I want to debate whether Jesus is the God of the Bible.

My understanding of your argument is that by arguing that Jesus is part of a Triune God, or Trinity, that Jesus is the God of the Bible. You did, in fact, include the Trinity in your opening statements. I am arguing that there is no Trinity and therefore Jesus is not the God of the Bible. Simply, Jesus is not God. I stated that if Jesus were God he would be equal a belief generally held by those who support the Trinity. Then I gave scripture that demonstrates Jesus declaration of inferiority to his father. A father possesses a higher rank than a son within a family. At Jesus baptism and during his transfiguration God announced that Jesus was his son. You haven't really directly addressed these scriptures. If you can, please, oblige me, thank you. I will address as many of the scriptures you presented as I can before moving onto my own argument. But first I want to clarify something about the Bible and I think you might agree: God's word, The Bible, is PERFECT. This is to say that there is no contradiction and that every teaching and scripture found within it should HARMONIZE with the other scriptures and teachings found in its pages. Every man-made misunderstanding and manufactured contradiction regarding can be reconciled through further study of a scriptures immediate context and how it fits with established overarching themes and basic principles found throughout the entirety of the Bible. A scripture cannot be fully understood without consideration of other Scripture. Any teaching should harmonize with all the scriptures. I want to start with John 1: 1-3 and reconcile it with Colossians 1:15,16 while knocking a few of your other scriptures out too. First of all there is a common misunderstanding regarding John 1:1 In the original Greek there is a distinction made between the two mentions of the word god. This is to say they are not the same, a distinction the King James version, of which your quotation comes from, fails to account for. The first word translated to god is in its superlative sense (HO THEOS, or TON THEOS) this sense is always used exclusively in reference to JEHOVAH. Which would stand to say that the Word (Jesus) was with the superlative GOD. But in describing Jesus the superlative sense is dropped and left as THEOS, the inferior sense of the word. Which is to say that the word, while similar in nature to Jehovah, or made of the same divine substance, is still inferior. Other translations more accurately render this scripture as, "and the Word was a god." This would demonstrate the nature of the Word's existence while accounting for the deliberate distinction between the two intended in the original language. The scripture goes on to explain how all things came into existence through him. This harmonizes with Colossians. Jesus is described as the firstborn; this is no mere idiom. This means Jesus was created; created first before anything else. This is an important distinction because Jehovah was not created, God has always existed, but Jesus had a beginning. Jesus was the first of anything to have a beginning. The other scriptures in Colossians go on to describe Jesus having a part in creating all "OTHER" things. Many translations include this distinction because, though obvious by the distinction of having a beginning, it is important to note that Jesus did not create Jehovah, or himself. This is why in Proverbs 8:30 Jesus is referenced as a Master Worker. It also harmonizes with Jesus distinction as the "Only begotten" he alone was created solely by God's hands. Jesus had a part in creating everything afterward. None of this harmonizes if Jesus is God. Furthermore the scriptures describe Jesus as the image of God. Just as people say I am the spitting image of my father due to my mannerisms and personality, Jesus is the image of his father. An image is a representation of something else but it isn't the same thing just as a picture of an apple is not actually an apple. This makes sense. The scriptures should make sense. That's how Jesus could say what he dd in John 14:9. It's not that Jesus was God or that he even looked like God, but he is so similar to God in action and personality that he is just like his father. After all, NO ONE HAS SEEN GOD AT ANY TIME. (John 1:14) This scripture becomes a contradiction if the Trinity is true and that cannot abide. But the explanation I have given makes perfect sense. As for John 8:58 Jesus was not referring to himself as Jehovah. Relating the Greek ego eimi to the reference in Exodus is not accurate. There are plenty of uses of those Greek words in relation to simply existing. The context of the scriptures shows a conversation between Jesus and religious leaders in which Jesus discusses how he was in heaven before, has his father's approval and how the leaders are incapable of knowing God due to their persistence in sin. Jesus would go on to state that the initiative to send him