The divinity of Jesus is a false doctrine that goes against the teachings of the Bible.

“You have submitted Bible verses consisting of two of Jesus' dispels saying that Jesus knew all things and they have clarified why they thought this.” Only in one of the verses do they “clarify” and they say that Jesus (not specifically his knowledge) came from God. The Son comes from the Father; this does not undermine their statement that Jesus knows all things. “He received the word of God and did not need to ask anything of men.” This is not mentioned. They said, “you know all things.” They didn’t say, “God has told you everything,” or “You have the word of God so you know all things”. It is explicitly stated that Jesus knows all things, twice. They did not say that God had told Jesus everything, or that God spoke everything through Jesus. They said, “You know all things”. We have Biblical evidence that shows that A. Jesus does not know the time of his own return and B. He knows all things. My position allows for both of these biblical passages to be true, and for the meaning to not be twisted. Jesus is fully man - in his manhood, there are things that he may not know, and he may learn and grow. In his Godhood, he knows all things, as his disciples said. Your position forces you to deny one of the passages, or to twist/add a meaning beyond what is written. Your evidence said nothing about Jesus ‘knowing all things that God chooses to tell him’. My position allows for every word of the Bible to be true. You have only shown where Jesus says that John has risen higher than any other man, not that he was obedient/sinless. Regardless, obeying God’s law =/= sinless. I have obeyed God’s laws many times - I am not sinless. 1 Jn 1:8 says, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” Job could not have been sinless either, as he repented and despised himself in Job 42. This fits with scripture; Paul writes that all have sinned. Otherwise, we are left with the predicament that all have sinned, yet Job and John did not sin. You have created contradictions. These men he calls ‘righteous’ are Pharisees. Taken into context, he cannot genuinely be calling them righteous. He frequently argued with the Pharisees, calling them a brood of vipers and liars. The Pharisees also certainly do not understand the nature of Jesus. At the end of Mk 2 they claim Jesus is being unlawful on the Sabbath, not understanding that he is Lord of the Sabbath. Kyrios means, ‘person to whom something belongs’. If the Sabbath belongs to Jesus, where is God in this picture? The seventh day is supposed to be a sabbath to God, yet it belongs to Jesus -- God. So logically, Jesus is not actually calling these men righteous. They believed they were righteous, like the gods in Ps 82:6, but theirs was not that which, “comes from God and is by faith,” but one that “comes from the law,” as per Phi 3. Jesus is calling those who know they are broken sinners, because those who are broken will receive the kingdom of God - Mt. 5. Jn 8 - the adulteress. It is clear when Jesus says ‘sin no more’ that she has lived a life of sin in adultery, and should stop. Does this mean she was capable of never lying again? If she was, then she could theoretically get into a position where she did not sin, and she would then be able to call herself sinless. Yet as I quoted earlier, 1 Jn says that anyone who claims they are without sin deceives themselves. The ‘him’ referred to in 1 Jn 3 is Christ. God does not see the sins of those who live in Christ, because as John said in v5, he took away all sins. Jesus says that the Father is greater, but he is not part of “all have sinned”. You bring up, “There is no one good but God” -- yet you have just claimed that JtB, Job, and Jesus were all good - unless good is higher than ‘perfect’, ‘blameless’, ‘upright’, ‘obedient’, or ‘holy’. Jesus denying his own goodness does not fit scripture; and if he is not denying his own goodness, then he is answering his own question: ‘Why do you call me good? - God alone is good’. Jesus here is acknowledging that he is God - that is how he can be good. This lines up with scripture, because John and Job can then still rest under “all have sinned” and “all are children of wrath” while Jesus is set apart as good because he is God. You cannot deny that Jesus is good if you also accept that he is blameless, holy, without sin, and superior to angels. “The Father conferring divine authority... You are asserting that God has created another God” I have not. I have said that the Son, fully man and fully God, had divine authority conferred upon him as a man. This fits, because it says in Philippians 2 that “Christ Jesus, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:” Christ, who had the form of God, took the form of a man, and was given divine authority, as a man. If Christ was only God, then your refute would be accurate, but the