The following verses of the Bible make it evident that Jesus is God

It seems I was wrong round 1. That's right someone just said they were wrong in an actual debate on this site. I was wrong that there would need to be space waisted on arguing that the bible is true. Mirza has claimed only the third set of scriptures really holds any wait in this debate since there of what Jesus said rather than someone else like Matthew, Luke, John, Paul, ect… But this simply cannot be true. Either all the scripture is the inspired word of God (words in black as much as the words in red) or none of it is. All of lord Jesus words come from Mark, Matthew, Luke, or John. If you bring to question what they themselves write just in the non-dialogue part of the text as not true then so is the part where they write Jesus saying statements about himself. Many Christians get this false impression as well that what some people say in the bible is more valid because of that as well, like putting James and Paul against each other. It's easy to see how, we know that from obvious context some small sections of scripture are not true statement because that was that sections purpose; to show someone in the wrong usually arguing with someone in the right. Like we know everything Job's lousy friends say is not necessarily true, Jezebel, Simon the Magician, or near anything a Pharisee ever say's in the New Testament. But these cases were who the person saying it makes a difference is in clear context of that whole passage trying to show that one part as false. There is no room for this in any of scriptures I chose; the Immanuel reference is not even in the dialogue of any the characters for someone there to refute it. The author himself does not add anything to discredit it like ‘this is how that rumor got started…' Same is with the creed like labeling of Jesus as the only begotten Son of God in John; it stands in that passage without any context that shows it being refuted by Jesus. Not even if Peter calls Jesus the son of God strait to Jesus in dialogue does Jesus give correction but praise! Witch leaves them both as much the word of God as any other part of scripture. So now that the equal validness of all the scriptures is out of the way, I shall press on to defending them individually. ---------------- Begotten Son --------------- Mirza gives a psalm of King David talking about Jesus as evidence that ‘John' is wrong cause he is contradicting King David, who was also a prophet, and out of these contradictions, David must be right because the book of John is ‘not as old' as other scriptures as if that made a difference. But like I said, Psalm 2 is David prophesying about Jesus, witch happens quite often in the Psalms, some more obviously than others, Psalm 22 being the most famous of them . http://www.biblegateway.com.... So there is no contradiction to be worried about. But though I might get Psalm 2 out of the way, I could never hope to argue against every passage where others than Jesus are referred to as Sons of God. Depending on its context, its one of those descriptions that could mean a variety of things. Such as in Genesis where it is a reference to Angles who laid down with ‘daughters of men' and produced offspring. And all thought the New Testament those who have heard the Good News and are saved are referred to as children of God or children of light, for we are in a sense Gods children. And still yet even to this day the theologians hold no reverence for the language child of god mean like what we think Jesus is and instead feel free to use it to mean anyone, believer or not without giving clarifying context. But they do agree that the context is clear in the book of John . http://www.bible-researcher.com..., as other places in the new testament that use monogeneis like its used in the Gospel passage I gave, that it is making Jesus out to be a son of god in different since than all others are, or angles are, or believers & followers of god are. In the sense that explained why 'even the wind and seas obey this man'. ------------ Immanuel ------------ Obviously the fact that his name was actually Jesus and literally Immanuel was no problem for the person inspired by God writing this book. Under the direction of Gods hand they still wrote that he fulfilled that particular prophecy. It's easy to see why, prophecies and visions are notorious for being representative in more abstract senses than we would prefer. No Lion with wings is ever going to exist or gain the mind of a man and walk on two legs. The name specified in prophecy can only serve to point at what the person who it is will spiritually be described as. Jesus is 'God among us'. Yes, others in the bible have names that indicate God likeness, but they are just names, not names that came up in visions. and the ones that do come up in visions are very likely references to Jesus. ------- I AM ------- The link you gave is quite clear. The normal use of the words is I and AM. You don't pick the side note alternatives at the bottom unless there is specified context to conjugate it so. There is none. Ego Eimi is its straightforward normal state to translate. Second off changing it to ‘…I have' does not make the statement simpler nor makes him less showing himself god for it. "I was before Abraham ever was…" yet that makes him something at that time that is in no way fleshly for his mother did not give birth to him so you do not have half-god or just a man as an option here. Even if you choose to avoid it saying he's god without him using the word ‘divine' somewhere in that sentence you are still driven right back into him being god by the mere ramifications of what I AM means. ‘before Abraham ever was, I was' this puts him as the all eternal fact, the word, the thing that simply IS in its own right and was not created but through it all was created. -------------------- Philosophy of Heaven -------------------- I have a fourth point for this round. Its not a new set of scripture to argue but just over a point Mirza brought up about the definitional impossibility of God begetting anything more than a half-god with Mary. Like Mirza I too would have us skip the point just so the debate doesn't side-track to a trinity doctrine debate, and will try to keep the focus on Jesus divinity, rather than its exact nature. But it still needs addressed to a small degree with more than, "he's god he can 'beget' however he wants" In Hell, the basic doctrine is that no two objects can occupy the same space. to make yourself greater you must destroy or consume others to extend yourself. Now if this is your view than by all means Jesus would have to be half-god. But God does make things this way. If things were that way, he could love you and me with only a fraction of his heart rather than all of it, or love me with all of it and not you at all or vise versa. This doctrine of love that involves overlap in existence is one he pushes on us all the time to remind of how we should be. Once you understand that, and that god is omnipresent, what he begets can do nothing but overlap entirely with God as well as one and the same God. This philosophy o heaven is one that Satan himself doesn't understand, and that is part of why he rebelled. He is not a being that gets any part of how love works, how two things can coexist and grow without destroying or consuming each other. So God begetting a being that is still himself, still just one God works perfectly with how God works.