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

Con has dropped out (see comments), but I will continue on to the book of John as promised. This is the book that everyone first runs to when I talk about this topic with people. I've already shown that there is little to nothing outside of John that indicates Jesus being Almighty God in the flesh. So even if this book made such a claim, I wonder how wise it would be to make "sound doctrine" off the words of one man who may or may not have actually been the disciple John. The writer himself tells us the purpose of his book in 20:31 that tells us that the things he told us "have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the anointed one, the son of God, and that believing you might have life in his name". As I explained in a previous round, both "anointed one" (or "Christ") and "son of God" are terms referring God's representative on earth, as both terms were also applied to King David, the throne of whom Jesus is heir. This is messianic language, not that which says that Jesus is God in the flesh. Jesus, in chapter 17, makes his relationship with God clear as well. Here, he is praying aloud to God as he sits with his disciples. His words in verses 1-3: "Father, the hour has come. Glorify your son so that the son may glorify you, just as you gave to him authority of all flesh, so that to all which you gave to him, he may give them everlasting life. And this is the everlasting life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." So we see that Jesus calls the Father "the only true God". This is aligned with my statement that the Father is God, and God is the Father. Jesus is asking to be restored to his former glory ("in the form of a god"; see prev round), and he says that God gave him authority over all flesh. (God did a similar thing for Adam, if you recall.) Continuing on with the chapter, we see where Jesus again asks for glory (4-5), again states that God gave him his people (6-7), and tells of how he spoke the words God gave him after sending him (8). Starting in verse 9, he says that those given to him are still God's, and that all that is his is also God's. In verse 11, concerning those God gave him, Jesus uses the phrase "that they may be one as we are". If Jesus is God, then from this we must determine that he's saying here that he wants me to be you and you to be me, and for all of us to be one being. What he's talking about here is unity. Paul talks about us being of one mind and one spirit, and that's what Jesus wants of us, just as he is one in mind and spirit with God. In verse 18, he says that he sent his disciples into the world just as God sent him into the world. This is in line with Heb 3:1 where Paul refers to Jesus as an apostle (the Gk word meaning one who is sent out for a purpose; an emissary). That's what Jesus was, an emissary of God. It's like how ambassadors, when they travel to another country, are full representatives of their home country. Verses 21-23: Jesus speaks in more detail of us all being one as he one with God so that we could be one in them. He wants to be one in us as God is one in him. If this is saying somehow that Jesus is God, then he's praying here that we would also be God with him, for if Jesus is God for being in God, then we are also God for being in Jesus. Again, this is talking about a unity in mind, spirit, and purpose. Nothing more. This is what Jesus is saying in chapter 14. Because Jesus fully submitted himself to God (Heb 5, Phil 2), he became God's representative (or image) on earth.. Colossians 1:15 says that Jesus is the image of the invisible God, and that he is firstborn of all creation. Just as Jesus represented God, we are to represent Jesus, since it is easier for us to represent a human than a god. With this understanding, we must look at the first chapter of John in this same light, as the book contains continuing themes. The faulty assumption about the first verse is that the word "word" (Gk LOGOS) could be replaced with "Jesus". However, one must read it in the way that it is written in order for the writer's idea to be correctly communicated. He is merely saying that the word of God existed in the beginning with God and that the word was God. We see in the Old Testament that God originally tried to speak directly to his people, but this didn't turn out very well. He then turned to using human representatives, the judges and prophets, but the people didn't listen to them. Only God could vouch for Himself in those times. Jesus was meant to solve that problem. He, being from heaven instead of earth, became an ant among ants to better communicate the things of a being we cannot comprehend. In this way then, the word of God became flesh, for God's words were spoken through his perfect ambassador, Jesus Christ. Jesus is the only-born son of God; in other words, he was the only one to be born already as a son without the need to jump through hoops like us. No other man was ever born automatically as a son of God. The promise Paul talks about is that we ourselves can now be reborn as sons (and daughters) of God by putting our trust in Jesus, the first fruit of those to be raised from the dead (I Cor 15). Let's look at 1:18. The earliest Greek manuscripts of this verse read "the only-born god", while the later manuscripts (as reflected in KJV) changed it to read "the only-born son" (which causes problems for the modern translations). This fits what I've said in the previous round, that Jesus was a lesser deity of sorts in heaven (as angels are also described as being) and was sent by the God to earth in human form. According to the Bible, he is the only "god" to do so. In 6:68-69, as in the other gospels, we see that Peter believed Jesus to be the heir to the throne of David, but not God Himself. John 8:57-58: All Jesus is stating is an existence that began before time. The Jews didn't think of "I AM" as being a reference to God because they knew him by the Hebrew name YHWH, which does not mean that. In fact, the traditional "I AM THAT I AM" in Ex 3:14 is likely better translated "I will be who I will be". So the idea of I AM referencing God to the Jews is not based in fact. What you see in verse 58 is usually the result of biased translation. Within 8:25-30, Jesus says that he was taught by the Father and sent by the Father. So is God teaching and sending himself? Of course not! Okay, let's talk about 10:30. Taken out of context, it could sound like a claim to be God, but we've already covered this topic and what Jesus means. He says that he and the father are one. "The Jews" take up stones to stone him. Jesus replies that he has done many great works before them, so he asked which work prompted their wish to stone him. Their literal reply is "About a good work we stone you not; but rather about slander, and because you, being a human, make yourself a god." Yes, that is NOT God with a capital g, but a god. There is no Greek article ("the") there, which in most situations points to the god. Anyway, how does Jesus reply? He brings up Ps 82 where David refers to human beings as gods then asks why they can accept that but then accuse him of slander "because I said I am God's son". So here Jesus is not claiming to be God, but to be the son of God. This is not a claim of equality. After Jesus rose from the dead, he tells Mary Magdalene in 20:17 "I am ascending to my father and your father, and my god and your god." This seems to be placing Jesus on a level more equal with Mary than with God. Similarly and finally, let's look at chapter 15. Jesus is the vine, we are the branches, and the Father is the one tending the vine. Is a vine equal to the one who tends it? The branches are more similar to the vine than the vine is to the vinedresser. I conclude by saying that the Bible DOES say that God appointed Jesus to judge and rule the world. He is our example, our high priest, our final prophet, and our king. Your salvation is only through trust in him.