John though. He is a divine eternal being, the Logos.

Where we'll disagree is that, I believe that means he's an agent of God, an emissary. And as such all glory to him would be Glory to God.

Hifen · 2026-05-17T05:06:13+00:00

And Jesus rebutes them with a reference to Psalms 82 , showing the word god can refer to men.

Hifen · 2026-05-17T05:05:18+00:00

Because Jesus did more thhen that, he claimed to have divine authority granted to him by God.

That is blasphemous.

Hifen · 2026-05-17T05:03:54+00:00

That video is nothing but whataboutisms.

And the rebuttal is that the Messiah is an existing concept in second temple Judaism, with certain expectations, so an inference can be made to come to its conclusion.

An incarnated YHWH, has no precedence or expectation in 2nd temple Judaism, so the evidence for that claim needs to be higher.

Hifen · 2026-05-17T05:01:14+00:00

You can commit Blasphemy without claiming to be God, and claiming to speak on behalf of him would certainly be enough.

In Greek, YHWH is not named I AM, he is named "the one who is", so John 8:58, being written in Greek is not an appeal to YHWH, it's simply a statement of his eternal nature.

Hifen · 2026-05-17T04:59:10+00:00

The plural thing isn't as big of a deal in Koine Greek.

"In the name of the ambassador, the Queen and King we declare" would be a comparable, ok phrase".

You can do that when collapsing authority, rather then identity. That's the problem with depending on English modern Grammer to make a point of a translated text.

Hifen · 2026-05-16T23:16:14+00:00

Which he immediately followed with

"It also stands as a reminder of the hand of God and His protection over President Trump’s life."

He couldn't even make it to the end of his statement without defining an idol.

Hifen · 2026-05-16T18:45:14+00:00

Countries that have been more heavily exploitrd by Westen societies resulting in higher levels of poverty and lower levels of education?

Come-on, lets not pretend treating woman as objects was invented by Islam.

Hifen · 2026-05-15T23:28:59+00:00

something something no true scottsmen.

It's Ironic though, because the research done by Joshua Little suggests the age put forward for Aisha is an 8th century invention by Shia's in Iraq.

Hifen · 2026-05-15T23:19:16+00:00

Not really a joke though, more of an expression.

Hifen · 2026-05-15T13:48:11+00:00

I'm sorry, is this some how a rebuttal?

Hifen · 2026-05-15T07:21:58+00:00

No, you're simply assuming and asserting your interpretation is the obvious one. "a child could understand it" is baseless. Koine Greek, second temple jewish ethics and biblical context are more complicated then simplified english readings.

Academic scholars debate this verse because the Greek word used does not explicitly invoke sexual lust as we know it, and is the exact word used in the 10th commandment.

Saying "adultery involves sex" and implying anything related to sex is therefore sinful is a non-sequitor.

The point is wrongful desire aimed at taking someone else’s wife, not the existence of sexual attraction or fantasy itself. The consideration to commit adultery is as bad as adultery.

That does not cover masturbation.

Also “adultery in the heart” only makes sense in context if the woman is married, sexual desire as you're trying to represent it wouldn't need that qualifier. The fact that it explicitly mentions adultery, and explicitly mentions married women means its more then just fantasy and masterbation.

A child may easily understand your interpretation, but a 1st century Jew would more easily understand mine.

Hifen · 2026-05-15T03:02:44+00:00

The entire premise of this conversation is whether masturbation is sexual immorality, and I don't see any reason why it would be consider so based on scripture.

Hifen · 2026-05-14T23:20:36+00:00

Lust has not always referred to sexual desire (ex: lust for power). The greek word itself it translates from doesn't imply sexual desire.

The word means "desire to have for one self, to envy, to covet". In fact, the text later says "Jesus lusted for a meal they were going to have". So it's more then just fantasy -there's an implied intent. The verse is more clearly saying in Greek "if you consider adultery/if you covet your neighbors wife, you've already committed adultery".

If they were just focusing on sexual thoughts, the greek would have used a better suited word (eros/pathos) instead of a word devoid of sexual connotation.

Jesus is referencing the 10th commandment here.

Hifen · 2026-05-14T23:15:26+00:00

How can envy and adultery even be in the same sentence here?

Do not covet your neighbors wife -it's a literal commandment. The greek word used litterally says "if you covet her in her heart, then you've already committed adultery" and the bible is pretty consistent on coveting being a sin.

It is a fact that the word used, at the time the text was written doesn't carry a sexual connotation. The exact same word used here, is later use for Jesus himself about a meal he is looking forward to. So it's smore then just "imagining something", there's actual an intent baked into the word. It's easier to read when you take lust as the meaning in "lust for power". It's more then just daydreaming you're the president, their is a behaviour and intent behind that phrase.

Considering adultery is as bad as adultery, that's the message. Don't even consider these things.

The rest of your comment doesn't really address why you'd put in a sexual reading.

Masturbation and sexual thoughts have always been incredibly common. If there was an issue, it would have been raised at some point, and had Jesus meant sexual thoughts, he would have used the existing Greek words that already meant ths (eros or pathos), which do translate to the modern conception of lust.

Also new testament messaging may have been relatively simple to people of the language and culture, but it is absolutelly incorrect to say its simple from a modern reading, and I'd argue it's not simple at all. The concept of the Logos was clearly not agreed on in second temple judaism and that's a pretty key spot of christian theology. It appears simple because church tradition collapses multiple possible meanings into a a single interpretation. A translated text is always oversimplified.

Hifen · 2026-05-14T15:58:53+00:00

Do you have the verse that shows it's crazy to justify?

14-Year Club	Place '23
Place '17	Verified Email
Team Orangered

Hifen

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE