To be sure, I have never billed myself as a speaker.  Over the years, as those who know me will attest, I have said, “I’m a seeker, not a speaker.”  I would rather not speak out on my beliefs, but if no one else will, I will, and that is partly why I challenged Chuck to the debate.  One reason I have shunned debates is because in a typical debate you are expected to come up with quick answers to challenging questions.  I have never really been able to do that effectively, even though the answers to those challenging questions shouldn’t have been difficult for my brain to retrieve.  It’s always been a few minutes after I have given weak answers that I come up with the best answer.  I imagine all of us have experienced this phenomenon to some degree, which is why the saying “Hindsight is 20/20” is so popular.  However, I have observed that some folks are better equipped than I am to give quick answers that at the time seem reasonable.  Ten years ago, I learned that what I actually experience is part of a handicap widely known as ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder), and to cope I have worked on ways to avoid putting myself in situations where I am called upon to give quick answers.  In fact, this goes right along with what we read in the book of James, where we are cautioned to be swift to hear, but slow to speak.  So how do I challenge someone to a debate if I need to simultaneously cope with my ADHD handicap?  Is there a way for someone with ADHD to participate in a debate while coping with his or her handicap?  Yes, there is, but my coping mechanism was taken away shortly before the debate.

     I don’t mean to come across as negative, nor do I like making excuses.  However, the fact remains that due to my ADHD diagnosis, I submitted a special request to accommodate my handicap. I asked to be given one hour to read and review handwritten audience questions before answering them.  My request was actually granted exactly two months ahead of the debate. At least I thought my request was granted.  Only minutes before the debate began, I was pressured by the biased moderator AND my debate opponent into reducing that hour to 20 minutes (a compromise of sorts from the 15 minutes that they at first tried pressuring me into).  I need to explain that another symptom of ADHD folks is impulsiveness, i.e., making quick decisions that are not always in one’s best interests.  I suppose it’s because of this latter symptom that I reluctantly agreed to the 20 minutes. Their last-minute request caught me off guard, and in hindsight, I am left to wonder if this was an orchestrated, intentional strategic maneuver on their part. I’m not sure why I was pressured into this decision because ultimately, their reason for pressuring me had no bearing either way on when the debate would end (and that is precisely why I was pressured--alleged concerns about time constraints). I truly needed time to read and review questions, and possibly a little time to do some quick research before coming up with the most accurate and cohesive answers, but instead we were only given 20 minutes to read and prepare answers and then we were given an hour to deliver them!  I didn't need an hour to answer questions -- I needed an hour to read, ponder, reflect, research -- whatever it took to produce the most accurate answers.  Was the abruptly-modified, unexpected format a pre-debate strategy? I will mostly likely never know, at least not in this lifetime, as the assembly leadership has never responded to the email request I sent them on September 9, 2019. The email in its entirety may be accessed here.

     One thing I found to be true, both before and after the debate: Many folks who do not have ADHD do not understand why those with ADHD need special accommodations, even when requested.  Such was eventually the case with Chuck.  Even though I had fully explained my need in February 2019 to what I thought was his understanding, he nevertheless counter-proposed, a little over a month later, a debate format in which I would give a rebuttal to his presentation a mere five minutes after he finished.  Needless to say, I was stunned to the point of backing out of the debate.  Only after I counter-proposed a compromise debate format that would eliminate rebuttals and instead give each of us an hour to mull over audience questions before answering them did we reach an agreement to proceed with the debate.  Of course, as is now known, even that agreed-upon format was not honored.  For those who may be interested in a summary overview of what those who have ADHD experience, here’s the link to a WedMD article.

     Someone who does not have ADHD might be tempted to say, “Well, if you have ADHD, then you have no business debating anyone.”  That is a narrow-minded approach, especially if no one else cares to speak out against what they feel is “Scripture abuse,” and even more so if the ADHD individual requests some reasonable accommodations.  If my requests were not reasonable, then why did Chuck initially agree to my proposed arrangement? During our February 2019 text exchange, as we ironed out our pre-debate itinerary, I presented a Scriptural reason for allowing an hour to review and ponder questions before answering them. Chuck replied, "I think that sounds good."  Displayed below is a screen capture of that portion of our text exchange:

     My request for one hour to mull over audience questions proved to be vitally important because during the question/answer session, I made the classic ADHD mistake of reading and answering one of the audience questions during the debate itself instead of during what should have been the one hour of free time I had requested to review and ponder questions. I took a hostile question personally, and answered it hastily, whereas if I had been given more free time to "read & ponder" ahead of time I certainly would have come up with a much more amicable response.

