Hebrews

The contextual facts show us very clearly that Hebrews 1:10 is referring to the Father.
And, "You Lord in the beginning laid the foundations of the earth...
But to which of the angels has HE ever said, "Sit at my right hand...."
That "He" necessarily refers to the Lord of verse 10.
Also not mentioned in this video - Heb 1:10ff quotes Psalm 102. Notice that Psalm 102 it is NOT GOD SAYING THESE WORDS but a person saying these words TO God. However, the Trinitarian interpretation of Hebrews 1:10 claims it IS GOD SAYING THESE WORDS in total contradiction. It is ridiculous to put these words in the mouth of the Father when the Bible shows us clearly at Psalm 102 that it is not God saying these words.
In this video, for the sake of argument, it is presumed that Hebrews 1:8 implies that God says this to the Son as Trinitarians read it. I have presented it this way so that this particular issue did not cloud the point I was attempting to make and so that you can see that even if you do read verse 8 this way, Trinitarians still have an insurmountable problem. However, I do not believe it is likely that this is a correct interpretation of Hebrews 1:8. It seems to me more likely that verse 7 should be interpreted as "it says", a reference to what Scripture says (the word in question is often translated this way). That would mean the same thing would be implied at verse 8, "But of the Son, IT (Scripture) says...."
The Trinity Delusion
The Trinity Delusion website
www.angelfire.c...
www.angelfire.c...

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

Go and read Psalm 102 which is being quoted at Hebrews 1:10ff. The Psalmist is the speaker not God.

[@13above9]

Thank you Sir for your fantastic work. Are you available to converse on another format? Email? Twitter?

[@DjMakinetor]

(Heb 1:10) And: “At the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands. (Ac 4:24) On hearing this, they raised their voices with one accord to God and said: “Sovereign Lord [greek: Δέσποτα Despota], you are the One who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all the things in them,

[@AaronOfJerusalemAndAthens]

Go and read Psalm 22:22 which is being quoted in Hebrews 2:12. David is the speaker in Psalm 22:22 but Jesus is the speaker in Hebrews 2:12. This shows that God is still the speaker in Hebrews 1:10-12 even if he is not the speaker in Psalm 102:25-27.

[@niltonsilva3027]

Yes, God, the Father said to jesus. It's, in fact, a continuation of verse 8 . You dont know greek, that's why you failed to interpret. There is a kai there you cant just throw it away .

[@shanewalsh7388]

If Jesus is the Creator mentioned in verse 10, he would inherently have authority over all creation. He would not need to be seated at the right hand of anyone as he would be the highest authority within himself. No one would have to exalt Jesus to this place of honour and GIVE authority over heaven and earth to him.

[@millball]

Unless he humbled himself as a servant - which he did. You're being deceived and unless you repent you will perish in eternal hell fire.

[@CanadianLoveKnot]

@@millball You can't repent of truth.

[@andriod090]

@@CanadianLoveKnot it’s not the truth. Which angel was exalted in the OT, which is what the NT is quoting? The Malak YHWH, the angels who is instilled with His name; also liken to the Angel of His presence, as “The Name” is what’s referenced to be inside the ark of the covenant.

[@normanmcdermid4257]

Absolutely and perfectly correct. Wow!!!!! 😮

[@shanewalsh7388]

may God give you a gold medal for playing a role in demystifying this whole chapter, Hebrews 1. May your efforts be blessed.

[@19mgsim82]

How about this for a plain and easy to understand scripture Rev 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the first-born out of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth; to him who did love us, and did bathe us from our sins in his blood, Rev 1:6 and did make us kings and priests TO HIS GOD and FATHER, to him is the glory and the power to the ages of the ages! Amen Yes Trinitarians Jesus has a GOD and a FATHER

[@shanewalsh7388]

the Creator of the heavens and the earth, ie the Father, has the authority and right to give Jesus the exaltation to His right hand and thereby give to Jesus lordship authority. Why? because the Father is the ultimate authority, being the Creator of the heavens and the earth. (verse 10). Thank you Kel for bringing this clarity.

[@allivesevilla22]

@@sepalaverdad6924 Colossians 1:16-20 (KJV) 16 For by him ( JESUS ) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. John 1:3, “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

[@Eclectifying]

@@allivesevilla22 you forgot to read verse 15 first. It is clear who Jesus is. He is the *image* of the invisible God. You can’t be the image of the invisible God and *be* that God at the same time. So let’s keep the rest of that chapter in context. Paul was talking about thrones, rulers, and authorities. And God gave Jesus the authority that he has. As the Son of God, he inherited this authority. And in the end he will hand it all back over to the Father and God (the Father) will be all in all, as stated in 1 Corinthians 15.

[@allivesevilla22]

@@Eclectifying the body of Christ is the templo Of GOD...john 2:19-21....JOHN 8:29......JOHN 14:10-11 ..... GOD WAS IN CHRIST 2 Corinthians 5:19 King James Version 19 To wit, that 👉God was in Christ,👈 👉 reconciling👈 👉 the world unto himself, 👈not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. the creator of the world John 1:10-11 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. there's only ONE CREATOR Isaiah 44:24 King James Version 24 Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens👉 alone;👈 that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

[@jb_1971]

This hand-hand connection blew my mind. It's so obvious. I feel for stupid for not noticing it. Incredible. Thank you, brother!

[@PreachTheWord1]

Thank you for clearing this passage up. Your interpretation makes sense especially in the Greek

[@lizzard13666]

Can't stop watching your videos! I've seen a few of yours that deal with Hebrews, you have a great way of explaining it!

[@anissueofursincerity]

Trinis are highly convoluted. In recent years they've deemed it fashionable to claim rabbinic writings as their own. Bizarre. Robert above tries to do that. Trinis argue the OT and rabbinic thought supported Messiah being himself God while simultanously arguing the Jews, rabbis, etc. rejected Jesus for claiming to be God.

[@nickvoutsas5144]

Do you acknowledge Jesus Christ in your faith like you acknowledge Moses or king David? I doubt it. It’s far more beneficial to just wipe out this text from your rabbinic teachings as you don’t acknowledge Jesus Christ The Savior in any way.

