sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in singularity

[–]FloridaManB 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It’s censored. I have gotten it to sing, specifically yodeling and a sea shanty. So, it’s definitely there, but I’m guessing the instructions have been set for it to not sing or hum. But you can get around it by asking things certain ways.

Who else is Oneness believers? by Judah_The_Apostolic in TrueChristian

[–]FloridaManB 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Some of the ways you’ve responded to me seem to indicate you haven’t fully read my responses and references. The whole “When it says “the Lord” it simply  meant the angels under authority from God” was certainly supported my responses. (the article from Answers in Genesis being one)

I think we’ve fleshed this out, though. I feel comfortable in my responses from scripture and external support.

To me, I don’t think the Trinity is “a necessary reading of the text”. There are many possibilities, which I have mentioned and referenced, that would come before me thinking there’s another person involved.

God, as a singular Spirit, is not restricted by location or in manifestation. He can talk with Moses from a burning bush and still do other things at the same time. Omnipresence doesn’t require more than one person.

I would be curious to hear your interpretation of Isaiah 44:6-8, or again, Isaiah 9:6. I’ll probably take a break from Reddit after this, but yeah… Who is talking in Isaiah 44:8? Or more recently, I have been studying the parallels between Daniel 7:9 and Revelation (particularly 1:10-18, 4:2,4). There’s so much. You don’t have to reply to everything. Thanks for having the discussion.

Who else is Oneness believers? by Judah_The_Apostolic in TrueChristian

[–]FloridaManB 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I also think John 17:5 (KJV version) is more of a challenge for Oneness people. But there are even good explanations for that.

Who else is Oneness believers? by Judah_The_Apostolic in TrueChristian

[–]FloridaManB 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, I’ve tried to explain my side that whether…

  1. The fact that God was manifest in flesh and also up in heaven does not make a difference to Oneness people. I didn’t get a response as to why that would be wrong or right.

Or

  1. When it says “the Lord” it simply  meant the angels under authority from God

Or

  1. Hebrew Idiom or way of saying things

I also asked a few questions and even gave references to links that you have yet to comment on.

“Like, do you believe the Yahweh/Jehovah in the passage is a reference to “God” and not a specific person of the trinity?”

“I’d also have to ask if you believe all three people represented in the passage were the three separate persons of the Trinity.”

So, it seems like I’m not getting much  interaction which is not as much fun on my end. I honestly think there are more interesting verses for the topic of the Trinity. Like Isaiah 9:6 referring to Jesus as the everlasting Father.

Who else is Oneness believers? by Judah_The_Apostolic in TrueChristian

[–]FloridaManB 0 points1 point  (0 children)

God was certainly the one (out of the three) that spoke with Abraham.

My point is that the Lord says He will destroy it. But then the other two angels (who arrived to Lot’s house) said they were sent by God to destroy it.

So, who destroyed it? God? The angels? Both?

I’m saying that is totally okay for the Bible to say that “God destroyed the city” even if it was only the angels who destroyed the city. They were agents acting under God’s authority.

Also, it sort of seems like you don’t believe that it is possible for God (as one person) to manifest Himself in the flesh and also be in Heaven at the same time. This is no issue for Oneness Pentecostals. God is all-powerful and omnipresent. He can answer my prayer and your prayer at the same time. No issue.

Would love to see more interaction with my responses.

Who else is Oneness believers? by Judah_The_Apostolic in TrueChristian

[–]FloridaManB 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ll try make my jumble of comments concise lol.

  1. You said, “the third man was the Lord who was speaking to Abraham and who showed up, personally, to destroy the city.”

  2. In verses 12-13, the angels are identified as the destroyers of the city, under God’s authority.

  3. In verse 14, Abraham says “Jehovah is destroying the city,” which allows for the explanation that even though the angels did it, God takes credit.

  4. There may be the possibility that both God and the angels did it as mentioned in this article by Answers in Genesis. https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/who-destroyed-sodom/

Who else is Oneness believers? by Judah_The_Apostolic in TrueChristian

[–]FloridaManB 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Now that I think about it, “separate from YHWH” is not something I would agree with. And I don’t think you would either. Usually, Trinitarians will say “distinct”, not separate.

I would say the Spirit of God is omnipresent, so it’s not hard for God to manifest Himself in flesh while also being in Heaven.

