The following verses of the Bible make it evident that Jesus is God

I have no idea what scripture my opponent thinks I have denied out of disagreement. It is ironic that out of the two of us I am the one accused of cherry picking my scripture, and in such a way that mirza criticizes me for this while at the same time arguing the words that are not written in red (what Jesus say's) do not matter. It seems the extent of his rebuttal to that point about all scripture is the word of God was "there are tons of passages calling many things "Lord," "god," and so forth. Why would they ever apply exclusively to Jesus in any literal way? " The answer is by context, context which I showed was clearly present in the Gospel of John witch Mirza ignored. . http://www.bible-researcher.com... In any case on that matter, my point stands un-refuted that all scripture are the word of God. Now that may be an act of faith, but its the same faith that's needed to believe anything in the bible at all. If that faith is not good enough for any of scripture, than it is not good enough for the rest of scripture and you invalidate all of scripture as mattering including the words that Jesus said. Without faith you cant justify even believing that what Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, or the Q (book Matthew and Luke take from) truly recorded anything Jesus said. So again I say, either it is all true, or none of it is. So my first two scriptures need stronger rebuttal than 'well there not Jesus' The same Holy Spirit whose hand guided any of those writers hands to write the words of Jesus also guided there hands as they wrote statements from other people such as Peter, Paul. .. . and John. Now towards giving scripture that fulfills requirement a) that you gave, that is the third set that we are arguing over. Its not a lone qualifier for it of course . http://www.biblegateway.com... I give that scripture understanding you originally had me agree to refer to only 3 this debate, but you also asked last round "Please refer to that passage. " So I referred Jesus answer to Phillip and leave whether or not it should be counted in this debate up to your judgment. I leave the same judgment call to you if its appropriate to include this in the debate for point b) where people call Jesus the Son of God and are un-refuted. . http://bible.org... Peter calls him the son of the living God here and Jesus not only fails to correct him but praises him and makes him the rock on which his church will be built. the Pharisees tell Pilot that Jesus said he is the son of god and upon Pilots questioning Jesus offers no correction but even further cements the idea that indeed he believes he is the son of god as Pilot threatens he could have him crucified . http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com... Pilot did not care so much when he thought he was being crucified for claiming to be king of the Jews, only after learning he was the son of god did he choose to fight to have him released. Now I'm going to cover the 3 scripture we have been debating in reverse order because your responses to each go from smallest to longest in that order. If I do this hopefully I will not spend what character space I can on all of them. I AM You pick 'I AM' because that's the normal meaning of the terms. You have given no data to show why this is a special case in Greek to deviate from that. My point about it making no difference if he said I have or I am in response to you saying it cant be 'before Abraham was I am' cause that sentence just sounds confusing. changing it to 'I have' does not make it less confusing sounding. I Know what YHWH translates too. It does not matter. You will recall, the bulk of my argument for why ‘I AM' equals ‘I AM God' was not because of God's given name in Exodus. Its because of what ‘I AM' means. The all eternal fact that is simply is rather than is because of something else. Being the 'I AM' alludes to that. the name 'I AM what I AM' also alludes to that. YHWH is a proper noun, you don't need to translate it to its meaning, just like you don't need to translate ‘Jesus' every time its written to ‘God rescues/ is savior' It's easy to see why ergo eimi would be translated like a sentence rather kept in the actual words it was first spoken or written as if it were a name. Next off concerning John translating Jesus words from Aramaic, assuming he did so incorrectly, you still cannot tell me what Jesus did say. You were not there listening to Jesus yourself say what he said in Aramaic to know that John did indeed misunderstand what Jesus meant in Greek. You cannot know what John translated is the wrong way to translate the words of Jesus when you didn't here them to translate yourself. You only have the Gospel of john and must believe on faith that he was not smart enough to translate Jesus words correctly. Immanuel It seems the extent of Cons response to this scripture last round was 'Christians don't make a big deal out of other dreams in the bible. ' First off, that is false, I don't think a year goes by without Christians making much out of every prophesy or set of dreams in the bible and comparing them to current events. Second off, even if we don't, (but we in fact do) so what? Different content of vision or dream, different meaning. With different meaning inevitably comes different importance. Only Begotten You claim I ignored the fabrication point, and towards my response that point you go 'I did not say that. I said that David is right because he was a Prophet, John was a disciple. ' I could just as easily argue against David like that saying 'David was a king, john was a prophet' then can indeed be more than just a prophet, or just a king, or just a disciple. If you find that a rather lacking as a argument, well you didn't give much to argue against. 'Johns a fabrication' is a unsubstantiated claim that you still have provided no source for. with what reasoning you did give for why it must be fabricated was mentioning begotten 'cannot be found in the oldest scriptures of the Bible' & 'There are no traces of it in the older scriptures' lack of oldness does not mean its fabricated scripture, if god wanted to he could have one of his servants write another book today and add the 'Winchester' gospel to the bible today. Now, for the sake of space I will leave my defense that Psalm 2 is about Jesus to these sources . http://www.christnotes.org... . http://www.bibleexplained.com... . http://jfb.biblecommenter.com... . http://ezinearticles.com... Towards the passage of Exodus, or Genesis, or so on. .. I did not respond directly to that but I did address it. I openly admitted I could never argue all occasions where the term 'son of god' is used that its talking about Jesus. It changes with context, it could mean angles, the nation of Israel like you offered, all the saved, or even everyone everywhere. But it stands un-refuted that from the context in John its clear he meant something quite different from all those other uses when calling Jesus the son of the living God. Scholars agree . http://av1611.com... Surely you don't deny this Mirza, or you wouldn't spend so much time arguing John is just a disciple or that the passage is fabricated if what the passage actually says doesn't mean what I say it means to start with.