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

I don't mind at all if con wishes to post extra material in the comments section, as I understand how limited we are in our debates here. I may end up doing the same.We are off topic talking about anything other than the nature of Jesus's divinity; however, I've been accused of twisting the Bible, so I feel need to respond.I have previously stated that the Bible refers to angels as being holy, and since they are spirits, it is logical to say that they are holy spirits. In fact, the Bible says that God is a spirit (John 4:24), and we know that He is holy, so God Himself can technically be called a Holy Spirit (or even the Holy Spirit, for that matter). I acknowledge that there IS such a thing as "the Holy Spirit", since Jesus called it "the Advocate" (PARAKLEyTOS) and "the Spirit of Truth" (Jn. 14:16-17). I don't pretend to know the nature of God, so really, talking about who the Holy Spirit is can only be at best in the realm of theory.I'm glad con brought up Hebrews 1:1-14. Here's something: Read vs 6, and then read the verse it's quoting in the Old Testament--any good Bible with verse references will tell you it's Deut 32:43 and/or Ps 97:7. Interesting difference, huh? Do the same thing with verse 7 (Ps 104:4).Unfortunately, many of Paul's teachings (and the doctrines from them) are based on twisted portions of OT Scripture. It's not his fault; it's because he and many other Jews of the day were using the Greek Septuagint (LXX) to draw their conclusions. The LXX is a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek completed around 200 B.C. It was made for the Greek-speaking world, which included peoples of Judah. But the problem is that while some passages were translated strictly, others were paraphrased a great deal. That is why if you were to look up the verses Paul or other NT writers are quoting from the OT, you'll sometimes see huge differences, especially if you compare the Hebrew and Greek behind the translations. Matthew had a severe problem with this as well when making all of those quotes from Scripture (and some are WAY out of context, while one or two don't even exist).Con makes the mistake of confusing years of study into the Koine Greek language with looking at a basic definition in a book. But to keep it simple, let's use a book. In the case of akeleuqew, if you look in your Strong's Concordance, you will see that the definition reads:from 1 [a] (as a particle of union) and keleuqoV keleuthos (a road)prop. to be in the same way with, i.e. to accompany (spec. as a disciple)So as you can plainly see, it means to accompany, not follow. KeleuqoV is a noun; the verb form being keleuqew, which has no true English equivalent but somewhat means to go along a road. The Greek particle a is added as a prefix to denote union, as in going along a road with someone. It's translated as "follow" and even "reach" in the KJV, but that doesn't mean those translations are right. Jesus tells his disciples to walk with him, not follow behind him. I originally made this point to say that Jesus wants us to be like him, which would be impossible for us if he were God. Let me explain. In the OT, we see that God tries to deal with His people directly at first, but that doesn't work. He then uses Moses to communicate with them, then later judges and prophets. Still, that doesn't work. You see, He created His law for the sole purpose of making His people holy; He said as much Himself. But what happened? The very law that was to raise His people up instead condemned them. At one point, He wanted to destroy the people of Israel, but Moses had to remind Him of His promises. This throws into question some of the things we think about God. God wasn't faking his emotions to "test His people" as some pastors have actually claimed, because twice the Bible says that God CANNOT lie. It's not that He won't; He is unable to. The thing is that God set the bar too high. He wants us to be holy, but his requirements are more than we sinful humans can handle. Jesus made the difference there. It's easier to be like him because he was a human who was perfectly capable of sinning but chose not to. He gave us hope, in showing us that it is indeed possible to reach God, and he taught us how we had to live our lives if we wished to see the kingdom of Heaven. Why do you think Jesus has to be an intercessor for us in the first place? My theory is that God, being so perfect and holy, doesn't truly know what it is to face temptation and sin. He doesn't know how to fail as we do. Jesus, who lived life as a human and faced sin himself knows what it's like. Therefore, Jesus is basically before Him and saying "Please have mercy on them. I know how hard it is; I was there. Turn away your wrath." If it is true, however, that Jesus is God, it not only ruins the point of intercession (which is only needed between two parties who are unable to understand each other), but it also continues the trend of setting the standard too high for us. Through Jesus's intercession, God gives us mercy; through his death and resurrection, we have hope that we too will be resurrected (I Cor 15).I understand that I just presented a very unorthodox view of God, but I challenge anyone to use the Bible to disprove me. (Just not here, for space restrictions).Con should have looked at a Greek text of Luke 9:27 before trying to make his point on the phrase "kingdom of God". It reads thn basileian tou qeou, literally "the kingdom of the deity [or god]". This actually proves my point because here, the genitive masculine of qeoV has the appropriate article tou, "the", which denotes the God. There is no tou article in Philippians 2:6, and that denotes a god, just as we see in the next verse: "a slave". Phil 2:6 literally says that Jesus was in the form of a god, not in the form of God. Again, I will state the Bible acknowledges the existence of other gods, but none are as superior as Almighty God.I don't see how Hebrew 2:9 says that Jesus was God in the flesh. It merely states that Jesus was made lower than the angels. I'd like to point out that "was made lower", as well as it's Greek word, is passive. In other words, Jesus didn't make himself lower, but instead, Someone else lessened him. This is much like my distinction that the Bible says repeatedly how God raised Jesus from the dead; nowhere does it suggest that Jesus raised himself. We know from the Bible that there are other spiritual beings in Heaven besides angels. I can accept that Jesus was one of them, of higher rank than the angels, but this doesn't make him God. [Side note: Jehovah's Witnesses will argue that the archangel Michael is Jesus's pre-human form, and there is some evidence to support that, though I don't know if that's the case.]1 Corinthians 15:42-49: First of all, the Bible NEVER says that Jesus inherited anything. In my round 4 paragraph on Phil 2, I showed how he was granted his power as a gift from God for his obedience, and how "God gave him" the name above all names. It doesn't say that "the Father" gave it to him; it says "God". Adam leads to death because of his sin; Jesus leads to life because of his obedience. So yes, Jesus is better than Adam (whose Hebrew name means "human").In trying to refute my comment about I Tim 2:5 calling the resurrected Jesus in Heaven a human being, con says that Jesus became a part of God's creation. This assumes that Jesus wasn't so already. Colos 1:15 tells us that Jesus was the firstborn of God's creation. Paul is clear in his language that while everything was made BY God, it was made THROUGH Jesus and for Jesus. It brings to mind Proverbs 8, where wisdom is personified. Read verses 22-31 and compare with Paul's thoughts concerning Jesus's pre-existence. Interesting.... Just because Jesus was there at creation, that doesn't make him God. And I think my paragraph above on Jesus's intercession further argues against con's point here.And so it is that with little space remaining, I conclude my arguements for this round.