[@talipgunes954]

Yahowa bless you mate for speaking the truth

[@TheChadWork2001]

They're no end to Trinitarian madness. They infer and infer and twist and mangle, and then propagandize their deceptions, deceiving others. I would not want to be them when they have to explain to God why they taught their entire lives all these lies about him.

[@fLUKEYdNb]

When you see and understand it this way it really elevates what an amazing accomplishment the man Jesus performed for us all. So much so, that God rewarded Jesus’ humility and perfect obedience in the highest way possible. Its is indescribably wonderful, beautiful, inspiring and loving to humanity. How awesome is our God in his ways and how great our Lord Jesus!

[@TheCaledonianBoy]

Good solid reasoning throughout. Particularly liked how all this becomes clearer when compared to Heb 2:5-8.

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

Also be aware that the verb legei at Heb 1:6 and 1:7 is mistranslated. Check these two Psalms which are quoted here to see WHO is speaking (you will see that it is not God yet translators have God speaking these words at Heb 1:6-7). The verb legei should be translated here as "IT says." Compare several translations of Romans 15:10; Ephesians 4:8 and Ephesians 5:14 to see how translators can't make up their mind whether to translate legei as "He says" or "It says."

[@Jesavae]

Amen, context is very significant. Let the scriptures interpret scriptures perfectly.

[@sketchbook1]

The plain reading of the text, which declared the deity of Christ, you call “ridiculous.” You read the very text that refutes you in its plain meaning!

[@richardtarr8145]

The antecedent argument is a really good point.

[@anissueofursincerity]

Also in Revelation (this makes the trinis turn purple and have a stroke), Jesus invites humans to sit on his throne with him as he sits with his father on his throne. The Holy Spirit never sits on the throne.

[@greglogan7706]

Nice - and critical point...:-) (somewhere in Rev 2 or 3)

[@lynnebalzer5520]

The King James Version is even worse. I'm struggling through it.

[@greglogan7706]

Try the Greek...🙂🙂

[@anissueofursincerity]

I have heard of the qualatative argument being used for THEOS when it occurs alone but never when it has the article .

[@anissueofursincerity]

---> Turning to the Hebrew of Psalm 45, it reads "your-throne elohim" ( כִּסְאֲךָ אֱלֹהִים) is properly translated " Your throne of God", meaning that your throne is of God, because hebrew doesn't have "of" so the same thought is expressed in this way. So it means that the king's throne is of God. David's throne was of God, Solomon's throne is of God, The Messiah's throne is of God.

[@ZpeaceION]

Great video, Adamic Christolgy at its finest indeed, just like Phil 2.5-11 -- Heb 2.5-11 For both He who sanctifies and those who are *sanctified are all from one Father; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren. Every one will confess that Jesus has been MADE master, and all authority in heaven has been given to him, because God, His God, has anointed him for the task, to the Glory of God the Father.

[@anissueofursincerity]

"Your throne, O God" impresses that the So is being called "God", as though it was "Your throne, Oh God". The text does in fact not say "oh God", or "O God", it says "O THEOS" which means "THE GOD". "O" does NOT mean "oh". "O" means "the". The Greek instructors said they cannot explain what would justify rendering the Gr article "O" as "O": in English when it does not mean that. They said the only reason would be theological, for whoever was translating it. not linguistic. I--->(2)

[@williambrewer]

You made a mistake around 9:40. The antecedent has been the same starting back in verse 5. It's talking about God saying through the psalmist. Heb 1:5 NHEB For to which of the angels did he say at any time, “You are my Son. Today I have become your Father”? And again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son.”?

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/apKnnYFopbCpabs

[@anissueofursincerity]

1 "your-throne god" is how you say "your throne of god". You don't have "of" in Hebrew. When you see a "of" phrase in your Bible, it is the 2 words paired in this way. GOD describes the throne, the throne is called GOD, either meaning God of Israel or mighty throne ("god" being another way of saying someone/something is mighty).. ----->2

[@aspreedacore]

wow your anti trinitarian teaching is so clear it even debunked JW teaching that hebrews 1:10 referred to Jesus and they are NOT trinitarians!!!

[@BBFaith-Channel]

Yes one thing I like about bro Kel's teachings is that they are very clear and detailed. In my opinion, he has been the best so far at debunking Trinitarianism .

[@greglogan7706]

I find Kel's connection with the following text interesting - however, I don't think he knows Greek well enough to make draw the kind of conclusions that he is drawing. Based on my bit of knowledge of Greek it is certainly most likely to include vss10 to 12 with vss8 and 9 all beginning at 7:13 (cf μεν (v7) and δε (v8)) as simply its own distinct text. which then will lead us into 2.1 and following Also, please note - God isn't the narrator from verse 7ff and thus this extended text should not be read as such whereas He was the subject in vss5, 6.

[@Bowen12676]

Kel: Not all manuscripts contain "you appointed him over the works of your hands" in Hebrews 2. So, I'm not sure how this can be used as evidence that Jesus is not the referent in Hebrews 1:10.

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

The variant isn't necessary. It makes no difference.

[@Bowen12676]

@@TheTrinityDelusion I thought your entire point was that the writer attributes "the works of your hands" to the Father in the surrounding context.

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

@@Bowen12676 You don't need the variant at Hebrews 2:5-8 to know that do you?

[@19mgsim82]

Nicely broken down, Jesus never claimed to be God but Gods Son, thats why the Jews had him killed because he was saying im Gods Son not God himself. I honestly do know how a Trinitarian can read the bible and come to a understanding of scripture, It impossible to understand a book when you have got the character muddled up isnt it.

[@dierksbii]

This is highly excellent.

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

You should watch the following video. It proves the Trinitarian claim concerning Hebrews 1:10 is entirely based on a farce. kzbin.info/www/bejne/r6XKiJyBZa2JqNE

[@nebneba6221]

hi, this is qouted from Psalm 102.

[@jb_1971]

As for the LXX argument, it turns out that the dead see Scrolls read "I said" in v. 24. So I guess that should settle the issue

[@normanmcdermid4257]

I cannot understand why the trinitarians won't accept this.

