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

I made a mistake bringing up the holy spirit. This debate is about Jesus, who he is and who he isn't. Still, I will answer my opponent. Is it not true that the angels are holy (Matt 25:31) and that they are spirits (Ps 104:4)? Thus they are holy spirits, so your claim of there being only one is wrong. To say that there is only one holy spirit the Bible is referring to in Luke 1, and to disregard the Greek of the NT, is to set aside what the Bible says to fit your own view. I work off the Bible, not my own assumptions and beliefs. Alright, I must say that I misrepresented my view on the holy spirit in the last round. I was so focused on the neuter form of the Greek, so I will amend myself here. I do not believe this holy spirit is dead as a doorknob. I've already said that the holy spirit is the active will of God working through people, so therefore it must be alive just as God is alive. That the holy spirit is grouped with the Father and Son does mean that it could be a separate entity from the Father, but I still disagree with calling it a person. As for your argument on AKOLUTHEI: I refuse to explain it further. I've studied NT Greek for over a decade, and you' re trying to argue from basic definitions you find online. I broke down the word in the previous round, so I can't do it any further. It's apparent that you misunderstood what I was saying about ELOHIYM referencing these other gods. Of course they have their own names in the Hebrew! I'm talking about the English word "god" in reference to it being the Hebrew ELOHIYM. Check out the word for "god" used in those verses in your STRONG'S. Maybe it was my fault for not clarifying that. This being said, we see that ELOHYIM is indeed used for others beside the God. I suggest con checks outhttp://www.hebrew-streams.org...for more info on the usage of this Hebrew word. I just found it in a search, and it explains things plainly. See the Hebrew word for "god" in Ex 7:1. ELOHYIM here is applied to Moses. (KJV adds "as", thus why it's italicized.) We must remove assumption from this argument and be objective. While I point out what the Bible is saying in Greek, con prefers to use his opinions to explain things. When the Gk text reads APO THEOU PATROS HEMON KAI KURIOU IESOU XRISTOU in II Cor 1:2, it is literally saying "from the God, our father, and Lord Yeshua Anointed". Verse 3: EULOGETOS HO THEOS KAI PATER TOU KURIOS HEMON IESOU XRISTOU, "Adorable is the God and father of our lord Yeshua Anointed...." I will continue with the Father being Jesus's God later on in John. My point about Jesus being at the right of God and not the Father is an argument against the wording used in churches. If we say that Jesus is at the right of the Father. it helps keep the Trinity doctrine intact; but if we say that Jesus is at the right of God (as the Bible says) then there appears to be a separation between Jesus and God. Unless you wish to argue that God is beside Himself. Con's explanation of the "Why do you call me good?" verses is again a way to blur what the text is saying with his own beliefs. Jesus is called "good teacher". To this Jesus questions being called good and replies that no one is good except for God. Regardless of how these verses are translated in the different versions, that's what these verses are saying. It seems that Jesus is saying here that even he is not good. As far as Jesus being equal to God for claiming to be the son of God, this is faulty thinking. How does being the son of your parents make you equal to them? In Greek mythology, which is important in order to place the world of the NT in context, Hercules was the son of Zeus and a human woman, and he clearly was not equal to Zeus. (Although through his trials, he achieved god-like status. Much like Jesus. *cough* *cough*) Let's look in I Cor 15:42-49. Here Paul refers (literally) to the first human and last human. He says that the first human (Adam) came from the earth, and the last human (Jesus) came from the sky. While one leads to becoming dust in the ground, the other leads to becoming one of the sky. They are placed on the same level, however, in that they are both referred to as humans (see next paragraph). And indeed, Adam was the first son of God (Luke 3:38), so I wonder if Adam is equal to God as well, by con's logic. And yes, Jesus is the intercessor. I Tim 2:5 reads literally: "For God is One; and there is one mediator of God and humans, a human, Yeshua Anointed. The Greek work used for Jesus is ANTHROPOS, a human being. The word for "man" is ANER. So here we see Paul calling the resurrected Jesus a human being. So there is a human acting as intercessor for other humans. That's what it says. I direct you to Hebrews 5:7-10, speaking of Jesus: "who in the days of his flesh, offering both petitions and entreaties to the One able to save him out of death, with strong crying and tears, and being heard from the fear--though being a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered, and being perfected, he became the author of eternal salvation to all those obeying him, having been called out by God a high priest in the order of Melchizedek". I ask you to also read Hebrews 3:1-6, where Jesus is referred to as an apostle, is compared and contrasted with Moses, and is again called "a son". I Tim 3:16--Since this verse is a separate thought from 14 and 15, con must work from assumption based on his own beliefs to determine that this is referring to God. The Greek word here is actually HOS, "who". I wish to hit Phil 2, the main section being verses 5-11. Previous to this, Paul is urging the church to be of one mind and one soul, looking after others instead of one's self. He then uses Jesus as an example. In verse 6, the Greek tells us that Jesus pre-existed in the form of "a god". Not God". The format is the same as in verse 7 where Jesus takes the form of "a slave". See for yourself. If you want to translate the phrase in vs 6 as "being in the form of God", then you must translate the phrase in verse 7 as "taking the form of Slave", which of course is wrong. So Jesus was in the form of a god, and the Greek text tells us that he thought that being equal (or the same) as a god was not plunder (the thing stolen, not the act of stealing). This seems to be saying that Jesus existed at some time in a spiritual form and thought nothing wrong of it. We know from what Jesus says of himself in the gospels that he was sent by God for a purpose, so the next verse describes his obedience. It says that he emptied himself and took the form of a slave in resemblance of humans. "He humbled himself, becoming obedient until death, even death of a cross". To whom was he obedient? The Gk word HUPEKOOS refers to being submissive. How can God be submissive to Himself? And how can we be like him if he is something unachievable to humans? Verse 9: "Consequently, God highly exalted him and gave him the name over every name." The word for "gave" is KhARIZOMAI, which speaks of graciously granting as a favor. So if Jesus is God, this verse says that God exalted himself and graciously gave himself the name over every name. Makes no sense! The next two verses then say that at the name of Jesus, every knee shall bow and every tongue confess (or profess) "that Jesus Christ is lord, to the glory of Father God." So the confession is not that Jesus is God, but that he is lord. And this is to the glory of Father God, not the glory of Jesus. Nowhere in Philippians 2, then, is there anything about Jesus being Almighty God. I also want to point out that Adam and Jesus aren't the only sons of God. Just a few verses: Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; Gal 3:25-29. In the next round, I finally get to the book of John, and I'll switch from telling you who Jesus is not to telling who the Bible says he is. Another homework assignment: Read I Cor 15:20-28 and pay attention to the language used. I would like to hear con's explanation of this.