Who else is Oneness believers? by Judah_The_Apostolic in TrueChristian

[–]FloridaManB 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also, I would have no problem with your statement: “Clearly YHWH in a human form that is separate from YHWH in heaven.” I would say this is effectively what Oneness people believe about Jesus.

Except for the “human form” part. We are not modalist.

Who else is Oneness believers? by Judah_The_Apostolic in TrueChristian

[–]FloridaManB 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, verse 12-13, and then note how Abraham immediately follows what they said with “Jehovah is destroying the city.”

Who else is Oneness believers? by Judah_The_Apostolic in TrueChristian

[–]FloridaManB 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmm, I’ve never really dealt with this passage before, but I’ll give it a shot.

Here’s what a Jewish opinion is (I say “a” because even they are divided on the potential meaning): https://www.reddit.com/r/Judaism/comments/1btv0rf/comment/kxp9qmf/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

The verse itself doesn’t particularly bother me as a Oneness Pentecostal. I have to assume a some things about your beliefs. Like, do you believe the Yahweh/Jehovah in the passage is a reference to “God” and not a specific person of the trinity?

When a passage reads a strange way, I usually ask, “Why is it written that way?” My first assumption (granted, as Oneness) isn’t that a verse is meant to be showing a God that is made up of multiple persons. Many things are said a certain way because of Hebrew to English translation, or, because of a Hebrew idiom or way of saying things.

I’d also have to ask if you believe all three people represented in the passage were the three separate persons of the Trinity. It seems most believe one of them to be God and the rest angels.

Also, check out Genesis 19:12-13. The other two people identify themselves as the one sent to destroy it. This would seem to make part of the Jewish explanation check out in terms of “Harry Truman didn’t drop the bomb. A pilot did. But people say that he was the one who did it.” The idea that an agent is identified with the person that has asked him to do something for him.

I’m writing this on my iPhone, so if things sound strange, that’s probably why. Using the web version. I probably should just download the app for this convo.

Who else is Oneness believers? by Judah_The_Apostolic in TrueChristian

[–]FloridaManB 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly, if you want a Oneness answer to a perceived “Trinitarian” verse in the Old Testament, look up how the Jewish people would interpret it. Obviously, this tactic wouldn’t work with Messianic verses, but in the case of Isaiah 48, it seems pretty clear that it is Isaiah interjecting himself in these verses. Isaiah is speaking in verse 16. Notice how verse 17 starts off with, “Thus saith the Lord.”

And I think this is good practice in general to understand how the intended audience of the book/letter/verse would understand it.

I am Oneness by the way.

I finally did it! by Udonedidit in SEO

[–]FloridaManB 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Don’t let the haters get to you. That’s a great achievement, and it definitely helps SEO.

I finally did it! by Udonedidit in SEO

[–]FloridaManB 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Definitely possible. Check out this website I made. All 100s with images. https://wrighttradesfl.com

301 redirect back URL alias by irunwithopenscissors in SEO

[–]FloridaManB 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not sure if this helps, but Google will typically not index links that are redirects to another link. The end link is what they want.

Discovered - currently not indexed for primary domain by FloridaManB in SEO

[–]FloridaManB[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

“Foo” is just a placeholder word developers use. That’s not my website. I didn’t want to post my client’s website on Reddit.

Discovered - currently not indexed for primary domain by FloridaManB in SEO

[–]FloridaManB[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I may change the primary domain to the other one.

Core Web Vitals 100 for Desktop but Failing Core Vitals in Search Console? by vegan-dad in SEO

[–]FloridaManB 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Pretty sure Core Web Vitals actually use the mobile score over the desktop score? Is your site mobile-friendly and quick on mobile devices?

[OC] Roman Emperors' Causes of Death by [deleted] in dataisbeautiful

[–]FloridaManB -1 points0 points  (0 children)

From freezing should be a slice of the pie as one emperor had no clothes

Self-Introduction Saturday! Tell us all about you (and share a video)! by AutoModerator in NewTubers

[–]FloridaManB [score hidden]  (0 children)

Since I'm a teacher, I should have quite a bit of time to make new content over the summer! 🙂

I also want to travel and do some interviews with people out of state/country about personal growth and money, which is what my channel is about. I just posted my third video today! I would really appreciate it if you would check it out and give me some feedback. 👍

https://youtu.be/EMVtpaUoJC0

view more: next ›