Jesus Christ is God

This is my last rebuttal, I will deliver a decisive rebuttal this time! Rebuttal IV:John 1:18:First of all, all modern versions of the Bible remove the word "Begotten"and put "Only" or similar words, that could be obviously shown in the following examples:NIV John 1:18 "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son. .. ." NIV was published in 1978(Full Bible) and updated in 2011[1]KJV John 1:18 "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son" KJV was made in 1611[2]You can refer to other narrations like John 3:16 and see the difference between the modern and old versions. But if you go through the OT there are many sons of God, but Pro claims that John 1:18 says that Jesus was God's son by nature(Meaning by begetting) but the modern translations remove that interpolation, Jesus is not the begotten son of God, therefore not God's son by nature. "Monogenes theos" Does not mean "only-offspring who is God by nature" actually it means "One and only son" as translated by the NIV Bible. If the passage did say, "monogenes God," then such a translation would be inconsistent with the rest of John's message where Jesus is always portrayed as God's only-begotten Son. The Greek word itself, monogenes, indicates a Father/Son relationship. The same word is used of Isaac at Hebrews 11:17. If we carefully think about the siutation, the Father-Son version of the text seems to be far more likely than the only begotten God version. No one has seen God but the only-begotten [somebody] who is in the bosom of the Father expresses Him. If we are to understand that "God" here in this verse is the Father and only the Father, then what word goes with "Father? " The term "only-begotten Son" goes with the word "Father. " No one has ever seen God but God's only-begotten Son expresses him who is his Father and whom no one has ever seen. Verse 14 tells us that he is the Word that became flesh and verse 15 that he is the only-begotten from the Father and right here in this passage we see that he is "unto the bosom of the Father. "John 1:14 "only-begotten of the Father" John 1:18 Consistency: "only-begotten Son" Inconsistency : "only-begotten God"The "monogenes God" version is conspicuously out of place in John's writings. Christ is always portrayed by John as someone of God, Lamb of God, Son of God, Love of God, Glory of God, Word of God, Bread of God, and and begotten of God. Secondly, "monogenes God" goes against John's immediate message. It makes John out to be speaking ambiguously to say no one has ever seen God, and then to say people did indeed see God by seeing the unique God who, by the way, is flesh, and especially when he later says, "God is spirit. " Even further, notice what word monogenes is modifying throughout John's writings: SON. Jesus is God's unique son. And of course he would be if he was an only begotten son. However, now think about how out of place the term "monogenes God" is in contrast to "monogenes Son. " Why would John import such language to describe God? Why would John refer to an only-begotten God, or if you prefer, a one of a kind God, or a unique God? It is very weird selection of vocabulary to describe God Himself as monogenes. It is very understandable why John would describe God's son as monogenes. It appears Pro's want to read "God" but think "Son" when they read John 1:18. But to also refer to the son as monogenes theos amounts to tri-theism since it implicitly defies, "we do not believe in three Gods" unless of course one suppose all three members of the Trinity are monogenes theos. And when we ask ourselves how that stands in contrast to John's description of God's son as monogenes huios, it becomes quite clear that monogenes is not a term used to describe an only God but to describe an only son. John 5:19 :Basically Pro is saying that the Father granted the Son Godhood, based John 5:26, but when you go to John 5:26 it says "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. " Father gave him life, not Godhood, meaning that the Father created Jesus(Refutation to John 1:18 above). Hebrews 1 :I am sorry in my last round I said these are Paul's words, when they are not, no one knows who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews, now to my rebuttal:First you can see that in the modern translation begotten is removed, NIV Hebrews 1:5 "5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,“You are my Son;today I have become your Father” because It is another interpolation. And the anonymous author of Hebrews likes to contradict Jesus by saying in Hebrews 1:6 "6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,“Let all God’s angels worship him. ” But wait, didn't Jesus say worship God only in the Gospel of Matthew 4:9-10 "" 'All this I will give you,' he (Satan) said (to Jesus), 'if you will bow down and worship me. ' Jesus said to him, 'Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only. ' "In this verse, we clearly see that Jesus refused to obey to Satan's commands by taking Satan as his GOD or Superior. Jesus told him that non shall be worshiped except GOD Almighty. So Hebrews contradict Jesus, and Pro used a wrong translation, therefore Hebrews cannot be used as an evidence for Jesus's divinity. Matthew 24:36 :Again says that God gives the Son(which is also God according to trinity), knowledge or the "DIVINE MIND", basically he says that when God was manifest in the Father, he gave himself knowledge after some time, which is back-flipping apologitic response, again the verses you presented are people telling Jesus that, but what did he say? he said " ". .. .nor the Son, but only the Father. " only the Father, I trust the words of Jesus not the disciples, obviously the disciples never understood Jesus, even told them you cannot bear things I have to tell you:John 16:4 "12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. " and scolded the disciples many times example: Matthew 16:8 "Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, "You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? " the disciples of Jesus are little of faith, and then you quote Paul who did not meet Jesus or even seen him, hmm, trust the words of Jesus or Paul? the answer is obviously Jesus. Colossians 2:9 :As seen In my previous arguments Paul contradicts Jesus, and Jesus is from God, Paul says he isn't 1 Cor. 7:25 "Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord,but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy"(Refer also to 1 Cor 7:12 and 2 Cor. 11:17)Jesus is inspired, Paul says he doesn't talk from the Lord, but you still hold on to Paul's words instead of Jesus's. Psalm 146 :I am sorry I was ignorant about the numbering, but sadly I could not find the word used in John 14:1 "πιστεa3;ω" meaning is "to believe, entrust" It is not there, you can check the sources, It is not there. Sources:Greek word: . http://biblehub.com...Psalm 146: . http://en.katabiblon.com...Job 25:First of all in Psalm 22:6 if you see the whole context, people are making fun of David, and he is crying for the Lord(Refer to whole of 22) and It is David speaking in 22:6 calling himself a worm, not Jesus calling himself, argument posted by Pro in round 3 is fallacious. I was not off topic, I was disproving Paul using the words of Jesus. John 14:28 :Actually there is one definition which I said with the sources given, Pro does not have an answer thus attempting to disprove me, Pro is just clutching at straws. Definition is one which is " "Of ability, quality, or eminence considerably above average" [1] my argument is extended. [1] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...John 1:1 :In the second round he simply approves of my John 1:1 argument, now he is telling me I didn't rebutt his supposed "Rebuttal" on John 1:1Pro's false claims:He has said that I did not refute "John 1:18,Hebrews 1,John 5:19,Colossians 2:3,John 1:1, Philippians 2:6,and Colossians 2:9. "I refuted John 1:18, Hebrews 1, John 5:19, Colossians 2:3(Paul contradicts Jesus, again), and Colossians 2:9 in this round. He said that I didn't refute Philipians 2:6, when he actually dropped his argument on Philipians 2:6 on the second round. Arguments that Pro did not refute:Argument ofJohn 13:3, Matthew 19:16-17, John 7:16, John 14:24, and John 8:26. Closing statement :Pro droped 1 of 3 of his main arguments which is on Phillipians 2:6, clutching at straws in an argument, and giving mostly frail rebuttals, I urge the viewers to vote for me, I did rebutt everything he claimed, and he even droped one of his main arguments, thus makes him in weak position in this debate.