     But taking away my requested hour for "reading & pondering" audience questions wasn't the only thing the host assembly took away from me.

     In addition to the one-hour time frame that I requested for reading/mulling over audience questions before answering them in public, I requested accommodation for a PowerPoint presentation. In fact, this was the very first thing I requested when Chuck and I agreed to hold what was then a planned informal debate at a hotel conference room. My request was granted and in fact, the PowerPoint presentation I put together for the "warm-up debate" held in our home on March 9, 2019 was video-recorded (I still own a copy). I had no reason to suspect that my PowerPoint presentation would be ignored , i.e., not videoed, during the actual debate. Regrettably, the debate videographer didn't let us know where his video recorder was pointed, making it easy for me to trust it was focused on the video screen. If you can't trust a fellow believer, who can you trust among men? Just for the record, here's a screen capture of the actual text exchange I had with Chuck on January 1, 2019 as we made our plans:

     I invite anyone to let me know how or why Chuck would see to it my PowerPoint presentation was recorded for our in-home warm-up/practice debate (which he recorded), but not for the actual debate at his hosting assembly. I might add here that when we held our practice debate, Chuck wanted the two of us to be included in the video. I requested that I NOT be videoed because I wanted my participation in the debate to be about my presentation and the points I bring out, not about me. Chuck honored my request that day, so he knew well in advance what I wanted and expected. Why would he allow otherwise for the actual debate? In discussing the possible motives with friends, only one answer was mutually agreed upon: Dirty Pool. Neither Chuck nor his hosting assembly ever responded to my protest over posting the video. Here's my opening statement to the assembly staff from the email I sent three days after the video was posted on YouTube:

      I closed the above email by writing, "I realize how unlikely it is that Chuck and I will ever have a follow-up debate, but in the event that he should agree to such a thing, if whoever produces the video will agree to primarily focus on the PowerPoint presentation(s) instead of the speakers, I will agree to such a debate and I would then have no problem with posting said debate to YouTube."

     The above represents the last communication I had with the Assembly of Yahweh (7th Day). They ignored my removal request, and the video remained on YouTube until at least late September 2022. I do not expect to ever hear from them, but if I do, I do not anticipate a positive outcome at this point.

      To be sure, cutting out the PowerPoint presentation diminished the effectiveness of my overall presentation, impacting my presentation much more than it did Chuck’s, who for the most part read excerpts from a PDF version of his book. Had I known in advance that they would not video my PowerPoint presentation, I most certainly would not have agreed to the debate. The video was posted to YouTube for a few years, then it was removed and posted on Biblical Unitarian Debbie Wellington's "Scripture News 2 Use" website. As she is fully aware of my protesting the use of the debate video due to Assembly of Yahweh (7th Day)'s deliberate failure to honor the debate conditions, yet she posts it anyway, I now consider her to be complicit in the underhanded manner in which the debate was both conducted and recorded. I will leave matters in Yahweh's hands.

     The YouTube video¹ was posted online on September 6, 2019, and I found it the very next day.  I only located the video the day after which it was posted because I had been searching for it nearly every day, hoping it would never show up!  I had been performing Google searches on a near-daily basis using Chuck’s name, my name and the word “debate” as my search criteria.  My point in sharing the fact that I had to find this video on my own with diligent, near-daily searching is to establish the fact that no one let me know about the posting–I only found it because of my persistent online searches.  Curiously, a few days later, two Biblical Unitarians, who obviously lean heavily in favor of Chuck’s position, posted comments heralding Chuck as the “winner.” One of the Biblical Unitarians is the aforementioned Debbie Wellington. I find it interesting that these two individuals just "happened" to know about the video posting so quickly after it found its way online.  Somehow I doubt they were performing the near-daily Google searches that I was doing, i.e., it appears those of Chuck’s persuasion were most likely given an unfair “heads up."  Based on how things transpired, I am persuaded Biblical Unitarians really didn't want me to know about the video being posted on YouTube.  Keeping me out of the loop allowed their Biblical Unitarian collective to quickly give a “thumbs down” on my presentation without giving me an opportunity to defend myself.  This tactic is only one additional item in a laundry list of unfair practices exhibited by Chuck and whoever assisted with compiling and posting the video online.²

