Jesus never claimed to be God.

I assumed that my answer for point 4 also covered point 5. Reading back over my response I can understand that you feel it was not fully addressed. Please accept my deepest apologies. 5 - The divinity of Jesus is obviously a major misinterpretation. The fact that you are misinterpreting the Bible does not therefore render it meaningless. The Bible tells us that Jesus was resurrected and then assented to the Father and remained at his side, so where is the sacrifice? There is none. Do you honestly think that God the Almighty Creator of all things really required innocent pure blood to be spilt in order to enable people to be forgiven? This is not simply paganism, it is Satanic. This interpretation of the NT that you have come to understand is not the message of Jesus, But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (Matthew 9:13) But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. ( Matthew 12:7) 1) The translation of men" into 'dwel'l is logical. When Jesus spoke and done Godly things he said that it was not from him but from God. Thinking this means that Jesus is God is illogical. If God was furthering or continuing himself on earth by being Jesus then why did he not speak for himself? 2) I agree with you that Jesus is referring to himself and not God when he says I am. I also agree with your interpretation 'Before, Abraham was born, Jesus was'. We can positively assert that Jesus claimed that he existed before Abraham. That is all. Claiming that Jesus meant it in the exaggerated way that you suggest rendering him God is not justified. I have no problem with believing that Jesus did exist before Abram. The Bible after all does tell us that Jesus was created by God prior to Abraham. Of course if you are one of Gods creations then you cannot be God. Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: (Colossians 1:15) 3) Jesus was being accused of making himself equal with God. Jesus did not say I am equal to God using the word 'isos'. The Bible tells us that this is why the Jews wanted to kill him. They were constantly looking for a reason to kill him. Did Jesus say that God is his father and only his father? No. He said he is your father and my father, your God and my God. (John 20:17) 4) God's spirit descended and remained in Jesus without measure. Here we have the Greek word 'men"' used again in John 1:32. This may not fit in with your understanding of Jesus being God, but it is exactly what the Bible says. Why would God's spirit descend from above into Jesus and dwell in him if he was actually God? 6) Matthew 28:19 is an altered verse. The original Greek text does not say Baptise in the name of the father, son and holy spirit. There are some things that have been proven to have been added to the Bible. Please do some further research into this rather than just disagree with me or indeed take my word for it. "Go and make disciples of all nations in my name." was what the original text (in Greek of course) said. This is in line with all of the other verses in the Bible that instruct who to baptise people in the name of. R1) It proves nothing that Jesus claimed to be Christ or Messiah. Neither of them imply that he was God. Both of these words mean anointed one. Why would that ever be given as a title to God, it makes no sense and it is not what it means R2) Isaiah 9:6 - Christians do not believe that Jesus is the everlasting Father. Isaiah referred to Eliakim as 'a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah (Isaiah 22:21). Isaiah wrote this about Eliakim figuratively. When he writes that the Messiah will be called 'The everlasting Father' he clearly is writing this figuratively, referring to him representing the Father because the Messiah is never actually called 'The everlasting Father'. Yahweh is the Hebrew word used exclusively for God. El is not exclusively used for God it can also be attributed to men. Was Jesus a mighty man that represented the Father God? Yes, of course. The Hebrew speaking Rabbis never interpreted this verse to mean that the Messiah will be God. He was (and still is) expected to be human, not God. Luke 2:11(not 9)- Kyrios is sometimes used for God but it is routinely used for men. It is a common Greek word still used today, a polite way to address a man, sir. It can also mean master. Yes it is also attributed to God also but this cannot be given as evidence of Jesus being named God even if God is referred to with the same title in the same verse. R3) John 8:54 - doxa can simply mean approval, it is not as you say only an expression for honouring God. If Jesus is God then he would doxas!3; (glorify) himself because God receives all the Glory. Perhaps you think that when he does this particular job as the saviour Jesus he also ceases to maintain all of his characteristics. God does not change is characteristics. John 13:16 - Jesus is making it plain and simple for you to understand that God is greater than he is. John 12:49 - If God is simply speaking through Jesus then Jesus is not God he is a prophet. If you are claiming that Jesus is God then he would take responsibility for the things that he says. It is against Gods nature to do otherwise. God does not Change his nature. For I am the LORD, I change not (Malachi 3:6) John 10:29 - I agree with you , it could also be interpreted that way also. Here is the correct verse. John 14:28, Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. Let's assume that the rich man Jesus was talking to had no idea that Jesus was God. This is a reasonable assumption because those that Jesus preached to did not believe that he was God, they took him to be a prophet. Could we really possibly imagine that when the rich man called Jesus good and Jesus replied "why call me good, only the Father in heaven is good" that the man would interpret that to mean that Jesus meant he was God? If you said to a man 'excuse me my good man' and he said to you, why call me good, only God is good then would you honestly think that the man was suggesting that he was God? You are twisting common sense to fit a false doctrine.