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

I truly thank Gordontrek for accepting the challenge of this debate. I pray that the truth of what the Bible really says comes forward here, even if the truth is for my opponent.Please keep in mind that some of my arguments stem from the Greek text of the New Testament, which effectively renders many translations moot, as you may later see. Unfortunately, the dogmas of mainstream Christianity affect the way in which certain words and phrases are translated.The very first place most folks usually point to when in this discussion is John 1:1. The gospel of John deserves its own round, so I plan to get to it in round 4.Once John is set aside, we face a little problem with the doctrine of Christ being God in the flesh, namely that the three other gospels say nothing to suggest it.For those who believe in the Trinity doctrine, I suppose one could point to the conversation between Gabriel and Mary in Luke 1. There, most translations have Gabriel telling Mary, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you...". If your Bible version is honest about the words added to the text, the word "The" before "Holy Spirit" is in italics. In fact, there is no Greek word there that can be translated as "the". In other words, Gabriel is telling Mary that a holy spirit will come upon her. Now continuing with the verse, it reads, "...therefore the child to be born will be holy, and he will be called Son of God." You see, as Paul later talks about, Jesus was a holy spirit in Heaven with God. Thus it is reasonable to say that Jesus would also be holy after his birth. Also, take note of how the verse says that Jesus will be called son of God. The Greek says this not as a command, but as a future action. Gabriel does not say that Jesus would be son of God, just that he would be called as such.As I say in the comments section, claiming that God is your father does not make one equal with God. According to Paul, all of those who trust on God are his sons (and daughters). Are we then equal to God as well?When Jesus uses the term "son of man", this can actually have several meanings, but I will focus on two. The first, which is used within many churches, is that this term is Jesus referring to himself in a prophetic sort of way, pulling the title from the Scripture books of Daniel and Ezekiel. However, I hold to the second view, that Jesus was using it as a way to show that the works he did were given to all men. The Greek literally means "the son of the human (race)".An example of this can be found in Matthew 9. After Jesus heals the paralytic, verse 8 says, "When the crowds saw it, they were filled with awe, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to human beings."Taking a verse from John to further support this, I quote 14:12 &13: "Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father. I will do whatever you ask in my my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son."So then, his works did not show equality to God if these works were also given to those who trust in God. I point out too that both Elijah and Peter raised someone from the dead through God's power; therefore, not even Jesus' raising of dead people show him to be God.I also want to discuss the meaning of a word. Jesus did not ask his disciples to "follow" him. The Greek word, AKOLOUTHEO, is literally translated "accompany". In other words, he did not want Peter, Andrew, James, John to follow him; he wanted them to walk along the way with him. This shows him not as being above them, but seeing himself equal to them. They were disciples who were meant to take his place when he left.In all three of the synoptic gospels, Jesus asks his disciple who they say that he is. If they believed Jesus to be God, I'm sure Peter would have said as much. But instead, Peter's claim was, "You are the Christ, the son of the living God!"Now, what do Peter's words mean? As it turns out, this is not a claim of Jesus being God; it is instead a messianic claim of Jesus' right to the throne of David. Let me explain.The Greek word for Christ is KhRISTOS, and it is equal the Hebrew word MSHYKh, which refers to a consecrated person and is normally translated "anointed" in the KJV, except for in Daniel where "messiah" is used twice in prophecy. The first King of Israel, Saul, was a Christ (using Christian terminology), because he was anointed by God through Samuel. David also was a Christ, and for the very same reason. In other words, both Saul and David are refered to in Scripture as being God's anointed one. Not only so, but David, being king of Israel, was also called "son of God". God even supposedly calls him that! In Psalm 2:7, David says, "Let me tell of the decree: YHWH said to me, 'You are My son; I have fathered you this day'."The title "Son of God" is a title for the anointed king of Israel. To say that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God is to say that Jesus is Israel's rightful king. You will find that it is on this line that much of the argument against him falls. Only in the gospel of John do we see others thinking that Jesus is claiming to be God. I tend to stick with the idea of there needing to be two or more witnesses in the case of such an important matter, but like I said, we'll get to John later.You will also see that Jesus never claims to have any power of his own. Let's look at Matthew 28:18. It reads, "And Jesus came and said unto them, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me'." So here's my question: if Jesus is God, how could such authority be given to him? Did God give Himself authority over heaven and earth? I will touch more on this within the next couple of rounds.I'm done in the synoptic gospels for now, so I wish to touch on something else in the space I have left.The Holy Spirit is not a person. It is not a he nor a she. In the Greek text, the words PNEUMA HAGIOS are neuter, effectively making the holy spirit an it. The Greek word PNEUMA correctly refers to a current, mainly whether of air or of energy. In most Bibles it is usually translated as either "wind", "breath", "spirit", or "ghost", depending on the Bible version and the context of the word. So for it to drive Jesus into the wilderness or carry Philip to the eunuch, the holy spirit acts as a current of God's will. It is how His power is channeled through His people to perform what are called miracles.The word HAGIOS is usually translated "holy", but in relation to the people of God, it's usually rendered "saint", as in, a holy one. It could therefore be correct in Mark 1:24 for the unclean spirit to call Jesus "the saint of God", but translators tend to want to separate Jesus from other people. HAGIOS is contrasted with that which is unclean, though the meaning of purity is only implied. The Greek meaning is one of sanctification and consecration, which ultimately is a setting apart of a person or thing for God's purpose. It could perhaps be correct, then, to translate PNEUMA HAGIOS as "sacred current", but that does sound a little horrid.And as a side note, the Hebrew term is also not masculine, but feminine. Hebrew, like the Latin languages, does not have a neuter, so all things must be either masculine or feminine, even inanimate things. This carries into Greek where the sun is masculine and the moon is feminine, which fits in with pagan belief. So the Hebrews saw God as masculine and the "holy spirit" as feminine. When the Greek language came along, the "holy spirit" became an it. Only when the Hebrew and Greek were translated into Latin for the Catholic church did the holy spirit become masculine.This in itself throws the "Trinity" into question, as God is clearly not three persons. So now we are down to two, and my hope is to show that God is One, and Jesus is merely a servant who was chosen to have authority over all because of his obedience.