[@brianguglielmin2873]

Yes, He Christ is the Word and so is the Creator. Hebrews and Colossians also. If you just make Him a creation of God and not God incarnate, then you make Jesus into a creation and His Holy Spirit into an impersonal force.

[@dunklaw]

This angelology in Hebrews 1:3-4 always makes me chuckle. Having become superior to the messengers (which can include Abraham, Moses etc.) he has been given a more excellent character than them (his character being the Torah - Logos).

[@paulbrennan4163]

God having a God ISN'T ridiculous. It is totally necessary - for our sakes. Jesus HAD to have a God. How otherwise could he be High Priest of the New Covanant "in service to God" (Hebrews 2:17)? Jesus did not transition from a state of equality with God to take on human form solely for the purpose of dying for our sins. We needed a mediator too. That mediator was, AND STILL IS Jesus!

[@FocusontheKingdom]

Bro Kel so how do you read Heb 1:8? You don't tell us.

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

ho thronos refers to Kingly authority (see Luke 1:32) since that is what a King's throne symbolizes. The anointing in the next verse (1:9) refers to the same concept (Heb parallelism). ho thronos is not a reference to "sou"; rather, it is a refrence to "ho thronos sou." Put another way, ho thronos is not referring to the son himself (sou), but to the son's authority (ho thronos sou). He sat down on his Father's throne (Rev 3:21). The point of such language is to indicate his level of authority. See 1 Chron 29:23 David/Solomon sat down on the "throne of Yahweh" meaning David/Solomon executed God's authority over Israel just as Joseph executed Pharaoh's authority over Egypt - his throne was Pharaoh's throne. So you could have said to David/Solomon, "the throne of you ho theos..." and that is precisely what Psalm 45:6-7 does. In the same way, You could have said to Josph, "the throne of you ho Pharaoh...." And you would be simply referring to the fact that Joseph's level of authority is that of Pharaoh's (see Gen 41:40ff) Effectively, 1:8 means ho thronos sou ho theos SOU" since his authority is vested in his God (see Gen 41:40).

[@FocusontheKingdom]

Thanks, so is Jesus ever called "god" in the Bible? @@TheTrinityDelusion

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

@@FocusontheKingdom Depends what you mean by "called." He is called "God with us" at Matt 1:23 but the intent is not to identify him as the God of Israel anymore than to identify Moses' altar as God (Ex 17:15). So, in that respect, NO. For ex., Matt 1:23 and Is 9:6 are not identifying him as "God." The intent is to express that he is a manifestation of their God at work... as was Hezekiah. The idea is that God's representative is a representation of God in some respect - usually God at work in/through a human - a man is how God is getting his work accomplished. ho theos at Heb 1:8 isn't referring to him at all - it refers to his level of authority - the right to execute the authority of his God - this is what a Davidic King does. Similar thought in v.9. I am saying he was not incidentally called theos. I am not saying he couldn't have been called theos in some respect (cf. Ps 82:6). He just never was. It is clear the risen Jesus is superior to any other human that Scripture calls theos which implyes he could be called theos too - in the same kind of sense. You can also say the risen Jesus is fully divine but you can never identify him as the God of Israel - that would be someone else - his God... as you know.

[@FocusontheKingdom]

Thanks and here's my response to this video with the view to further unity in the Christian unitarian faith we share: kzbin.info/www/bejne/j3TVqnivdpqhpKs @@TheTrinityDelusion

[@eddie7126]

Two Jehovah Witnesses visited my home, I spent two hours trying to explain to them the deity of Christ to no avail, I then asked them who is the savior of the world? One of them responded " it might be Jesus" I then responded "He either is or isn't the savior of the world." It's very sad to see them being deceived by the organization. When I was eight years old I remember picking up the bible for the first time and opening it to the book of John chapter 1 and as I read the first chapter I understood right there and then who Jesus Christ is. I had no one trying to explain this chapter to me, I wasn't confused, I kept thinking to myself and saying "wow" Jesus is my creator, I had a full understanding of the bible verse that reads "God was manifested in the flesh!" and that All things were created by Christ! Jw's say that jesus was a god but he can't be one because if he was a god then they're saying he was a false god because there's only one true God!

[@Sirach144]

Nah. Many are called gods in the bible. Jesus said "you are gods". Was Jesus calling us false God's? Also, "God was manifest in the flesh" only appears in those translations that come from the same manuscripts of the KJV. It doesn't say "God was manifest in the flesh" it says "HE was manifest in the flesh." It was added to support the trinity.

[@anissueofursincerity]

Yes i get it. But how did Peter and the guys know what Elijah and Moses looked like? I never figured that out.

[@MrExspectator]

Thanks for the great video!

[@anissueofursincerity]

That sounds interesting. I have come to think that the "angel" in John's vision in Revelation, the one who tells him not to bow down because he is a servant like John, is himself actually a man, not a "angel", perhaps one of the risen saints, or just a man manifested in the vision.

[@greglogan7706]

Men are worshiped all the time in scripture - just start with Rev3:9

[@dunklaw]

It depends the sentence structure of the quoted Hebrew If it elohym in a plural structure then we are talking about El's - judges & not the elohym of the singular - YHWH. Like Moses - he had carried the authority of YHWH making him an EL but action of an intermediary also made him a Malak.

[@brendakauffman2222]

