Part 2 - The Bible Does NOT say that Jesus is Almighty God in the flesh

I thank mstrainjr for agreeing to continue this debate. In the previous debate, I was forced to forfeit rounds 4 and 5 because my schedule did not allow me sufficient time to form an argument. In this round I will address my opponent’s round 4 arguments. In the course of preparing this argument I quickly came close to running out of character space, so I will find a way to address Pro’s arguments about the book of John in another round. In round 4, Pro claims he should not have brought up the Holy Spirit because the debate is about Jesus and not the Holy Spirit. I would agree, but however, I would still like to defend what I said in the previous rounds of the debate with a short case. Pro claims that to say that there is only one Holy Spirit being referred to in Luke 1 is wrong and twists what the Bible really says. Consider Romans 8:26-27: “In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groaning too deep for words; and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because he intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.”Am I to understand that all of the angels, since they are holy spirits as you claim, are intercessors? I would ask my opponent to read Hebrews 1:1-14. This further proves my point. Angels may pray for us, but that does not indicate intercession at God’s throne. With this said, I can safely say that I am reasoning by what the Bible says, and not simply by my opinions. AKOLUTHEI- Given Pro’s apparent frustration with me, I will try not to spend a lot of time on this topic. He said he broke down the word; however, I provided the definition of the word (which came from the Thayer’s Lexicon, not simply from an online definition) which does indeed allow for Jesus to hold a superiority of sorts. Even the definition found in Strong’s, which is where I believe Pro found his material when breaking down the word, allows for the disciples to follow Jesus. But how can we be sure that the usage of the word indicates that the disciples were following Jesus and not merely accompanying? Simple, we define “disciple” as used in New Testament Greek. Consider Matthew 8:23. It reads: “When he got into the boat, His disciples followed Him.” The Greek word for disciple is “mathētai” which, according to Thayer’s, is simply defined as “a learner, pupil, disciple.” This indicates that the proper usage of “akoloutheo” in this context is that the disciples were learning from a Teacher, in this case Jesus. With this said, I stand by my original argument that Jesus indeed held superiority to the disciples. Pro says that I am blurring the “why do you call me good” verse to fit my own beliefs. My argument, basically, was that there were many false prophets in Christ’s time, and to come out and immediately claim to be God would have destroyed his credibility. However, I hold that I was not blurring the verse and gave its true meaning based on the context of what the Bible says. There is a passage that I should have cited a long time ago, but I will do so now. Philippians 2:5-8: “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient even to the point of death, even death on a cross.” (NASB) This supports my argument that Jesus was careful not to immediately come out and claim He was God in the flesh. Instead, He took the form of a humble servant, both of men and of God. Therefore, I can safely say that my argument is supported Biblically and is not simply my reasoned opinion. This verse is strong proof outside of John that Jesus is indeed equal to God. As to your argument concerning that verse (6), I call that nonsense. The original Greek text refers to Jesus in the form of God in exactly the format it refers to God himself in other passages. One could look at a passage such as Luke 9:27, which reads: “…there are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.” In the original Greek, “of God” comes from the genitive masculine singular form of the noun, just like in Philippians 2:6. If we are to use pro’s logic, then, we must assume that in Luke 9:27, Jesus was saying that nobody will taste death until they see the kingdom of a god, which is wrong. As to verse 7, consider that any Greek dictionary will give THEOS two definitions: a god or the God. Therefore, saying that this passage says Jesus is the God is not mistranslating. Is DOULOU, the Greek word for slave, ever defined as “the slave?” It is not; therefore, the only proper translation is that Jesus took the form of a slave. Regarding your slavery argument, it all goes back to Hebrews 2:9: “But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus…” When we read this verse it all fits together: God, in the form of Jesus, became flesh, and briefly assumed a status lower than the angels. Since He became a man and dwelt among them, would it not make sense to become submissive to God? Of course, in thinking about this, one must be aware of God’s omnipresent nature. Regarding Pro’s argument concerning 1 Corinthians 15:42-49, he says that Jesus and Adam are placed on the same level since they are both referred to as humans. However, Pro unknowingly admits in his own argument that both are not essentially equal in that one leads to dust (Adam) and the other leads to becoming of heaven, or in this case, the sky. You could say that Adam and Jesus are equal ONLY in that they were both humans, at least at one time. But it is clear that Jesus, after resurrection, BECAME greater than the flesh. Remember, he inherited a name superior to the angels. Did Adam ever inherit such a title? As to your argument on 1 Timothy 2:5, this can be explained by Scripture. Hebrews 2:11: “For He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one Father, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren,”Jesus clearly retained some of the “man” part of his nature after he ascended into heaven, for the clear purpose of maintaining a relationship of brotherhood with mortal men. “BUT,” you may be thinking, “the verse says Jesus is from ‘one Father’ just like men who are sanctified!” Again, this can be explained with Scripture. Verse 14 of the same chapter says: “Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise partook of the same...” So who became flesh and blood? Since Jesus retained part of his status as a man, this explains why it appears there is a separation between God and Jesus. Jesus became part of God’s creation. Also look at verse 17: “Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.” It also goes back to Hebrews 2:9.No further comments! I have quickly run out of character space, so I was not able to address all of Pro’s round 4 arguments, but thankfully I was able to get most of them. Pro also asked me to read and explain the language used in 1 Corinthians 15:20-28. Unfortunately, my explanation will not fit in the remaining space I have, so with Pro’s approval I might post an explanation in the comments section. I eagerly await my opponent’s response. All verses come from the New American Standard version. Greek definitions come from either Strong’s or Thayer’s (notsimply a random online definition, I assure you.)