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

In the first paragraph, you show that Jesus is fully man, and has the characteristics of a man. This is not disputed. Jesus is fully man, and fully God -- that is what the doctrine says. “The Bible tells us that Jesus is a man and that as a man he is not omniscient.”However, the Bible also clearly states Jesus’ omniscience. John 16:29-30 (KJV) says, “Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.” John 21:17 (KJV) says, ”And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.” Jesus does not correct them either time.At this point, we have some options. We can either try and find some loophole that allows us to the escape the fact that Jesus knows all things, or we can accept what is plainly in front of us. Jesus is both omniscient and not omniscient; the only explanation for this is that he is both God and man. The doctrine, and the Bible, says that Jesus, as a man, grew in knowledge. And he, as God, knew all things. Those who believe the texts presented accept that such a concept is beyond understanding by humans; so also is the nature of God.According to Jesus John the Baptist was obedient to God; according to John anyone can be obedient to God.He says that John was obedient; he does not say that John was sinless. 1 John says that we can stop sinning because he has taken them away; any sin committed is paid for. This does not mean sinning is acceptable - Romans 7. “Blameless” - Hebrew tamiym, refers to “complete, whole, entire, sound”. This makes sense, as the verses directly before say that no one should engage in the practices of the nations which God has driven out. They should maintain their integrity as a nation, and not bring in parts of other cultures. It does not mean each person can be fully without sin.Paul writes clearly in Romans 3, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. Genesis 8:21 writes that the imagination of man’s heart is evil from youth. Ephesians 2:2 says we were all by nature children of wrath. What exempts Jesus from this? If he was fully man, and not God, then how has he not sinned, and why is his heart not evil, and what exempts him from being a child of wrath? The Father instructs Jesus, and commands him to do what he does. Command, entellomai, (Strong’s G1781) means, “to enjoin, to charge, command.” God instructing Jesus on what to do, such as die on the cross, does not mean that Jesus is capable of sin. Many translations render Moses being “a god” as “like God,” “as God” “seem as God,” “in the place of God” in Exodus 7. (NIV, ESV, ISV, ERV, CJB, CEB, even the NKJV). Even the second text you provided says that Moses will be in the place of God to Aaron, not that he is God/a god. How can you say the text for God in Psalm 45 is used figuratively for Jesus and literally for God, when they are only separated by one verse? The only reason you have is to deny what the scripture says. John 10:34 comes four verses after Jesus says, “I and the Father are one”. The Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus says that he has proved that he is God’s Son through his good works, and that it is not blasphemy for God’s Son, fully God, to call himself God. Psalm 82 is God sarcastically calling the rulers are “gods” because that is what they believed themselves to be. They defended the wicked (v.2) and they will die like mortals (v. 7). It is also clear that they cannot be sons of the Most High in the same way that Jesus is, because John 3:16 clearly calls Jesus “God’s only Son”.God the Father has no need to be anointed; God the Son, fully man and fully God, may be anointed. The Father may confer divine authority on the Son. Fully man, Jesus has a God.You have refuted your own initial argument, if you believe that God the Father appeared as a man to Moses! You stated that God is literally not a man, yet here God is, man, speaking face to face with Moses. The logical explanation here is that Jesus, fully God with the form of a man, appeared to Moses. Otherwise, you are left with the conclusion that God, who is “literally not a man” was a man. God’s nature is unchanging; if you argue that the Father is literally not a man, then he must literally not be a man for all time. You continue to provide text that damages your own case. God is “one Lord”. This is confirmed in Revelation 4:11, when the elders worship God the Father as “our Lord and God”. Yet Jude 1:4 calls those who deny the fact that Jesus is our only Owner/Master/Sovereign and Lord/God (ESV, NIV, NLT, even NWT) false teachers. So how can God be our Lord, if Jesus is our only Lord? Paul calls Jesus “our Lord” many times throughout his letters. You said it yourself. God is one Lord - thus, Jesus and the Father are different persons within the same