There are some problems with how the speaker is looking at this text. First of all, the speaker is approaching this text with a eisegesis ( approaching the text with a belief and looking for the verse to support what he believes) rather then exegesis, which is allowing the text to speak for itself, building line upon line and precept upon precept. Heb. 1:8-12 is one sentence in the Greek. It isn't multiple sentences like it is in English, it is one whole sentence from 8-12. The reason in English they keep adding He said or saith.....is because this one whole sentence where the Father indeed is speaking of the Son. Since in English they have made multiple sentences they are letting us know this is the Father speaking and the whole section vs. 8-12 is about the son.....go look in a study help with the Greek and the translation with it to see it. God is higher then the the angels. Jesus when he became incarnate ( human) he became lower then the angels, so he was raised back up to his place as God where he is higher then the angels. The only way you can get this rendering is to approach the text with (eisegesis) a belief of modalism/Sabellianism/monarchism and superimpose the meaning on the text that isn't there. Again this is only one sentence in the great which solves all the delima's he has put forth. Want to delve into this deeper....here is a great video where someone is actually doing exegesis of the text rather then eisegesis. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qKK8gqGBjtV-e9k It is also important to know that the early church fathers said that modalism/sabellianism/monarchism was a heresy. Ecc. tells us why heresies and other things cycle around again and again..... Ecc 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Most don't know this modalistic idea was considered heresy in the first century AD and we are just recycling again as Ecc. 1:9 tells us will occur. If you don't know this the modalistic theory sounds intriguing. Sadly it does require eisegesis to arrive at. We have early church fathers writing in the first century AD in support of the idea of the Trinity. This is long before the RCC church came into existance. To suppose there was some sort of conspiracy to hide the true nature of God by superimposing the trinity on the text isn't supported by the early church fathers. www.velocity.net/~edju70/web/Trinity1.htm

[@AaronOfJerusalemAndAthens]

Trinitarians, Binitarians, Arians, Mormons and even some Unitarians agree that Hebrews 1:10-12 is about Jesus. Only some Unitarians pretend that Hebrews 1:10-12 is about the Father and not Jesus.

[@dashaunjefferies1168]

Trinitarian defense: (1) To the point of Heb 2:7: Heb 1:2 says the one through whom the world was made was made heir. His being given the world (while in flesh, which is actually representative of mankind) doesn’t discredit his creating it before coming into the flesh. The “Lord” of 1:10 is easily the Son as it is the Father. The Father created through the Son. The Son is Creator who stepped into creation and became the firstfruits thereof. (2) To the point that v13 needs the antecedent to be the “You, Lord” of 1:10 (bc the ‘he’ is random): the entire context of the chapter is God (the Father) speaking. He is the only one doing the “saying” via various ways -“ God spoke to our fathers by the prophets” -“ For to which of the angels did God ever say“ -“ When he brings the first born into the world he [God] says“ -“ Of the angels he [God] says“ Therefore the ‘he’ of v13 in no way necessitates ‘You, Lord’ but rather ‘God’-he’s the one speaking. Notice that the ‘he’ in vv6-7 don’t “need” antecedents....bc we all know it’s God speaking More to the same point, to assert Jesus is the Lord in v10 doesn’t necessitate it being the ‘he’ of v13. That’s you putting your exegetical assumptions into the trinitarian interpretation. No trinitarians concludes Jesus is saying to himself “sit at my right hand”. It’s the Father in both views. “The work of your hands” is true of Father and Son as the Father created thru the Son. (3) Yes, he “became” superior to the angels. I personally don’t think this “becoming” is “going from A to B for the first time” but rather “proving/revealing to us for the first time that he is superior”. While in the flesh, on earth he had authority in heaven and on earth and had angels waiting at his command. This is why the angels worship him when he’s brought into the world. But let’s pretend it was a real becoming, a real changing of rank and not a restoration to former glory. Those who don’t hold to the son’s existence pre-incarnate, will say his becoming is for the first time; it’s novel for us and for Jesus. The text, however, says he was MADE lower than the angels. This ‘made lower’ isn’t “created lower” but rather “he was lowered below angels/he was condescended below angels/lessened in ranks/worsened/decreased below the angels”. This can only happen with parties that already exist. This even falls in line with the original Hebrew translation as well: root meaning decrease, lack. This also coincides with Phil 2:7 (he emptied himself by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men”) which has “emptied himself” as a reflexive verb, meaning he did this to himself. If you don’t exist, you cannot perform reflexive verbs; at best you can be acted upon as a direct or indirect object (ie created, brought forth) but never the actor. (This is partly why some interpret Phil 2:7’s ‘emptied himaelf’ to mean something other than becoming incarnate, born in the likeness of men). So this “becoming superior” is the son being restored to where he was before the world began; it’s just with flesh this time. Man’s flesh has been made superior by God, which is why we’ll follow suit. (4) To the point of context switching: Ill allude back the point of God being the speaker thru scripture/prophets. It is not that the psalmist/speaker is in opposition to God speaking. So, even when the psalmist/prophet talks of God or to God, God can very well be the speaker; they’re not mutually exclusive things. In fact, EVERY time scripture is quoted here, God is the speaker-regardless of the medium ( Heb 1:1-2).....unless you wanna arbitrarily say “this is the psalmist speaking and that is God speaking”. The ACTUAL model is: GOD SAYS OF THE ANGELS/THE SON [insert scripture] and/or [Insert scripture]. God is the one defining things here, even if you wanna say “he=it (meaning scripture, not God)”. So with this model, you have the general context: God comparing the Son to the angels by way of quoted scripture -1:5 Did God say this👇🏼of angels: -[Insert scripture]? -and again [Insert scripture]? First thought could end here or after 6. -1:6 and again he tells the angels to👇🏼 -[Insert scripture]. -1:7 of the angels he says👇🏼 -[Insert scripture] -1:8 but of the son👇🏼 -[Insert scripture] -and [Insert scripture]. Second thought completed. -1:13 and to which of the angels did he say👇🏼 -[Insert scripture]? -are they not [drawn conclusion]? V13 only “needs” to be joined to another set of quotes for the sole purpose of repurposing how v10’s ‘You, Lord’ is interpreted. This is actually the more awkward reading when you try to “pair it” differently than it naturally reads; not the other way round. I hope what I’ve said makes sense. May the Father, the God of all, bless you by the mercies of his Son, the God through whom all things were made, by the power and understanding of his Holy Spirit, which is in God and of God. Wow that felt litergical haha if you have objections or questions: lemme know what Ive said that’s wrong, why it’s wrong (preferably by how I’ve interpreted the text-but it can be how you interpret it as well), and how it should be corrected

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

Sorry but God was not the speaker in any of the OT passages quoted between verse 6 and 13. You might want to actually read them and see how this is impossible.

