Divinity of the Biblical Jesus Christ Peace be upon Him

I must apologise for not providing a simple introduction in round 1 (opening statement) as my opponent has. I am new to debate. org so please forgive any mistakes I might commit during this debate. I am thankful to Pro for defining phrases/words such as ‘Biblical' and ‘Burden of proof'. These definitions will undoubtedly help us through the debate as well as the readers. In this round I will reply to Pro's rebuttals against my opening statement in the 1st round. Pro broke my arguments down into six parts (A-F) and I shall carry on this format so it may not be confusing. Part A & B) My opponent mentioned: it is an assumption of mine that if God came down to earth as a man, he would do so in an explicit manner and reveal it to all the people…an assumption? Is this not logical, is this not reasonable? For God to make it clear to his creation that He had come down as a man, because one's salvation depends on his/her understanding of God (at least for monotheistic religions). If God became a man on Earth then it must be 100% clear so that everyone may understand and be saved from disbelief, right? Pro absolutely believes that God became a man called Jesus (pbuh) yet he points out no passage where Christ (pbuh) ever clearly claimed to be the incarnate of God. He mostly quotes those other than Jesus (pbuh) (Paul, John, Mark etc). My opponent Pro then states "Jesus does not explicitly claim many things that we understand as true…not explicitly claiming something does not make it untrue". True (regarding the Bible), but Jesus (pbuh) does explicitly forbid calling any man on Earth God: "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your father, which is in heaven"[1]. Also Jesus (pbuh) taught the greatest commandment to be: "Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord"[2]. Note here Jesus (pbuh) said "our God" including himself in the equation. These are two statements from the lips of Christ (pbuh) according to the Bible, and they clearly indicate that Jesus (pbuh) was not God, are they not clear enough? Part C) My opponent implies that we should take Revelation 1:8 of the Bible in actual fact regardless of the book being a dream written down. Why? Because 2 Timothy 3:16 of the Bible tells us the entire Bible is from God. I'll grant this point for now because I don't want to get into discussing the reliability of the Bible in this debate. But the verse (Revelation 1:8) raises another question: such a clear and direct statement here, why didn't Jesus (pbuh) make such a statement while he walked the Earth (in the Bible) so everyone could know? Why appear to one person in a dream many years after he left? Further on my opponent stated: "Red words of Christ are no more significant doctrinally than the black words of John, or Paul, or Peter", so words of men such as Paul or John etc are equal to the words of Christ (pbuh) who he believes to be divine? Interesting way of thought and definitely the first time I have heard of it. I would kindly ask Pro to present a single leading Christian Bible scholar who agrees with this thought. Part D & E) My opponent argues that it doesn't matter whether Jesus (pbuh) humbled himself or not, he is still divine, because God humbled Himself in the Old Testament by calling Himself or being called in Hebrew ‘Ezer' meaning: ‘helper' which has other connotations such as ‘servant' or ‘assistant'. However translators (of the Bible) translate ‘Ezer' to ‘helper' instead of ‘servant' or ‘assistant'. The reason must be that ‘helper' is the best word fitting ‘Ezer' in given contexts of the Bible. I don't think anyone disagrees of God being the Helper, it glorifies Him rather than humbling. My opponent then claims from the Bible (Philippians 2:6-7) that Jesus Christ (pbuh) limited himself, if this is so then it is not befitting to say that Jesus was/is God, because God is unlimited. As I mentioned in the 1st round: one cannot be limited and unlimited at the same time. Simply put: if God became a man, then he became a man and that man is no longer God anymore. Part F) Regarding this part and also Pro's affirmative argument I would like to deal with in the 4th round carrying it on into round 5 with closing remarks, if that is fine with you ReformedArsenal? The reason why is because of the limitation of writing space given. It will be hard to deal with everything in one round. And it will be easier if we deal with my arguments: against and then your arguments: for. I hope you agree. You see readers my points still remain and I await my opponent to give a fitting answer to them. In a debate we expect proofs, solid evidences and logical arguments. But when it comes to this particular topic (Jesus' Divinity) we hear the most loosely convincing arguments from the Christian side. The famous late Ahmed Deedat used to challenge Christian scholars so strongly, he used to promise to embrace Christianity if someone could show him anywhere in the Bible where Jesus Christ (pbuh) directly claimed divinity. No one ever came forth with a single convincing verse. Of course some may disagree with Deedat's tactics here, that this is not the way to debate. But it shows how one sided debates regarding this topic have become. I conclude for the moment with this: if Jesus (pbuh) was divine then most certainly he would have directly claimed so, but we find nothing of the kind in the entire Bible. There is no solid evidence; in fact there are passages which deny the idea, such as in Matthew 23:9 and Mark 12:29. So the divinity of Jesus Christ (pbuh) can never be absolutely proven from the Bible, and if the Bible cannot prove this then nothing else can or ever will. It would be more natural to believe the Jesus (pbuh) was only a prophet of God, on which both the holy Qur'an and the Bible agree.1] Matthew 23:92] Mark 12:29