     In spite of the negative reviews I was given by the Biblical Unitarian consortium, and in spite of my opponent and the biased moderator's last-minute decision to pressure me to reduce the previously agreed-upon time frame for reviewing audience questions, I maintain that I won the debate.  Proving this can be as simple as my pointing out that no one has (as of yet) demonstrated that I was mistaken in any of the points I made during my presentation.  If I had to select the one point on which Chuck’s premise absolutely fails, it’s his ill-conceived decision to add by interpretation the word “ordained” to the text of Micah 5:2.  Ironically, although it seems that whoever pieced together the debate video deliberately chose to cut out my PowerPoint presentation, he inadvertently captured my “bottom line” critical issue with Chuck’s treatment of Micah 5:2.  Adding the word “ordained,” whether by interpretation or infusing it directly, completely overhauls the meaning of the verse.  Here’s what Micah 5:2 says:

And you, O Bethlehem of Ephrath, least among the clans of Judah, from you one shall come forth to rule Israel for Me – One whose origin is from of old, from ancient times.

       The above translation is taken from the Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh – The Holy Scriptures, where they position the text as verse one of the chapter.  I choose the Jewish Publication Society’s translation of the above verse, not only because it’s a faithful rendering of the Hebrew text, but also because Jewish believers do not recognize Yeshua as the Messiah.  In other words, they have no “axe to grind” and since they are such huge promoters of the Shema, which holds that there is no Elohim but One, they would have much the same incentive as Chuck to make the verse read differently.  But they don’t.

      Here's a screen shot from the portion of the debate where the videographer inadvertently captured the bottom line issue of what Chuck must do in order to drum up Scriptural support for his doctrinal position—manipulate Scripture:

        Here’s a “full screen” shot of the actual slide from my presentation:

        I eventually plan on putting together a full study of my own on this subject, which I hope will incorporate all the slides from my original presentation, as well as a follow-up presentation that I delivered at the 2019 Unity Conference in Sterling, Illinois.     

       Update:  I have completed Part 1 of the study, titled "Did Yeshua the Messiah Have a Pre-Carnal Existence?  The Overview," which is available here.

       Update (06/28/2020):  I have completed Part 2 of the study, titled "Did Yeshua the Messiah Have a Pre-Carnal Existence?  The Enhanced Public Debate Presentation," which is available here.

       Update (12/06/2020). I have completed Part 3 of the study, titled "Did Yeshua the Messiah Have a Pre-Carnal Existence?  The (Enhanced) Unity Conference Presentation," which is available here.

       The debate videographer did manage to incorporate ONE full slide of my PowerPoint presentation into his featured video, and that slide is a very brief summary of the points I brought forth:

     As stated previously, Chuck offered no refutation of any of the points I brought out in my presentation.

     In spite of my lack of debate experience, I think I handled myself pretty well, but I try to be objective, so I will acknowledge my weaknesses:

     1) I was nervous, knowing that I was the proverbial sheep in the lion’s den, plus I don’t really like being either photographed or videoed (another reason for why I wanted the PowerPoint presentation to be displayed).  I wanted it to be about the presentation, not about me.

     2) I was rushing to finish my presentation within the allotted 45-minute time frame.  This, plus my nervousness, contributed to my non-relaxed delivery.  Chuck and I had what I call a private pre-debate warm-up three months earlier in which I had been so focused on researching this issue that I wasn’t able to condense all of my findings into our then-agreed-upon 30-minute time frame by the date of our debate.  By then I had accumulated over two hours of material and I didn’t know what I could leave out, so for our private warm-up debate Chuck graciously allowed me to present most of what I had accumulated prior to that day; nevertheless, my failure to condense things in time for that March 2019 “debate” had a detrimental impact on our relationship and I didn’t want to repeat this “overload” scenario in June.  As a result, I over-compensated, finishing my presentation well in advance of the allotted 45 minutes, but it was done in the rushed format as observed on the video.