[@dashaunjefferies1168]

@@TheTrinityDelusion The writer of Hebrews is communicating the sentiment of the quotes, not what person they're spoken in. If God must be the first person speaker of all quotes, then God didnt speak thru people as much as you'd think, including Jesus. I'd ask, "who, then, is the speaker?" To which you'd reply "the psalmist, the speaker, the prophet, not God. Bc God cant speak of or to himself in the third person." I'd then ask when a prophet spoke or wrote down in scripture, was God not speaking thru them? Consider the theme in Heb 1:1-2 "at many times, in various ways", "by the prophets", and "by his son". To which you reply...

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

@@dashaunjefferies1168 Did God the Father say this? 24 I say, “O my God, do not take me away in the midst of my days, Your years are throughout all generations. 25 “Of old You founded the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. 26 “Even they will perish, but You endure; And all of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing You will change them and they will be changed. 27 “But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end. No God the Father did not say that. And there is nothing in the context or grammar of Hebrews 1:6-12 to suppose God said any of the passages quoted therein.

[@dashaunjefferies1168]

Just to have it out there, you are saying that God didn’t say the things quoted from 6-12 thru the prophets but rather the prophets are speaking independently of him, since they refer to him in the third person. “At many times and in many ways God spoke to our fathers“ it’s that simple. You just don’t believe the “in many ways” part nor all of the “through the prophets” part, nor an overwhelming majority of Jesus’ own words. Consider v6, it says “and AGAIN...he says” it’s literally attributing these words to God, reiterating the point of 1:1-2. By your standards the ‘he’ is the psalmist speaking twice (‘again’) when psalmist is only quoted once. Whereas I know that the writer is saying God is speaking again thru the prophets to the father and to us...again. Who is the ‘again’ referring to?

[@dashaunjefferies1168]

Who is the ‘he’ who brings the firstborn into the world? Who is the ‘he’ who ‘again says’? Surely this requires an antecedent 😏

[@anissueofursincerity]

Yea, I said that. What's more, the Greek version of 1 Chron. uses "proskuneo" saying both Yhwe and David were worshiped together. So it just gets worse for the trinitarian case.

[@evegershom5041]

Thank you!

[@TAZEGRAVE]

What bible are you using?

[@ZpeaceION]

Very true, much like Moses and Elijah in the vision with Jesus where he is transfigured before them Matt 17:9. The Scriptures testify that all of the saints will sleep in the dust of the earth until the resurrection of the dead at the end of the age, but this does not at all mean that a vision could not manifest all of the future prophetic perfect qualities that will one day be reality but still be a mere projection of a future reality. I hope that made sense, I know what i was trying to say :)

[@ZpeaceION]

The crazy thing is that NO competent trini scholar would ever say Jesus alone is O Theos to the exclusion of the Father. This is the exact reason Dan Wallace says that John 1c, the word was theos, is qualitative to not exclude the Father. In trini thought, or at least their polemic, if John 1c said, The word was The God, we would all be modalists. In John 1b, and the word was with The God -- pros ton theon.

[@CatholicLogic7]

Hes not called God in Isaiah9:6..... That's mistranslated to Unitarians. Hebrews 1:8-10 is OBVIOUSLY mistranslated. Because Jesus CANT be God. Revelation 1 DOES NOT MEAN. Jesus is God. Because well... It just cant. Col1:15-17 isn't talking about Jesus creating anything. But is future. Because he cant. Be God. Like what the heck man. How many excuses will there be... How many...

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

If you insist upon believing lies, nobody is stopping you.

[@allivesevilla22]

Colossians 1:16-20 (KJV) 16 For by him ( JESUS ) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. John 1:3, “All things were made by him; (JESUS ) and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

Colossians 1:16 is referring to the new creation in the risen Christ.

[@williambrewer]

@@TheTrinityDelusion interesting. Never considered it that way.

[@anissueofursincerity]

2 Ps 45 is clearly speaking of the mortal human king who sits on GOD's throne. He fancies princesses and he is getting married. Ps 102 is about the restoration of jerusalem. I think the Messiah is the agent through whom GOD here refered brings this about.

[@greglogan7706]

Ps 45 is a human king - being CALLED THEOS.... Point - men are called "theos" - Jesus Himself supports this entitling (Jn10:30fff) - and the scriptures cannot be broken.

[@golddiamond7440]

Very Good video!! Thank you.

[@LatterRainPower]

It is a good BLASPHEMOUS video.. I agree..

[@genghis1731]

Why other unitarians doesn't agree each other about john 1 10 ?

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

I don't typically apply labels to myself or identify myself with any group except Spirit filled children of God.

[@genghis1731]

@@TheTrinityDelusion are you a socinian unitarian ?

[@genghis1731]

@@TheTrinityDelusion because it sounds that your a socinian

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

@@genghis1731 NO, I know hardly a thing about socinian teachings and I don't care to know. I don't ascribe to any theological packages, only Scripture. Our wisdom from God is not a theological system but a person - Christ Himself. John 1:10 is referring to the Father. The Father was revealed in that flesh named Jesus. The Father was in the world and the world did not know Him. See 1 John 3:1.

[@genghis1731]

@@TheTrinityDelusion ok Btw, do you believe that jesus was already existed before the foundation of the world ?

[@ZpeaceION]

I would tend to agree with your translation, but it has always puzzled me how in the book of Hebrews, the MOST anonymous book in NT, he or she translates both mal 'ak and 'elohiym as angel. Most people say, well he or she was using the LXX -- where it uses aggelos. But, then the second most puzzling thing arises, why would the author of the letter to the HEBREWS be using the Greek LXX to quote his or her Scripture. I am sure you would tend to agree that the angelology is from Persian influence?

[@nattybumppo4151]

Read Enoch. Found at Qumran, a very Hebrew understanding.

[@anissueofursincerity]

(2) I can't imagine what you are alleging about rabbinic interpretation of Psalm 45. The accepted rendering of Ps 45 is "your-throne of God" or "your-throne from God". That's in all jewish (and hence rabbinically approved) Bibles. The king being addressed sits on God's throne as Israelite kings do. David is author of the psalm which is meant to be sung in honor of the king who sits on the throne.

[@ZpeaceION]

YES! The Messiah's throne is of God = The Anointed Ones authority is from YHVH. Great observation and point I might add. Matt 28:18 -- Rev 1:1 A revelation of Jesus Christ, that God gave to him, to shew to his servants what things it behoveth to come to pass quickly; and he did signify it, having sent through his messenger to his servant John. This is from Young's Literal Translation.

