The Bible Does NOT say that Jesus is Almighty God in the flesh.

I'll start with my opponent's claims about the Gabriel/Mary conversation. First of all, there is only ONE Holy Spirit. I would ask my opponent to clarify what he means by "many holy spirits surrounding God's throne." If you are referring to the souls of men in heaven, then you should realize that the souls of men are not on the same level with the Holy Sprit. Even if there is no Greek word in Luke 1:35 for "the," it does not matter, since there is only one Holy Spirit that the Bible could possibly be referring to. Going further, the Bible makes it clear that the Holy Spirit is indeed a person.In Acts 13:2, the lifeless, dead-as-a-doorknob spirit speaks to the teachers and prophets at Antioch and refers to himself as I. "While they were worshipping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." The Greek word for "said" is "legó," which does means "to say." Also you must read Romans 8:27: "And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will."This is rock solid evidence that the Holy Spirit is indeed a person, because a. He can speak, and 2. He has a mind of his own. With this said, I do not see how it makes any difference if the Greek text refers to Him as masculine, feminine, or in this case, neuter. On to the word AKOLUTHEI. Pro mentions two sources, Strong's Concordance and Thayer's Greek Lexicon. I believe that my opponent's claims that Jesus simply asked his disciples to accompany him come from Thayer's. As to my point, consider the actual definition in Thayer's Greek Lexicon: 1. To follow one who precedes, joins him as his attendant, accompany him 2. To join one as a disciple, become of be his disciple 2a. to side with his party Of course, I want to focus on the second definiton. There can be little doubt that this is the definition of the Greek word used in the verse. Even if it actually is the first one, it would make little difference, since first part of the definition is "TO FOLLOW one who precedes." Notice also that the definition says to "join him as his attendant." Webster's Dictionary defines an attendant as "one who attends another to perform a SERVICE." Does this not imply the disciple's inferiority? Whichever definition is actually used in the original Greek, it doesn't matter- they both do indeed imply that the disciples were following Jesus, not only accompanying."However, ELOHIYM is also used in reference to Baal-Berith (Judg 9:46), Dagon (I Sam 5:7), Chemosh & Milcom (I Kings 11:13), Baal-Zebub (II Kings 1:3), and several others. So thatteaching falls apart."I again question my opponent's sources. According to Strong's reference, Dagon has his own Hebrew word (dagown) in I Samuel 5:7, Berith does as well in Judges 9:46, AND Chemosh and Milcom in II Kings 23:13 (not I Kings 11:13) aaand in II Kings 1:3, Baal-Zebub has his own as well. ELOHYIM is not used even once in reference to these "gods." ELOYHIM is the Hebrew word for God, of course, and since it is plural there is indeed allowance for a Holy Trinity. Now, in reference to Psalm 45:"This is a Psalm about King David, which is evident by the language used: it talks about the sword on his hip (vs 3), his arrows (vs 5), the smell of his garments (vs 8), his daughters and queen (vs 9), and it speaks of virgins and the resulting sons (vss 10-16)."It is clear by reading the psalm that the first five verses are about David. Verse 6 through at least verse 9 are clearly about God. The reason being: it is clear that ELOHYIM is used only in reference to God, so there is no way that David is being addressed as such. Had verse 6 actually been about David then the inspired writer would not have used God's name. In addition, verse 6 says that God's kingdom will last "for ever and ever." David's kingdom was an earthly kingdom, and therefore could never last for eternity. In verse 9, it says "Daughters of kings..." These kings, of course, are earthly kings. The verse says that these daughters are "among your honored women," meaning God's honored women. On to my opponent's claims about the openings of the epistles. "Notice how the second sentence says “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” You find this separation of God and Jesus toward the start of most epistles."I wouldn't call this a separation, at least not in the sense that it appears to be. This is simply a restatement of the fact that Jesus is the Son of God. Think of it this way: God, a perfect being, took on the form of an imperfect human. Since God is omnipresent, you could say that "part" of his existence was in the form of a human. It is clear that some kind of "separation" is required here, since God and imperfection have nothing to do with each other (that's why God offers us forgiveness for our imperfect nature). Paul must, therefore, be speaking of Jesus Christ in the flesh, who was God in the form of an imperfect human. That same point applies to my opponent's claims about Revelation, albeit in a slightly different manner. Recall that Jesus is the intercessor between God and man. The verse is simply saying that the Intercessor is speaking to his servants for once instead of the other way around, which happens when we pray. Going on to verses 22 and 24: again, it refers to the physical form of Jesus. "Not once does the Bible say that Jesus is at the right of the Father."So the Father isn't God, then?"Why do you call me good? No one is good but one--God." (Matt 19:16-17; Mk 10:17-18; Luke 18:18-19) This alludes to him not himself being God."Modern translations (which my opponent claims are more accurate) usually have Jesus asking "Why do you ask me about what is good" but some verses do have Jesus asking why they call him good. There were many "false prophets" that the Jews had seen before Jesus came. Most assuredly they all claimed that they themselves were gods, and imagine what would have happened if Jesus had flat-out claimed to be a god or God. They already knew that he claimed to be equal with God since he said that he was the Son of God. My opponent also cites several verses that he claims show separation of God and Jesus. I will not address all of them in the interests of saving space, but I will look at Hebrews 1:4. It may seem slightly disturbing to think about- but at one time Jesus was inferior to the angels- He bore the sins of mankind on the Cross! He virtually became sin, and all heaven was therefore separate from Him. Then after all sins were washed away He arose, and, as the verse says, inherited a superior name to the angels, that is, His position as the Intercessor!"So we see not Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; but Jesus, God, holy spirit. Interesting."Matthew 28:19- "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." This clarifies that all three are One; why would the disciples be commanded to baptize men into the names of all three? If they were separate, and Jesus were simply a messenger, you would not be commanded to baptize into the Son's name, nor the Holy Spirit's. I did my homework as you said, and I do not see much difference in the KJV and the modern translations (I used the NIV for comparison). I can take a guess though: the KJV says "God was manifest in the flesh" and the NIV says "He appeared in a body." In context, the verses leading up to verse 16 in any translation involve God, and it is reasonable to say that verse 16 is the same context.