being, God, and the being, God, is one Lord. Otherwise we are left two Lords - two individual beings with absolute ownership over us. Yet the earth is God’s, and everything in it (Psalm 89:11). How can Jesus be our kyrios, our absolute Lord, the one with authority over us, if everything is God’s? You say that it is more logical to read that the “word is about God”, yet you do not give any source for saying this. You are essentially saying, “It’s logical, because it fits with my view”. It is not logical to read Scripture with words added, unless you can give a legitimate reason for adding the word. You have not quoted any sources that state how “the word was God” or “God was the word” could mean, “the word was about God”. I have quoted a source that says otherwise; here are more (1).Dr. B. F. Westcott: "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in 4:24. It is necessarily without the article . . . No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true Deity of the Word . . . in the third clause `the Word' is declared to be `God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead." The Gospel According to St. John (Eerdmans,1953- reprint) p. 3, (The Bible Collector, July-December, 1971, p. 12.)Dr. Ernest C. Colwell (University of Chicago): "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb; . . .this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. `My Lord and my God.' " John 20:28Colwell clearly states that when the noun precedes the verb, the article is dropped; this completely refutes your initial argument against John 1. You say,”It is of him and from him ... it was through God's word spoken by him that all things came into creation; 'And God said…'” Later on, you say "1 Corinthians 8:6 states that all things are from the Father and because of Jesus." Yet, you only conclude this because you ignore the first definition of “di” which is “through”. What is says is, “from the Father” and “through Jesus”, which is why every English translation I found renders it “through/by” and not “because of/for” (NIV ESV KJV ASV ISV ERV DRA YLT TLB NOG GNV.. etc). Even the NWT, which was deliberately edited to avoid having Jesus be God, translates it as “through”. If your position held any water, would not several translations, or even one, render it as “because of” or “for”? It would be a simple change. You will have to cite several reliable Greek scholars to stand against the plethora of translations that contradict you. As it is, Jesus was involved in creating the world, yet since it repeatedly says, “God said”, the conclusion is that Jesus is God. Jesus does not separate the logos, which was with God and was God, from himself. The doctrine coming from Jesus mouth, didache, is not the same as the logos which became flesh in John 1. Jesus would have no reason to separate the divine logos from himself; he spoke those words around A.D. 30, and John wrote his Gospel about 50 years later. If the plural is because of the seven spirits of God, as you claim, why are they speaking? No where is it said that these spirits are personal, or that they speak. Why would these seven spirits be speaking in Genesis 1, 3, and 11, and then never again? If God is seven spirits, why are these seven spirits only mentioned four times in the entire Bible, and each time in the midst of highly figurative language? None of the verses say that the more spirits that dwell in us, the more like God we become. There is no reason to connect these spirits to the plurals in Genesis. How could the fulness of deity in Hebrews refer to a text written decades later? It is more logical to assume that Paul means what he says: Christ is fully God.You didn’t address my argument about how man could be in the image of God if God is literally not a man. Tselem means image, resemblance (Strong’s H6754). Your seven Spirits theory does not explain how man is in God’s image. Jesus being God does.Above/Beneath: Jesus clearly identifies “beneath” as “of this world”. Not Hell/Satan. So Jesus is still claiming himself to be from above/heaven.Mediator: Moses cannot be, and clearly is not, a mediator in the same way Jesus is, as Paul writes “there is one mediator”. Jesus mediated between God’s wrath and its recipients, while people merely inquired of God through Moses.Death of God necessary: Only God’s sacrifice could satisfy the wrath an eternally sinless God against a sinful race, and man still must pay the price. That is why the sacrifice of the lamb for the Jews was not enough.God’s Son does mean God: Adam was not a son in the same way as Jesus was (John 3:16). It is not logical that an offspring of something divine would not itself be divine - that is how it works in all of God’s creation, why would God work differently?Notes in comments