Jesus isnt God he's The begotten Son of God

I didn't claim that Deuteronomy 4:35 and Isaiah 43:10-11 say that Jesus is God. What I said was "The Scriptures proclaim that there is one, and only one God in all of existence. (Deu 4:35; Isa 43:10-11; 44:6, 8; 45:5-6, 14, 21-22; 46:9; Mal 2:10; Rom 3:30; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:6; Jam 2:19)." You cannot refute that Deuteronomy 4:35 and Isaiah 43:10-11 say that there is only one God, that is the point of all these passages. That's my first premise, that there is only one God. My second premise is established by other passages such as John 20:28; Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1-3; Hebrews 1:8-10; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13 and others, showing that Jesus called God in the Bible. Now, since there is only one God, then either Jesus is this one God, or he is another God, meaning that all those passages which say there is only one God are all wrong. Since they cannot be all wrong, because God doesn't contradict himself, then Jesus must be God. Further, the Bible says there is only one true God (John 17:3), which makes all other gods false; so if, when the Bible calls Jesus "God," you claim that he is ANOTHER God beside the true God, then you would actually be saying Jesus is a false god. So if he is not another God besides the true God, then he is the true God! Since no false god could be out Savior, Jesus must truly be God! Now, to explain Thomas confession of faith where he called Jesus "my God" in John 20:28, you went to John 20:31, but John 20:31 is not an explanation of Thomas' statement in John 20:28. Rather, John 20:31 is an explanation of the miracles (signs) that Jesus performed. John 20:30-31 says: "Jesus performed many other signs (miracles) in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." So all this is saying, is that Jesus did many signs (miracles) that are not recorded in the book of John, but these miracles are recorded in this book, are recorded to show that Jesus is the Son of God and the Christ (Messiah). So this is not trying to say that Thomas called him "my God" to show that he was the Son of God. Thomas called him "my God" because he was his God, Just as you would agree that Thomas called him "my Lord" because he was his Lord. If Thomas was wrong, and Jesus was not his God, Jesus would have rebuked Thomas for blasphemy; but Jesus accepted it, and pronounced a blessing on such a confession of faith in him as my Lord and my God. In fact, the term "my God" that is used in John 20:28 has one, and only one consistent meaning throughout the rest of the entire Bible. It always, without exception, refers to the True God; so why should we change the meaning of "my God" in John 20:28 to fit your theology? You are making the false assumption that if Jesus is the Son of God, that he cannot also be God. But that's all this is, your assumption. I accept all of what the Bible says. The Bible calls him both God, and the Son, just like in Isaiah 9:6 he is called a son, a child, and yet he is called mighty God, and eternal Father. I believe this by faith. I don't reject something just because it might not be easy to understand how its possible. I don't understand how God hears millions of prays at the same time without getting confused, but I trust that God is able to do it. Jesus said he would resurrect himself from the dead in John 2:19-22. How does a dead man raise himself? Yet, when he was raised from the dead, his disciples believed him, and so do I. You said in your video on YouTube that you don't see how its possible or even logical for Jesus to be both God and the Son of God at the same time. So, think about what you are saying: if you can't comprehend how it's possible, therefore, its not true. Is truth determined by your ability to comprehend? Scientists can't fully comprehend how the human brain works, and neither do you, but surely you don't think that the brain doesn't exist! So how could you say that a trinity cannot exist just because you don't comprehend how it's possible? Many things that are not logical to many people turn out to be true. It's not logical to many people that a loving God would allow so much suffering on this earth, but that doesn't make it true. Many people think its irrational that a God who is all-powerful and wants us to know him would not give us better evidence than a 2000 year old book! They think God would write his name among the starts, or part the Red Sea once a year, or give us some scientifically verified resurrections today so that we would know he is real. Yet, the situation is what it is, and none of this stops us from believing the Bible, does it? Our minds can't even comprehend the concept of not having a beginning, yet Psalm 90:2 tells us God has no beginning. Amazing, while you claim Jesus was created, Hebrews 7:3 tells us that Jesus is without beginning of days or end of life. So my claim is that if many things in the Bible which seem illogical to many people out there are nevertheless true, and you don't say they are false just because many people think they are irrational, then why should the rest of us reject the belief that Jesus is God just because it seems irrational to you? It seems not only irrational, but cruel to some people, that God would command the slaughter of women and children, even little babies (1 Sam 15:3), or kill a man just for picking up sticks on a certain day (Num 15:32-36), or command a man to kill his own Son (Gen 22:1-2). Yet, as irrational as these things seem to some people, the Bible records all these things as facts. So if Jesus being both God, and the Son of God seems irrational to you, that doesn't make it false. You are just one out of many, many, many other people out there who think that some of the teachings in the Bible don't make sense to them, and so you either reject the Bible, or re-interpret what it says to fit the theology that suits you. I am a son of man, yet, I am also man (that is, human); similarly, Jesus being the Son of God, is also God, inasmuch as he has the same exact nature as God the Father. The Greek word for "onlybegotten" at John 3:16 is monogenes, which means "only one of a kind." It has nothing to do with being created; its simply saying that as the God-man, and second divine person, Jesus is unique. ""The translation "only-begotten" is inferior to "unique." It was thought that the term came from monoV (monos), meaning "only" and gennaw (gennao), meaning "begotten." However, further research has determined that the term is derived not from gennaw but from genos), meaning "kind" or "type." Hence the better translation, "unique" or "one of a kind."" See Louw and Nida, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (1988) p. 591; Newman and Nida, A Translator"s Handbook on the Gospel of John, 1980, p. 24; and Moulton and Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, 1930, pp. 416-417. At Hebrews 11:17, Isaac is called Abraham"s "only-begotten son." Since Isaac was not the only son born to Abraham23. , it is clear from the context of Hebrews 11 that Isaac is called Abraham"s "only-begotten" in the sense of his uniqueness as God"s covenant purposes were to be carried out through Isaac and his descendants. In the same way, Jesus is called the "only-begotten" Son of God in the sense of His uniqueness as the second person of the Triune God. The New Englishman"s Greek Concordance and Lexicon provides the following meaning for monogenese: ""only-begotten, unique, one of its special kind." (p.579) So only-begotten doesn't prove Jesus is created. Hebrew 7:3 says Jesus is "without beginning of days or end of life." John 1:3 says that he created ALL THINGS, and nothing was made without his action, which means he can't be a created being, because if he was, then at least one thing (himself) was made without his help. Hebrews 7:3 would be a lie if Jesus was created.