to Earth was not his, but his fathers. When we arrive at verse 58 the conversation had shifted to the actions of Abraham in relation to those leaders and the religious leaders questioning his age as if it was impossible for Jesus to observe the life of Abraham. Up to this point in the conversation Jesus would have had plenty of opportunity to claim that he was Jehovah, but the context shows that he consistently displayed his separateness and his being subject to his father. It is more accurate and consistent with other scriptures to understand this use of ego eimi as meaning that Jesus existed when Abraham was alive, thus making him older than Abraham, something those leaders couldn't accept. The practice of substituting the Hebrew expression in Exodus in the Greek scriptures whenever Jesus used the words ego eimi is unfounded and more likely fraudulent BIAS as it does not harmonize with the rest of Jesus sentiments and views, or the rest or the Bible for that matter. Which I will discuss later. As for what Thomas said, "My Lord and my God!" a literal translation can be, The Lord of me and the God [ho the"osE7;] of me!" Some scholars view this expression as an exclamation of astonishment spoken to Jesus but actually directed to God, his Father. Others claim that the original Greek requires that the words be viewed as being directed to Jesus. Even if this is so, the intent of the expression "my Lord and my God" is best understood in the context of the rest of the inspired Scriptures. Since the record shows that Jesus had previously sent his disciples the message, "I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God," there is no reason to believe that Thomas thought that Jesus was the almighty God. Thomas had heard Jesus pray to his "Father," calling him "the only true God." (Joh 17:1-3) So Thomas may have addressed Jesus as "my God" for the following reasons: He viewed Jesus as being "a god" though not the almighty God. Or he may have addressed Jesus in a manner similar to the way that servants of God addressed angelic messengers of Jehovah, as recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures. Thomas would have been familiar with accounts in which individuals, or at times the Bible writer of the account, responded to or spoke of an angelic messenger as though he were Jehovah God. (Compare Ge 16:7-11, 13; 18:1-5, 22-33; 32:24-30; Jg 6:11-15; 13:20-22.) Therefore, Thomas may have called Jesus "my God" in this sense, acknowledging Jesus as the representative and spokesman of the true God. Some argue that the use of the Greek definite article before the words for "lord" and "god" indicates that these words refer to the almighty God. However, in this context the use of the article may simply reflect Greek grammar. Cases where a nominative noun with the definite article is used as vocative in Greek can be illustrated by a literal translation of such scriptures as Lu 12:32 ("the little flock") and Col 3:18"4:1 ("the wives"; "the husbands"; "the children"; "the fathers"; "the slaves"; "the masters"). In a similar way, a literal translation of 1Pe 3:7 would read: "The husbands." So the use of the article here may not be of significance in determining what Thomas had in mind when he made his statement. Let's break down Phillipians: The translation you quote is incorrect. Consider the context of the scripture, it's about humility and avoiding egotism, or notions of competitions among each other; that we should try to aspire to some higher ranks to out do one another. So why would the scripture turn around and contradict itself by saying Jesus had no issue contending with God for position? Imagine if I you asked your assistant to do something for you and they turned around and said, "sure, but I just want to let you know that I'm just as good as you and you're not really the boss of me. Also, I'm not egotistical at all!" It doesn't make sense! Rather there are plenty of translation that more accurately translate this scripture as "Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped." The New Jerusalem Bible. What harmonizes with the rest of scripture is that Jesus never considered equality with God something he should attain to. There is one person who does want that, SATAN. Satan coveted the worship God received. Would you have me believe that Jesus wanted the same thing as Satan? Jesus worshiped and prayed to Jehovah. My next argument focuses on Exodus 33:20. It says that, no man can see Jehovah and live. The scripture you quote in John 1:18 acknowledges that no one has seen God. Do you know why? Solomon helps us understand in 1Kings 8:27 where he states that the temple he constructed nor the heavens or anything can contain God. God is infinite. Jesus even likened his body to temple in John 2:19-21. The human body is similar to a temple. The temple of Jesus body could contain him because Jesus is not the infinite Jehovah. People are able to see Jesus and live because Jesus is not God.