     3) This is the worst part:  I was completely out of character for the “Question & Answer” portion of the debate.  Again, to emphasize this weakness, it is attributed to my ADHD diagnosis.  I know how to compensate for this handicap, and that is for me to allow questions to “marinate” before answering them.  In the Bible, we are cautioned about being “swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath” (James 1:19).  As mentioned earlier, I cited this verse to Chuck via text back in February 2019, suggesting that we use it as an explanation for the “breaks” that I really needed between the presentations segment and the rebuttals.  On a personal level, I would prefer to give Chuck time to ponder any challenging questions rather than hoping he comes up with lame “kneejerk” responses that he regrets later.  I hoped that he would have had the same concern for my answers.  After all, should we be more concerned about accommodating an impatient audience or about mutually agreeing on the truth?  And if there are impatient spectators, why did they come in the first place?  As Yeshua asked His disciples, “What, could ye not watch with me one hour?”

MISSED OPPORTUNITIES:

     Although this wasn’t a “debate + rebuttal” style of debate, I definitely missed some excellent opportunities to refute some of Chuck’s comments.  While I definitely attribute some of those missed opportunities to the reduced time frame allotted for reviewing & answering questions, I am certain that many debate participants, after the debate is over, share the same regrets that I do.  No matter what, there will always be something that, in hindsight, you wish you would have picked up on and addressed better than you did.  My primary oversight is Chuck’s handling of 1^st century Jew named Philo of Alexandria.  I actually covered Philo during our March “warm-up” and I thought Philo’s insights into “logos” would have a positive influence on Chuck, especially since he had no problem with my citing Philo as a valuable historical reference for our shared views on such matters as the calendar in determining the start of a new Scriptural year, the new moon being the first visible crescent after sunset each month as opposed to the conjunction, the count to Pentecost, the continuously-repeating pattern of the weekly Sabbath, and abortion.  I had no idea that when it came to Philo’s view on the logos that Chuck would consequently plan an ad hominem attack, attempting to make Philo look like a pagan philosopher who was more into Plato than Yahweh’s Word.  Talk about “throwing out the baby with the bathwater!” Chuck also openly mocked Philo’s claim that there is a “lesser deity” (Elohim), essentially presenting Philo as an idolater who betrayed the Shema (that Yahweh is ONE).  In response to these claims, I should have made the following points:

      1) First and foremost, I don’t really need Philo to establish my case that Yeshua had a pre-carnal existence as the Logos, but it sure helps knowing that my personal interpretation of Scripture has the support of historical evidence.  The same could be said in support of Justin Martyr and others, such as Arius, whose name was not mentioned during the debate.  These are ancient witnesses who just happen to have agreed with my own personal interpretation of Scripture.  By contrast, Chuck presented zero (0) historical evidence in support of his position, instead going by his interpretation of Scripture and his interpretation alone.

      2) In spite of Chuck’s attempt to mock Philo’s claim that there’s a “second Theos” (Elohim), the fact is, Philo’s claim has the support of Scripture.  For a quick validation of this, please re-read the account of Jacob wrestling with the angel in Genesis 32.  Please note that Jacob did not wrestle with Yahweh, even though he thought he did (Gen. 32:31)!  Jacob actually wrestled with an angel, as plainly explained by the prophet Hosea in chapter 12:2-4:

2Yahweh hath also a controversy with Judah, and will punish Jacob according to his ways; according to his doings will he recompense him.

3He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strength he had power with Elohim:

4Yea, he had power over the ANGEL, and prevailed: he wept, and made supplication unto him: he found him in Beth-el, and there he spake with us;

      So according to Genesis 32:24, Jacob wrestled with a man.  According to Hosea 12:4, this “man” was an angel.  According to the previous verse, this “angel” was Elohim.  Was this “Elohim angel man” the pre-incarnate Yeshua?  I believe it was, but regardless of “who” it was, the fact remains that this Being was a “lesser elohim,” the physical manifestation of Yahweh:

Genesis 32:28 – And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with Elohim and with men, and hast prevailed.

