Jesus is the True God accoring to the Bible

This debate is not about if Jesus really is God, but rather, does the Bible teach that he is God. I presented 4 lines of proof that it does. How does Con respond? Well, all he says is that some verses 'may suggest' that he is God, but this isn't good enough because the verses I gave are very explicit that he is. Terms like "my God" and "our God" as I gave in my first contention are not only unique to the true God (being given to no one else in Scripture), but are uttered in a context of monotheistic, Jewish worship, and it is this which solidifies the fact that Jesus is the true God in the mind of the Bible writers. (John 20:28; 2 Peter 1:1) Con said nothing against the fact that all Bible writers agree that there is only one God, making all others false. So if Jesus is called "God," yet is not the true God, then the only thing he could be in the mind of a monotheistic Jew, is a false god, but Con has given us proof the Bible writers or early disciples ever thought of him in such a way. Hence, it stands as good evidence in this debate that the Bible teaches Jesus is the true God. He said nothing against my second point, that Jesus is said to do what "only" God does, namely, to read hearts, create the world, and be the Savior, all of which are roles or activities that belong solely to God, and Con didn't deny this. Thus, again, it stands as proof of Jesus diety. My third line of evidence was that Jesus posesses the attributes. I gave the verses which have Jesus as eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent and immutable, and Con made no rebuttal to these claims. They stand as proof that Jesus posesses God's nature until Con does respond to these. Con also made no explanation for the clear passages I gave showing Jesus was omniscient just as God the Father it. (1 John 3:20; John 16:30; 21:17) He did however, try to refute what these verses say erecting a case that Jesus was limited in knowledge. He uses Matthew 24:36 where "only" the Father is said to know the day and the hour. But this fails as an argument against Jesus being God for 2 reasons. First, if the Father "only" knowing the day and hour implies that Jesus didn't know and thus that Jesus isn't God, the same argument could be turned against the Father in cases where there is information "only" Jesus knows. Accoding to Revelation 19:12 Jesus has a new name that no one know but he himself. Using Con's logic, this should imply that the Father didn't know and thus, the Father isn't God, but such an interpretation never entered the writings (and one assumes) the mind of the Bible writers who affirmed the Father as God. At Revelation 3:17 those who conquer are given a pebble with a new name which no one knows except the one receiving it. Does this imply the Father isn't God? Not to the first century Christians it didn't. So we have no reason to think from Matthew 24:36 that the Father "only" knowing something is evidence agaisnt Jesus' diety anymore than other individuals "only" knowing certain things being evidencee against the Father's diety. Clearly, Bible writes didn't make such interpretations. Second, Jesus was not only a man according to the Bible, but he was God. He experienced the fullness of both natures. As Philippians 2:5-8 have him in both "the form of God," and "the form of a servant," exeriencing both humanity and divinity. This may sound like a contradiction, but the debate is not about if the doctrine makes sense to Con or other unbelievers. Its about what the Bible teaches. In his humanity, Jesus could experience human limitations such as lalck of knowledge, but in his divinity, he was omniscient; and I've already given the verses which say that Jesus knows "all things," so why does this mean omnisciene for the Father and not for the Son? So limited knowledge in humanity, doesn't prove Jesus didn't posess the divinity and hence omniscience of God. My fourth contention, that Jesus is equal to God and is the Yahweh of the Old Testament also met no response and hence is still valid in this debate until Con can knock it down. These texts are very clear that Jesus is worshipped, has titles that belong "only" to God, and Old Testament texts that are speaking about Yahweh are applied as being fulfilled in him. What about Con's own case? His first contention that Jesus doesn't posess God's attributes had only one point, omniscience, so I'm guessing that since he had much more space left to build a better case he is tacitly admitting that Jesus does posess God's other attributes of eternality, omnipresence, omnipotence and immutability. But I've already shown this lack of knowledge doesn't work as evidence against Christ's Godhoood, so what about his second point? He contends that the Bible denies Christ's divinity. He uses Acts 2:22 to show the Biblel mentions Jesus separate from God, and concludes therefore that he can't be God. But Bible writers and early Christians didn't draw such conclusions from such references as Con does. For example, at John 1:1 God the Father is mentioned separately from God, yet, this didn't convince Christians the Father couldn't be God. At Hebrews 1:8 God the Father refers to his Son as "O God," in effect making himself separate from God, yet this didn't mean the Father wasn't divine. Even in the Old Testament Yahweh speaks of God in the second person or as another Yahweh aside from himself: At Genesis 19:24 the Lord [YHWH in Hebrew] rains fire and brimstone from the Lord [YHWH] in heaven. God speaks of himself as another person, "his" (Exodus 20:7), "he" (Genesis 18:19) None of this made Bible folks of that time think Yahweh couldn't be God because he was mentioned separate from him, so if being mentioned separate from God doesn't disprove the Father's divinity, neither does it deny the divinity of the Son. What I find noteworthy, is that the Bible also mentions Jesus sepatately from "men" at 1 Timothy 2:5 and Mark 13:32, but that doesn't imply that Jesus isn't a man, does it? Being mentioned sepate from man is no proof that Jesus isn't also human, posessing full human nature, so too, being mentioned separate from God the Father doesn't prove Jesus doesn't also posess divine nature like his Father, that is, it does mean Jesus can't also be God. The "servant of Jesus Christ" is mentioned separate from James. (Jude 1) Does this mean James was not a servant of Jesus Christ? Both Jude and James in that same verse are mentioned as separate from "them that are sanctified by God the Father;" does this mean Jude and James were not sanctified? Such arguments from 'separation' don't prove the two subjects can't share the same nature, for these were all men; so too, it doesn't stop both Father and Son from being God. Con goes on to comment on Acts 2:22 that "Peter did NOT see these miracles as proof that Jesus is divine," and neither do I. Miraclles alone do not prove divinity. Even the majic practising priests of Pharaoh did miracles. (Exodus 7:11-12) I never claimed it was Jesus miracles that proved Jesus was divine. But just because his miracles didn't prove his divinity doesn't mean there were not other proofs of his divinity such as the ones I outlined in this debate. In any case, it was Peter himself who claimed that Jesus was "our God" in a sentence much like the context of Acts 2 that speaks of him as a servant: "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours." (2 Peter 1:1 NIV) What we have in Acts in God the Father working through God the Son to do miracles; this in no way dispoves Jesus divinity. Why woud God "need" to make himsef Lord and Christ? He didn't. We sinners were the ones in need of a Messiah/Christ, not God. We needed a Lord. Just becase God doesn't "need" to do a thing doesn't mean he won't do it. The sam is true of us. I'm out of space, but I will respond to the rest of Con's argument in the next round.