Divinity of the Biblical Jesus Christ Peace be upon Him

A & B) Pro mentions that God wanting to save everyone is a case of ‘begging the question', so if I am not mistaken; Pro believes that God does not intend everyone to be saved. I would like Pro to confirm if such is the case. There is no point in mentioning other branches of Christianity; I need to know what Pro understands. Does he believe God wants to save all mankind or not? If the answer is yes and if God became a man on Earth, then we expect God (or Christ pbuh) to clearly state that Jesus (pbuh) is God incarnate, this is only logical, because one should be able to recognise God. If not, then is God not all Loving? Pro then went on to mention that I was correct in saying that Jesus (pbuh) forbade calling any man on Earth God, and so his "logical assumption" is that if any man was called God or worshiped and Christ (pbuh) didn't correct, that person is in fact God. First of all: Arguing from Christ's (pbuh) silence is a very weak argument. Also my opponent is giving his own interpretation here. Jesus (pbuh) said "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your father, which is in heaven"[1], Jesus (pbuh) was referring to everyone including himself by saying "no man upon the Earth". And so while saying this, if Jesus (pbuh) does get addressed as God (or worshiped) and accepts or does not correct such an address: this means either Jesus (pbuh) of the Bible or the Bible itself is in contradiction. Note that I did not use monotheism to claim that Jesus (pbuh) could not be God (such an argument is too lengthy for me to introduce in this discussion); I said in all monotheistic religions, salvation depends on the understanding of God. Pro then mentions the Trinity and provides an external link for the readers as an argument. This is diversion from the equality of space and time in this debate. C) My opponent believes the red words of Jesus (who he believes to be Lord) in the Bible are no more important than then the black words of men such as Paul, John etc. And he is in process of obtaining a conformation of this from a leading scholar. My argument here is: are the words of the Lord God not more precious and divine than the writings of even the very pious of men? Regarding John 8:58, I wish not to counter such arguments in this round but in the next due to limited space. D & E) In the last round Pro mentioned that Jesus (pbuh) "limited" himself from being divine. Now he changes "limited" to "abstained". The word ‘limited' is now "perhaps problematic". Changing the word doesn't solve the problem. Saying that Jesus was God and man at the same time is contradictory, because God is unlimited and man is limited, this in fact. If God became Jesus (pbuh) a man on Earth then he became fully man: meaning limited: meaning he is no longer God. For God to become a man means He is to give up his divine qualities completely, not partially. Jesus denies himself to be good and mentions 'no one is good but the only Lord'[2]. For Jesus (pbuh) to be saying this is fine from a Muslim view point. But from a Christian point of view (believing Jesus pbuh is divine), it is deceiving not humbling. Is God not good? In further rounds I would like deal with Pro's arguments for Jesus (pbuh) being divine, such as verses from the Bible which he claims as proof and his logic and understanding of such verses. Therefore I must conclude my arguments against: So far in this debate my opponent fails to recognise the following 3 points: 1. Jesus (pbuh) is the fittest person in the Bible to confirm that he is God incarnate (if he is divine). 2. It is common sense and logical to expect a clear explicit conformation from God (or Christ pbuh) that Jesus (pbuh) is the incarnate of God if it is the case. 3. Arguing from Jesus' (pbuh) silence makes a very weak argument. To say ‘it is an assumption to understand: if God came down to earth as a man, he would do so in an explicit manner and reveal it to all the people' begs the question: why wouldn't God explicitly reveal his presence if and when He became Jesus (pbuh)? He likes to stay on safe grounds here by saying: ‘to prove such an assumption we need irrefutable logic or evidence'. Nevertheless, Pro does seem to admit there is no clear or direct confirmation from God or even Jesus (pbuh) in the Bible of his "divinity" as a man. We must understand that God is unlimited and Jesus (pbuh) a man is limited, and to believe in a being which is limited also unlimited at the same time is theologically impossible. Finally, it is very clear if one who reads the Bible from an unbiased point of view, can find no clear, solid, irrefutable, undeniable evidence of Christ's (pbuh) divinity. Thank you. 1] Matthew 23:9 2] Mark 10:17-18