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

I was mistaken when I said 1 Timothy 3:16, I meant 2 Timothy 3:16. Careless mistake on my part. Anyway, on to my arguments. Discussing the inspiration of the Bible and the errant/inerrant nature of it is getting off topic, I agree, but Pro has made some claims that I just can’t overlook. “None of the writers of the NT wrote with the idea that their words would be considered the words of God.” This is demonstrably false. My first example is 1 Thessalonians 4:15, Paul says of his teachings: “For this we say to you by the word of the Lord…” Does this not indicate that Paul’s teachings are from God’s mouth and not his own? The best example that can be provided is Galatians 1:11-12, where Paul is defending his ministry against claims such as those that Pro has made. It reads: “For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” This clearly reveals the fact that Jesus was inspired by the perfect Christ. His words were indeed from 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.” I agree that the (physical) writers of the New Testament (and the Old) were imperfect humans, but I highly question that the NT or OT is “littered with errors.” Pro also says that scribes later tried to correct them. Has Pro ever considered that the mistakes may come from the copying of the Bible? Before Gutenberg-type printing methods were invented, the Bible was copied by hand. This left a huge potential for error. Thus, many of the so-called errors in the Bible have been explained away by using the original Greek or Hebrew. Some “errors,” however, do seem to come from any translation of the Bible. Pro provided links which show many supposed discrepancies in the Bible. I would like to give Pro a link which explains away just about every one of them: http://www.apologeticspress.org... “It was known in [Paul’s] 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.” Nothing Paul said means that at all. Those passages are not in any way written to discourage Christians from reading the Old Testament. Paul is instructing his audience to avoid getting into disputes such as arguments over land, duties, etc. Let me explain. Some history of Biblical times is necessary. In Bible times, genealogies were used to allot land, distinguish between tribes, and other such duties. The Jews kept long and extensive public genealogies to determine a person’s rights to land and inheritance. This is supported in the autobiography of Josephus, in which Josephus begins by listing his ancestors. After this he says, “Thus I have set down the genealogy of my family as I have found in the public records.” With this said, it is clear that Paul is referring to disputes the come about through the use of genealogical records to allot land and other such things. I’ve already used up a good amount of space so I will have to briefly touch on Pro’s argument about the Septuagint and the Hebrew Masoretic Text. He says that there are many differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text. These differences do exist, but they can easily be explained with some historical analysis. Consider that the Septuagint precedes the Masoretic Text by almost 1000 years. The Septuagint was translated from the original Hebrew about 285 years before Christ. The Masoretic text was not completed until about the 7th or 8th century A.D. OT quotes in the New Testament, then, come from the Septuagint. This explains the differences that appear between the Old and New Testaments. Since the Septuagint comes before the Masoretic Text, it is more reliable (Textual Criticism). Therefore, quotes from Jesus and those in Hebrews 1 come from the more reliable Septuagint. I do not believe that this in any way detracts from the inerrancy of the Bible. The Septuagint and the Masoretic Text are simply two different translations from different time periods. If one runs across what seems to be an error, both sources must be checked. Regarding Pro’s points about Strong’s concordance, I don’t see how that detracts from my argument. Strong’s says that the terms after the definition simply indicate how the word is rendered in translation. How does this disprove my argument? (by the way, I never said you were deceptive nor intended to imply it.) About Jesus and his capability to sin, I think Pro misunderstood me a little. I questioned whether he was perfectly capable of sinning. I acknowledge that He was capable in that He definitely had the power to, but being divine, He had no motivation to. Satan apparently did not realize this. I believe that even Satan does not understand the true nature of God. Even without a sinful life, Jesus won the victory over sin, because the sins of man were bore by Jesus, in human form, on the cross. A man with a divine nature, I might add. “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.” Yet Pro has not answered my question from the previous round. Why, then, are we commanded to imitate God? And Christ as well? I say that we as Christians should strive for perfection. Well then, why, you might ask, should we strive for perfection if it is impossible for us to attain? I answer that question WITH a question: why would Paul imitate Christ if He was imperfect? The capability to sin was just part of becoming a human. How does this detract from Christ’s perfection? The short answer is, it doesn’t. It’s what makes Jesus more relatable than God on High. Capability to sin, yet perfection in life. THAT’s what we’re supposed to imitate. And no, we’re not doomed. Repentance and forgiveness, anyone? In becoming a man, Jesus was reduced to a form that was capable of sin. That’s why Satan tempted Him. As I said earlier, Satan doesn’t even know God’s true nature. As for Acts 15, consider that the men that Paul and Barnabas are arguing with are not inspired authors of the Bible (if they were, they wouldn’t be referred to as “some men”). They are basically preachers, which allows for the possibility of false teachings. It is perhaps of Divine inspiration that this issue concerning circumcision was brought up in the Bible in the first place, since it was a major issue with the Gentiles at the time. On Pro’s points about God knowing our hearts, I don’t see anything in his argument that contradicts what I said. According to Pro, the Greek literally reads “the heart-knowing God.” That’s exactly my point. He knows our hearts. Even if He doesn’t know what it’s like to experience temptation (and this I question), He knows that temptation is powerful. That’s why He has mercy. Time is swiftly running out, so I will have to stop here. My personal free time is under strain again, so I can’t spend a lot of time online right now. (I’m a musician, in case you didn’t know.) As a result I didn't have time to think through a lot of my arguments, so I apologize if they do not seem completely thorough. I’m still working on extra material for the comments section, but this may not be done for a short while. For now, I want to thank mstrainjr for an informative and challenging debate. I pray that the truth will be made known to all of us, that Jesus is indeed the one true God, who took on imperfect flesh to bring the souls of man to salvation.