[@bogumiwisniewski9060]

Commenting on Hebrews 1.10-12 for the new creation is forced and not from the context. Much more coherent interpretation of this passage is as ἀποστροφή to the Father. Just as in Psalm 109.21 [108.21 LXX].

[@dunklaw]

The angelology is definitely Persian - my favourite hang over from this is Michael who Daniel clearly calls a might prince - compare (Esther 3:12) - the Persian structure of ruler-ship - satraps, governors & PRINCES. Most people do not realise that if a nation was not perceived as a threat & paid it's taxes then the princes mentioned would not be Persian but rather a rulers of that particular nation from that nation - a Jewish king in effect. Combine that with the many Michaels in chronicles.

[@Sirach144]

Are you saying Michael is not an angel? Because in Daniel 12 it says when he stands up then there is a resurrection. No human can do this.

[@afeworkagnchew-ry1xi]

Heb 1 5 He says and heb 1 13 He say are the same and heb 1 10 you Lord and your enemies are the same and Jesus are Creator Almighty John 1 1 The Word was God but not became God but According to the flesh written became so Lord Immutable heb 13 8 John 8 58 Eternal Amen

[@anissueofursincerity]

Of course I don't see 12 vss as necessarily trinitarian, unless one already have the trinity in mind as one reads it. You said trinis read the text in it's historical context of being written by Jews to Jews. That is why I asked you if those Jews were trinis. I can't trace trinitarianism back the church's jewish period.

[@TAZEGRAVE]

What happen to but your throne o God is forever?

[@choicegospelnetwork]

DELUSION IS REAL !!!!!! JOHN 3:16 AND GENESIS CHAPTER 1 IS NO LONGER TRUE ????

[@anissueofursincerity]

"Your throne O God" is a bastardization. "O God" is a rendering of "O THEOS" which is literally "THE GOD". In every other occurrence of "O THEOS" (at least that I have been able to find--Correct me if you can find otherwise), it is rendered "God". Most English translations selectively render Heb. 1:10 "O God". This creates a false impression that God is calling the son God. I am not a Greek scholar however I have talked with a couple Greek instructors and they can't explain ---->

[@bogumiwisniewski9060]

Such interpretations of this site can be found in A Sequel to the Apology. Theophil Lindsey pag. 488-494 or Eniedino Georgio (Superintendent Ecclesiarum in Transyluania) Explicationes Locorum Veteris Et Novi Testamenti, Ex Quibus Trinitatis Dogma Stabilari Solet ed. 1598 pages 389-394. Thomas Aquinas for the possibility of relating these words to the Father “And Thou, Lord …” like Sebastian Castellio

[@TAZEGRAVE]

By bible says " But unto the Son he saith, thy throne , O God.....

[@duke-swtmate4154]

Jesus is both man and God, wherefore he, having taken on flesh, prayed to the Father. And the Father is God.

[@nb3500]

@Duke - SWT Mate Then why does Jesus lack the necessary criteria to be the God such as omniscience (Mark 13:39)(Luke 2:52), omnipotence (Matthew 28:18 - "all authority has been *given* to me"), oh...and not having a God above him (Mic 5:4, Jn 20:17, Eph 1:17, etc.).

[@CatholicLogic7]

So Jesus... Seems to be called God in vs 8. In vs 10 it says you Lord in the beginning laid the foundation. But none of this means what it says? Theres always excuse after excuse.

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

No, it doesn't mean what you have been brainwashed to believe. The Trinitarian interpretation of Hebrews 1:10-12 is absurd. God isn't even the speaker of this Psalm. Go read it. The Psalmist is the speaker.

[@CatholicLogic7]

The Trinity Delusion okay. But if the Father in context friend is speaking to Christ. Then it means God is speaking to Christ.

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

The context doesn't indicate the Father is talking to Christ. Translators added "he says" to verse 8. It is not in the Greek text. And again, the Psalm quoted is not God speaking. Go read the Psalm and see.

[@ZpeaceION]

Definite, THE, or quantitative, or In-definite, a, or qualitative. Quality is the character or attribute of the subject at hand, as in godliness. John 1c is best understood as the 'word' is YHVH's plan or spoken promise. Jesus qualitatively expresses who God is by his by representing His exact image or his character. Kel, or Trinity delusion does a video about this being an ongoing debate among trini scholars -- quality vs quantity of John 1c. Do you see what I am saying? Shalom

[@matthewmctamney5267]

John 1 says, "All things were made by him (referring back to the ' Word'), and without him was nothing made that was made." You're saying, in Hebrews, that the Father (no word for "father" in the text) actually laid the foundations of the earth, but that Jesus did the creating from there after? Or did Jesus NOT make anything? Was Jesus NOT there in the beginning, but only after the earth was created? When, then, did the Word come into being, and what then was actually made by him? Or is "the Word" referred to in John 1, NOT actually Jesus? I was always under the impression that Jesus was "the Word" in John 1, that he was there in the beginning, that all things were made by him, and that the writer of Hebrews was acknowledging these things by quoting Psalm 102 as having been fulfilled in Christ. Sorry- your explanation just caused a contradiction in my mind with John 1.

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

Your contradictions are with your own contradictions.

[@matthewmctamney5267]

@TheTrinityDelusion Thank you for the reply. I don't understand. Are you saying that I'm misunderstanding your explanation of Hebrews or misunderstanding the text of John 1? Is "the Word" in John 1 referring to the Father, or to Jesus? If Hebrews is referring to the Father and "the Word" in John 1 is also referring to the Father, then there is no contradiction. Is that what you mean?

[@greglogan7706]

@@matthewmctamney5267 I appreciate your questions - and I understand what you have been taught re Jn1.1ff I am wondering if you know any Koine Greek? That will help. 1. There is NO "He"/"he" in v1 - 3 2. The reference is to the logos - which is NEVER a person 3. Ps33.6 - and, of course, Gen1 - provide us the Hebraic conception of the logos 4. Logos was a HUGE concept in Platonic thought - endemic in the culture - and, I suspect, was being responded to via at least some early community in the context with their adherence to the man Christ Jesus (1Tim2.5). I hope this helps a bit.