doctrine of Jesus’ divinity says that Christ was God and man. This aligns with the Bible, as Thomas calls Christ, “My Lord and my God”. Kyrios mou kai ho Theos mou. Not only does he say God, he says, “the God” which you used as indication of the true God in Jn 1:1. “monogenés … not specifically 'only son” Yes. Huion means son. ton huion ton monogene - the son the only. Thus, the ‘gods’ are not actual sons of the Most High, and neither was Adam, in the way that Jesus was. There is still no basis to believe that a true son of divine nature would not himself have divine nature. “Ex 33:11 does not say that God took the form of a man.” He spoke as a man, face to face. God also appears as an angel and a man - Gen 16, 22, 32, Ex 3 “Neither of the words describing Jesus in Jude 1:4 mean God.” I emphasized the definition of kyrios - Lord. Jude describes Jesus as our only Lord, and anyone who says otherwise is a false teacher. Yet everything in the earth belongs to God. We have a dilemma. Jesus is our only Lord, yet clearly everything in the earth is God’s (Ps 24, Acts 17:24). Thus Jesus is God. “Colwell is arguing against using the article within the sentence.” Colwell said that the article ho/ton is absent when the definitive predicate nominative precedes the verb. You said, “He does not write that 'The God' was the word. Instead he writes 'God' was the word. The definitive article 'the' is absent rendering God a predicate of the subject 'the word', 'ho logos'”. All of my sources have shown that the article is only missing because theos was placed first in order to show its importance, and when it is first, it is without the article. Rev identifies the Word as Jesus. 19:11-15 indicates that ‘Faithful and True’ is named the “the Word of God”, and that the Word will rule the nations with an iron sceptre, and the Word is called King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Rev. 3:14 indicates that Jesus is the one who is faithful and true, and Ps 2:9 identifies Jesus as the one with the iron sceptre. Rev 17:14 indicates that the Lamb, who is Jesus, is the Lord of Lords and King of Kings. Rev and Jn have the same authorship, so the word of God in Rev can connect to the word of God in Jn 1. ‘Because of’ is not a broader meaning. It is a completely different meaning. ‘Through’ refers to the channel by which an act is done. ‘Because of’ indicates that God created everything, including Jesus, because he wished to give everything to Jesus. I have no reason to accept this definition. What is says that all things were created by the Father through Jesus - thus, Jesus was involved in the act of creation. “When Jesus highlights that his words were from God… Jesus is expressly denying his divinity.” He is denying that he is God the Father. He is not, as you originally claimed, separating himself from the word of God (Jn 1), or denying that he is God’s Son. “One God with one voice referring to himself in the plural form.”. You are saying that God is speaking to his attributes. That is not logical or scriptural. He never speaks to these spirits again; what scriptural reason is there to assume that he is speaking of them now? Later, these spirits are depicted as lamps, eyes, and horns, and God never speaks to, or in plurality with, them. However, the spirit (singular) of God is shown hovering over the waters in Gen 1:2, and through Jesus the Word all things were made. This is a much stronger scriptural basis for God speaking in the plural. You also have not logically connected Jesus having the seven spirits with the fulness of deity mentioned by Paul. The fulness of deity includes infinity, not merely wisdom, counsel, knowledge, etc. “We are therefore alike him.” This does not explain how we are like him in image, form, resemblance. Our attributes are infinitely less than God’s; we can’t be like something that is infinitely greater. Our attributes are not our image or form. It is logical to say that we are like him in form only if God’s Son is the basis for the human form. “All of my Biblical evidence explicitly illustrates that Jesus is not God.” Your biblical evidence has shown that the Son is not the Father. Jesus claiming to be God’s Son is a claim to divinity. Jn 3:16 clearly identifies him as “the son the only”. It is clear that this is how it was understood in Jn 5:18 (KJV) “Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.” The Pharisees understand that Son of God is a claim to being equal with God. That is why they desire to kill him. It goes along with his statements, “I and the Father are one,” and “I am from above”. It also clarifies how Jesus can be our Lord, our kyrios, the one with absolute authority over us. He is one with God; a separate person, as you’ve shown, but one being. Otherwise, God is not our Lord, because Jesus is called our Lord at nearly every turn (in all of Paul’s introductions to his letters, in Ro 10:9, etc.)