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

When the writer of 1 Tim 3:16 says that all Scripture is inspired by God, what Scripture is he talking about? His own words? Did Paul write his personal letters to the churches with an idea that he was God's voice to the people? The Scripture he is talking about is the Tanakh, what Christians call the "Old Testament". None of the writers of the NT wrote with the idea that their words would be considered the words of God. The Bible was written by men. Imperfect humans. The NT is littered with errors, though the scribes of later Greek manuscripts tried correcting these errors. For example, compare Mark 1:2 in the KJV (based on later MSS) and in a version such as the NRSV (based on the earliest MSS). he KJV reads "in the prophets" while the NRSV reads "in the prophet Isaiah"). This is because Mark made the mistake of attributing both of the following two verses to Isaiah, but actually some of it is from Mal 3:1 and/or Exod 23:20. So some scribe along the line of manuscript copyists thought to "correct" Mark's mistake, therefore changing the Bible. There are hundreds of such changes that had been made over time, and strangely, some are in areas concerning Jesus's divinity. So to say that Mark made a mistake is to throw into question the idea that the Bible is inerrant, because it does indeed have many errors. What about the "Old Testament"? Paul says that all Scripture in inspired by God. But does he mean to say that everything in the Old Testament was written by God through his people? If that were the case, there would be no errors. In fact, there are plenty to be found. All one has to do is compare the books of Kings with the books of Chronicles:-2Kgs 24:8 & 2Chr 36:9-2Kgs 8:26 & 2Chr 22:2-1Kgs 4:26 & 2Chr 9:25also see 1Kgs 15:5 & 2Sam 24:10, 25You can find a list of 101 OT contradictions here: http://www.skeptically.org...There's a list of Biblical scientific errors here: http://rationalwiki.org... So with all of those issues, it's hard to call the Bible inerrant. Yes, the writers had a godly inspiration in making their writings, but God did not guide their words; if he did, there would be no errors. Paul was a Jew raised up as a Pharisee. He defended his Scripture as many Christians defend the Bible today. It was known in his day that there were errors, which is why he instructed to avoid disputes about such things (1Tim 1:3-7; Tit 3:8-10). He instructed to let faith surpass the issues found in Scripture. Con makes the old argument about whether God would see to it that His word was preserved. This works under the doctrinal assumption that God used men to write His words. Again I will say that if that was the case, there would be no errors. Concerning the LXX, any good Bible with footnotes would point out at least some of the places in the OT where the LXX differs with the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT). Now, I had said in the last round that the LXX was a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, but I want to point out that the MT came later. Therefore, it is debated which is the truer version of the Old Testament, and there seems to be no good answer since we have no Hebrew manuscripts from before the LXX. To say that the LXX paraphrases the OT would be to assume that the MT is the truer version. Some claim that the Jews actually changed their own Hebrew Bible to ruin certain prophesies, especially those concerning the Messiah. I find that unlikely, however, since Jews have always been HUGE on their traditions. To change their own text would be against their very being, I think. With the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we have further proof that the Hebrew Scriptures have remained intact down through the centuries, far more so than the Christian New Testament. But yeah, the differences between the LXX and MT are both known and undeniable. In the previous round I showed con two examples of those differences. In Heb 1:6, Paul is quoting the LXX and uses the word aggeloi, "angels"; in the Hebrew of the verse he's quoting from (Deut 32:43) we find ELOHYM, "gods". One of the more famous examples is Matt 1:23. The Greek word used literally refers to a virgin; however, in the Hebrew of the OT, the word literally refers to a young woman in general, but not specifically a virgin. But again, we're way off topic, so I'll go elsewhere. In the Strong's Concordance, the words following the em-dash (--) after the definition are the ways that the Greek word is translated into in the KJV. They are not part of the definition. The Concordance makes this clear at the beginning of the dictionary section. I wish con would stop trying to make me out to be deceptive. Con says that he questions my statement about Jesus being capable of sin. Then here's a question for him: If Jesus was not capable of sinning, then what was the purpose of Satan trying to tempt him in the wilderness. It's essentially a useless story then since, because temptation would not exist for him, Jesus would have had no true victory over sin. Now there are those who argue that Jesus had a regular life before he started his ministry, that he may have once sinned. This explains why Jesus was baptized, since baptism is a symbol of repentance, a turning away from sin. The argument says that it was at his baptism that Jesus dedicated himself to God, and from that point forward, he did not sin. This better explains why the Holy Spirit came into him at his baptism (as if he didn't have the power of God beforehand), and why Satan tested him shortly after. Not saying I totally agree with this theory, but it does have some substance. Paul uses Jesus's obedience to God as an example of how we should be. I've already asked how Jesus could be submissive to God if Jesus was in fact God Himself. There would be no obedience. It would be like your hand doing what your brain wants; your hand has no other choice. I argue that Jesus had a choice, while con seems to be saying that Jesus did not. If Jesus was perfect and unable to sin, then he would be a standard that we sinful people could not reach. We would be doomed. But if we see Jesus not as God in flesh but as a man who was not perfect (in that he could sin), we then see a man who we could be like. Living as he did would still be difficult, especially in the modern world, but it is achievable. Con brings up Acts 15:8. In that chapter, we see a couple of times in which men supposedly led by the holy spirit of God come into huge disagreement (vss 2, 6-21). This further supports my idea of contradictions appearing in the Bible, since the Bible itself here tells us of men filled with the same spirit who yet disagree on spiritual matters. What does this verse mean by saying that God "knows the human heart"? The Greek reads KAI O KARDIOGNWSTHS QEOS EMARTURHSEN AUTOIS DOUS AUTOIS TO PNEUMA TO AGION; literally "And the heart-knowing God testified to them, giving them the Holy Spirit". Peter, in context, is talking about the Gentiles who converted, whether they should be circumcised. He's saying that God knows their hearts, despite the presence of their foreskins. Unlike what con is trying to point out, this verse does not mean that God understands the human sinful nature. Matthew 14:33 - ALHQWS QEOU UIOS EI; literally "Truly a god's son you are!" Before this time and up to 26:64, Jesus never claimed to be the son of God. Jesus just walked across water, and in the context of the Greek world, this was something only a god or demigod (a god's offspring) could do. This was a claim that Jesus was more than human. (By the way, in 26:63, the question is of Jesus's Messiahship, not his deity. His "blasphemy", which in Greek literally means "defamation", was that he also claimed to be able to sit beside God and come in the skies' clouds, something not even David could do. That he claimed such ability threw the god of the Pharisees into question.)I still look forward to Con's answers to my points on the book of John. I conclude my arguments.