      So just to be clear, Jacob did not wrestle with Yahweh, but he DID wrestle with Elohim, a physical manifestation of Yahweh.  Like it or not, this is a "second Elohim."

      Is Yeshua an Elohim?  At the 2:23:16 mark of the debate, Chuck states, “The fact that the Messiah is an image of Elohim proves that He is NOT Elohim.”  Yet, in Psalms 45:6 we read, “Your throne, O Elohim, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.”  This verse is a reference to Yeshua, as confirmed by Hebrews 1:8, so contrary to Chuck’s teaching, Yeshua IS an Elohim.  Is Abraham ever called an elohim?  Is Moses ever called an elohim?  Daniel?  I'm trying to think of any specific man who is ever referred to as “elohim" in the sense of what is known as deity  I know of only one man, the Man Yeshua.  Even “doubting Thomas” called Yeshua His Elohim (John 20:28).

     So yes, Philo did indeed understand that there is a second Elohim.  And so does Scripture.  That is the Elohim, the Logos who spoke the world into existence, it’s the Elohim who wrestled with Jacob, it’s the Elohim who spoke to Moses from the burning bush and it’s the same Elohim who spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai.  This is the physical manifestation of Yahweh, identified by Philo as the Logos, the same identity given by the Apostle John (John 1:1-3).³ Will Chuck likewise perpetrate an ad hominem attack on the Apostle John?  Chuck offers a name for this interpretation of Scripture:  Gnosticism.  I call it the plain understanding of Scripture.

      Here are a couple of PowerPoint slides from the private warm-up debate that was held in our home on March 9, 2019:

      It will require an extensive study to fully address Chuck's eloquent misrepresentation of Scripture.  If Chuck and the moderator would agree to go with the originally-agreed-upon debate format, I would be willing to schedule a follow-up debate with Chuck.  I don’t look for this to ever happen, but I’m throwing it out there anyway.

¹ May 2024 update: The video is now a "Private video," but is now in the possession of Biblical Unitarian Debbie Wellington at her Scripture News 2 Use website.

² August 2022 update:  Debbie Wellington posted her commentary using the handle "DJ." Debbie also anonymously hosts the Unitarian website  www.scripturenews2use.org, where she actively promotes Chuck Henry's study, plus the Assembly of Yahweh (7th Day) supplied her with a complimentary video of the debate, which she also posts. I have only met Debbie once, at the 2019 Unity Conference, where I presented Part 2 of my presentation. My wife was not in attendance. At the conference, Debbie sat next to me for nearly all of the presentations, not identifying herself as a website owner, nor did she attempt to refute anything from my presentation. In fact, she seemed very cordial. It was only after my return home from the conference that she exhibited negative feedback via e-mail (without refuting anything I presented). She also anonymously contributed a summary of the 2019 Unity Conference to The Faith magazine.  In her summary of my presentation, she actually managed to plug Chuck Henry's book, adding, "... if you are a bible student who conducts your own research, you should read this book." I agree that we should always investigate both sides, but her support of Chuck's book was made quite obvious, even though she didn't supply evidence that anything in my presentation was false.  In her summary of my presentation, Debbie didn't even mention my position on this issue! Immediately after posting her summary of my presentation, Debbie implied that I did not supply handouts of my presentation (which is not true). NOTE: If my source identifying Debbie as the owner/host of www.scripturenews2use.org is incorrect, I invite Debbie to send me a correction request to seekutruth at aol dot com. I do not ever intend to misrepresent facts.

³ According to the Hebrew book of John (John 1:1), "In the beginning was the Son of Eloah. The Son of El was both with El, and the Son Of El was Eloah." Thus, John recognized two Elohim, the Father and His Son.

November 2022 update:  I am sorry to report that Chuck Henry passed away on November 12, 2022.  I had earnestly hoped and prayed the day would come when we would be reconciled and even unified because with Yahweh all things are possible.  I now hope and pray that we will all be reunited in the Kingdom, where there will be no more sorrow, no more disputing, only joy and of course, unity.