The godhood of Christ Jesus is Biblical

Throughout the debate, I explained that the Godhood of Jesus Christ is Biblical and Con did not address the Biblical arguments I'd presented about it. He just surmised that Scripture denies my understanding of the Scriptures.The following are details on what's going on throughout this debate challenge: In Round 1, Con asked what I mean by 'Godhood' and he presented 1 Corinthians 8:5 saying that gods exist both in heaven and on earth. I explained in Round 2 that the term 'Godhood' denotes 'the essential nature of God' and that Jesus is fully God because in him dwells all the completeness of the Godhead bodily (Col. 2:9).I also explicated the nature of God and the restriction of its subsistence to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit only.I also explained that the gods and lords in both heaven and earth are unreal deities based on the immediate context of 1 Cor. 8:5 ( verses 4 and 6).In here also I presented the argument that these unreal deities are such because they are not gods by nature based on Galatians 4:8 as wells as the argument that Jesus, by whom are all things, is specifically called the one Lord = one Jehovah ( Greek: EIS KYRIOS) who is none other than the true God based on Deuteronomy 6:4.In Round 2, Con said that I relied on the words of man not of God. Con misapprehended my arguments as well as references. I did quote the Scriptures and because the Scriptures is made up of words,it is only natural thing for anyone to consult a reference of what the words mean. In fact, Con himself was the one who asked me what i mean by the English word "Godhood" and I did give an answer.I even used Biblical Greek in my arguments which Con did not rebut.Con presented Ex 15:11 to argue that gods exists in heaven.He then goes on to quote different translations of the third clause of John 1:1 and somehow asserts that it's a problem for Trinitarians. None of the 'a god' translation he quoted is a Trinitarian anf the varied Trinitarian translation does not vary in meaning! 1966, 2001 The Good News Bible reads: "...and he was the same as God."1970, 1989 The Revised English Bible reads: "...and what God was, the Word was."14th century - Wycliffe's Bible (from the 4th-century Latin Vulgate) reads: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word.1956 The Wuest Expanded Translation reads: "In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity"My Rebuttals in Round 4: Con said: Christ is God's son who gave up his heavenly position to come to earth to occupy the body of Jesus and thus become fully incarnate (quoting Jn 1:14).Note, the Word, God's son, "became flesh, therefore he was in existence as a separate being, long before Jesus was born., and as such he was the only begotten (created) son of God.Jesus was not the only begotten son of God.Why?Because Adam was a human son of God long before Jesus existed. Luke 3:38ASV(i) 38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. Con refuted his own argument.Unless of course if he did not mean Adam as also a "created son."Con said: There is no way that Revelation can be twisted to mean the source of God's creation; it makes no reasonable sense at all. The beginning of anything is the first act of it, not the source of it., and to say he was teh source of God's creation actually puts him above God. Actually, it does not make sense to believe that he who was in the beginning ( Greek: EN ARCHE) had a beginning. In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. He existed in the beginning with God. John 1:1-2 (NLT) John 1:1a and John 1:2 plus the grammatical argument from Biblical Greek ( that I presented in Round 3) proves my point.Both Eph. 1:3 and 1 Pet. 1:3 tell us that Jesus has his Father as his God. This does not disprove his eternal and unchanging Godhood but rather, it proves his Incarnation: The Word was God ~ Jn. 1:1The Word became flesh ~ Jn. 1:14Jn. 20:17 Jesus said his God is his own Father: "My God."Jn. 20:28 Thomas said his God is Jesus: " My God."1 Tim. 2:5/ Col. 2:9 evince that Jesus remained fully God after his resurrection as well as human albeit only with bones and flesh not with blood --for he's now a glorified human (LK. 24:39). Con argues that Christ's rulership over creation isn't eternal. He misused 1 Cor. 15:23-24 by taking it out of context. Let Con be reminded that a text without a context is just a pretext.Christ's rule over creation IS eternal. The Bible says so (Then God will give you a grand entrance into the eternal Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 2 Pet. 1:11).In fact, Rev. 5:18 shows that both Jesus and his Father are worshiped by every creature. It is an irrefutable proof that Jesus is not a creature:Rev. 5:13 American Standard Version (ASV) 13 And every created thing which is in the heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and on the sea, and all things are in them, heard I saying, Unto him that sitteth on the throne, and unto the Lamb, be the blessing, and the honor, and the glory, and the dominion, for ever and ever.The Father and the Son are two persons who have one nature. The Son is eternal God is a teaching that exists prior to 4th century:1st cen. Jn 1:1,18,5:26,8:42,10:28-38,Mt. 28:19,Colossians 2:9,2 Pet 1:1;Heb. 1;1 John 1:1-3;5:20-21;Jude 1:4-5.2nd cen. ~Irenaeus (A.D. c. 120– c.200)The Word, the Son, is always with the Father ( Against Heresies 4:20). 3.rd cen. ~ Novatian ( A.D. 200-258)The Word is always the Son (On the Trinity 31:1) The Council of Nicea happened because Arius (a bishop from Alexandria, Egypt) began teaching a new doctrine that Jesus is not of same nature with God the Father. He had many followers and this concerned the church itself of the unity of the one body of Christ and hence, a council was called by the church in order to reject the new teaching which Arius preached. The Nicene Creed ( A.D. 325 original version) captures the very idea of New Testament Teaching about Jesus' Godhood. It shows the usefulness of the Greek word HOMOOUSIOS ( of same substance;nature) in defining the relationship of Christ with God the Father in terms of nature ( set of attributes). The said word encapsulates the very idea of ontological equality. The formulaic expression of the Creed has its source from systematic theology and it really does adequately and faithfully presented the High Christology of the NT.Reference:http://www.britannica.com...John 10:28-30 clearly shows that the Father and the Son have the same powerful hand and that this is the oneness or sameness they have [" Jesus said: I give them eternal life... My hand...my Father's hand...I and my Father are one".] Take note that Deuteronomy 32:39 clearly speaks of Yahweh as the only Deity who has a powerful hand and who gives life.CONCLUSION:Con did not address my argument that Jesus is, truly and completely, God by nature based on Colossians 2:9/Jn 10:28-30.I argued that Jesus is such because he is the only begotten Son, of same nature with the Father - Psalm 110:3LXX, Jn. 1:18 ( The Son is God's image because he is begotten not created, Col. 1:15/Heb. 1:3 first-begotten; the very image of his substance/nature).I agreed with Con that angels and even humans are called "gods" but I argued that biblically angels and humans who are gods by title are not gods by nature.In response to Con's John 1:1 translation argument, I presented three logical and scriptural categories of divinities and elucidated that Jesus cannot be styled as "a god" but only " God" (the same way the Father is)in John 1:1c based on the Scriptural data I had proposed.I refuted Con's argument on Rev. 3:14 by showing that the Greek word ARCHE is used in the Bible in its meaning of " ruler/source."I also have shown from un-bias historical data that the new teaching that came into existence in the 4th century was not Trinitarianism but rather, it was ARIANISM.