[@matthewmctamney5267]

@greglogan7706 Yes, I read, write, and speak Koine Greek. "'Outos' was in the beginning..." can be translated as "he was in the beginning" or "this one was in the beginning", but that's beside the point. Is the "logos" in John 1 referring to Jesus? It seems like you're saying it does not by your comment. I don't even remember the video now- it's been a while since that comment.

[@greglogan7706]

@@matthewmctamney5267 OK - I just had to know that we were on the same page - because we English native speakers do not speak a very case/gendered language - and the standard translation is essentially an interpretation, most people will have a hard time grasping this. In answer to your question - NO - the logos is the logos - and exactly what the logos has always been from Gen 1 and through the Prophets. Jesus is the logos become flesh - both a masterful and poetic portrayal of this reality. Ideally we all become the logos made flesh...though after my 45 years in Christ.... well....😖😖 A more "academic" somewhat basic view of the same reality is Acts10.36 36He has sent this message to the people of Israel, proclaiming the gospel of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all.

[@TAZEGRAVE]

Isn't Jesus being called o God?

[@zachariah7114]

@@kingdomseekers1973 also look at psalm 82

[@TheThrone4ever]

So heaven and earth is like a gift

[@jodje1980]

great great video!

[@watchtoweralert1]

well said

[@ZpeaceION]

Yeah, they dont like the anointed human messiah delegating glory, do they.

[@SyedMuhammadMoaz3634]

If Father doesn't describe Son as creator and scripture present him as that. For in your video you said But of the Son it says So bible is clear.

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

But of the son, your throne ho theos. Now go ahead and explain what that means.

[@anissueofursincerity]

Cyrus, as in the Persion, is translated from "O KUROS". It's never rendered "The Cyrus". "O THEOS" is rendered "God" everywhere else EXCEPT in Heb. 1.....and nobdy knows why. LOL

[@ZpeaceION]

Very true

[@watchtoweralert1]

excellent

[@sylyap52]

I recommend for u to watch David Asscherick and Nabeel Qureshi to know the true God, to be saved.

[@brendakauffman2222]

Michael R. Burgos has some good exegesis material on passages the modalists use. Go check out his resources. Maybe the speaker here will agree to do a debate with him regarding his issue.

[@greglogan7706]

I find your connection with the following text interesting - however, I don't think you know Greek well enough to make draw the kind of conclusions that you're drawing. Based on my bit of knowledge of Greek it is certainly most likely to include vss10 to 12 with vss8 and 9 all beginning at 7:13 (cf μεν (v7) and δε (v8)) as simply its own distinct text. which then will lead us into 2.1 and following Also, please note - God isn't the narrator from verse 7ff and thus this extended text should not be read as such whereas He was the subject in vss5, 6.

[@greglogan7706]

Sorry to say but while I appreciate Kel's efforts, I don't think he has this one dialed in all the way.... I do actually see aspects of his reasoning but something feels disjunctive about it...

[@CatholicLogic7]

Unitarians best excuse for every passage. Is.. Its MISTRANSLATED. or it SHOULD BE LOWER CASE G.

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

You seem to be very uninformed.

[@CatholicLogic7]

The Trinity Delusion my brother I just want real answers. Legitimate answers. If EVERY translation of the bible is WRONG when saying Jesus is God. Thats discouraging. Your saying people cannot trust their English translations. How would anybody know to look into the Greek ? No natural christians looks into the greek. I am not a Trinitarian. I dont believe in it. I just need answers

[@CatholicLogic7]

The Trinity Delusion your videos are confusing to the natural Christian. Because most christians do not look into the Greek. Especially them of older time. They didn't know the Greek. They trusted their English translations.

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

"Your saying people cannot trust their English translations." Did you think false prophets would produce trustworthy translations? Of course it is discouraging that false prophets are misleading people. But you were warned.

[@CatholicLogic7]

The Trinity Delusion so which bible do you recommend TRINITY DELUSION BROTHER KEL???! I DONT READ GREEK!

[@niltonsilva3027]

Yes, God, the Father said to jesus. It's in fact a continuation of verse 8 . You dont know greek thats why you failed to interpreted. There is a kai there you cant just throw it away .

[@NauvooExpositor]

Jesus is clearly god

[@anissueofursincerity]

Interesting, written by Jews to Jews. Were these Jews trinitarians?

[@millball]

You preach a different gospel. You are going to be anathema unless you repent.

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

A different Gospel than false prophets? Yes, absolutely.

[@eugeneogle3012]

Hebrews 1:10-12 10-And THOU,LORD, IN THE BEGINNING HAST LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH; AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF THINE HANDS: 11-THEY SHALL PERISH; BUT THOU REMAINEST; AND THEY ALL SHALL WAX OLD AS DOTH A GARMENT; 12-AND AS A VESTURE SHALT THOU FOLD THEM UP, AND THEY SHALL BE CHANGED; BUT THOU ART THE SAME, AND THOU ART THE SAME, AND THY YEARS SHALL NOT FAIL. THE KING JAMES BIBLE, Don't know what Bible The Trinity Delusion are using but it GARBAGE

[@watchtoweralert1]

exactly--ho theos is not vocative

[@greglogan7706]

The biggest flaw in Kel's excursus is the complete miss on why Jesus became greater than the angels.... It is NOT because of sitting at his right hand but it is a much more fundamental concept. I'm not going to identify because I want people to find it on their own since it is blatant in the text... Except to say this - think about the authority that Augustus received upon his adoption...🤔 Your on your own now...🙂

[@davidbrachetto1420]

he is greater than the angels because he is the king of Israel and receives a name and dominion that is better than angels in the World to Come (Hebrews 2:5)

[@jesusisgod4327]

Lol the trinity is not even a cult lol get ur deffinition of cult correct lol

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

I'll bet a "cult" is whoever you want to be a "cult," right?

[@jesusisgod4327]

@@TheTrinityDelusion I call a cult a group of religious people that holds you to a way acting as wells as doing to the point if do those things are done they throw you out of that group That group also tell you all people you hang out with must only be in that group And when u get out of that group they already made u turn ur back on family n friend so now ur all alone! Trinitarian Christians do not do that U do what u want u act how want ur friends are who u pick Yes we still believe a way of living is important but we dont make anyone do or say anything! A good example of a cult are johova witnesses

[@TheTrinityDelusion]

@@jesusisgod4327 So one day you tell them that you reject the Trinity and it's no big deal right?

[@jesusisgod4327]

@@TheTrinityDelusion Well my stand if u reject what jesus did then ur doomed I also say its up to jesus not me I also say if ur relly seeking God then truth should come to you So i belieave there might be a few different out comes Jesus is the only way but what if u never heard the name or u accept what he did but not that he is God Its all up to him Me my self will never say who is saved and who is not The bi bbn le is clear noone deserves heaven so i am careful on how i speak of the matter But remember this we dont stay away from none believers u come and go as u please!

[@jesusisgod4327]

@@TheTrinityDelusion As far as the trinity being no big deal well thats on the person I would say to know God is a big deal but thats me!

[@thetrinitysolution9631]

As I've already pointed out to another member, this reasoning is inconsistent since Psalm 45:6 is also not being spoken by God Himself. In fact it's a servant speaking to another servant. Yet the Father still clearly says it to the Son. If the one is permitted, then so must the other be permitted on the same basis.

[@thetrinitysolution9631]

I'm Trinitarian because I have a completed canon of scripture on which to base my theology. I have no idea what teaching they had received up to this point. But one thing seems certain to me, if there were any misconceptions about the exact nature of The Lord Jesus, they should have been cleared up after they read the first 12 verses. As for the Holy Spirit? Again, it's impossible for me to say. Someone might be able to though.

[@thetrinitysolution9631]

Pt 2 two passages have a common word or phrase, then both can be interpreted in light of each other. This is why in Heb 1, the OT citations are given in pairs; p1 v. 5, p2 v. 6-7, p3 v. 8-12. Vs. 8-9 are a quote from Psalm 45, and vs. 10-12 are from Psalm 102. Since Verbal Analogy is being employed, how we understand vs. 10-12 must inform our understanding of vs 8-9 and vice versa. Since the 10-12 is clearly speaking of God, "from the beginning Lord, you founded the earth...", then...

[@thetrinitysolution9631]

This response is surprising for two reasons. First, you seemed to agree, and correct me if I'm wrong, that Psalm 45 is in-fact being spoken to the Son. So how in your view would that make two wrongs? Second, surely you're aware of the many places in the OT where the context suddenly changes and becomes messianic. Isaiah 9:6-7 is probably the best known example of that.

[@thetrinitysolution9631]

Pt 1 A couple things. I already said I agree there's no grammatical justification for "oh God" but simply "God" if we take it as nominative for vocative. Second, although I know about 5 words in Hebrew total, my research indicates that "your throne God" is an acceptable translation. The question then becomes, if all three are possible, which is correct? The answer lies in the second principle of Verbal Analogy being used by the writer. This principle is the belief among ancient rabbis that if..

[@thetrinitysolution9631]

Pt 3 this suggests in the clearest of terms that "Your throne God..." is the preferred rendering. Of course, you may translate v. 10 "Your throne is of God" if you wish, but you're still left with Psalm 102 being said to the Son where He's unambiguously being called God.

[@matthewmctamney5267]

The way I understand it in the Greek is "your throne oh God" or "God (is) your throne". I've not understood the rendering to be "of God", but I'm going to go back and read it to see which case "God" is in.

[@matthewmctamney5267]

NU and TR Greek texts both read, "o thronos sou o theos" (the throne of you the God). "Throne" is in the nominative and "God" could be in the nominative or vocative. The vocative would read "Oh God" and the nominative would read "is God" as it would make it equal to the subject (God is your throne). Either way, God is (1) calling the son "God", or (2) acknowledging the son as "God" by saying "God" is his "office" or "title" and by way of the next verse, i.e. "scepter of YOUR kingdom". Now, there are other Greek texts, maybe other renderings, and I'm in NO way a Greek scholar, but "Your throne is OF God" would probably show the word Theos as Theou (genitive) and there would probably be a verb in there. It would read something like "o thronos sou tou theou estin". Any Greek nerds feel free to correct me 😂. This entire opening narrative in Hebrews 1 speaks to me about Christ's divinity. I'm open to correction, but I don't see any way out of it.

[@thetrinitysolution9631]

You are correct in saying "O" God is probably not the best rendering, and "God" is to be preferred. But there is no false impression. God is in-fact calling the Son God. Verse 10 is the second in a pair of quotations from the Psalms following the rabbinic pedagogic method of "Verbal Analogy" (interpreting 2 texts in light of each other) which to my knowledge is universally recognized by everyone in the scholarly community. But exactly what can't the Greek instructors explain to you?

[@thetrinitysolution9631]

Pt 1 Subscribers to Luther and Calvin don't follow them but those who they studied under and they in turn under their instructors. The office of teacher is vital, but whenever one presumes to be an authority unto himself, despising all others, he delegitimizes his platform and becomes a liability rather than asset. My original comments were a reference to Acts 20:30. These again were authorities unto themselves, claiming to follow God by encouraging descension from the established authorities.

[@thetrinitysolution9631]

As pointed out in the other video, Trins, are not reading anything into anything. We are understanding the text in light of its historical context. This was written by a Jew to Jews, and three well established and well documented forms of rabbinic petagogy are being employed. 1. Haraz 2. Verbal Analogy 3. Inclusio Again I say, you offer nothing here but your own contrivances. You may well draw away disciples after yourself now, but in the end there will be judgment. Is it really worth it Kel?

[@thetrinitysolution9631]

You're suggesting you have 150 diatribes (and counting) against the Trinity, many of them entitled *The Truth about* this or that, dogmatic assert without any scholarly support, and have spent an estimated 75 hrs in videos alone just to get your message out and yet somehow you have no concern as to whether anyone follows you or not? That's hard for me to believe. Not saying it's not true, but if so, you are in a class all your own. Yes, some Trinitarians also seek their own glory and prestige.