The divinity of Jesus is a false doctrine that goes against the teachings of the Bible.

Well, I'd like to start off by acknowledging that you have more knowledge than me, in terms of Greek/Greek grammar etc. But I'll certainly do my best, and I believe I'm up for the challenge. The three OT verses you provided continue to show that God (the Father -- I'll address the topic of the Trinity after this point) does not have human qualities, or do the things that humans do - lie/repent/change their minds. However, Jesus did not do these things either. Both in the temptation in the desert and throughout Hebrews, such as 4:15 and 7:26, Jesus is shown to be sinless. Hebrews 1 calls him superior to angels. Then, in Hebrews 1:8-9, it says, (KJV) "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." This is a reference to Psalm 45:6-7. All three times God is written, the Hebrew 'elohiym' is used -- both to describe Jesus (who is being addressed earlier in the psalm as a king) and God. If Jesus can be addressed as a god, then he must either be the true God, of which there is only one, or a false god. Now, about the Trinity. I am not trying to claim that Jesus and the Father and the exact same person. I am also not trying to claim that they are two distinct yet equal Gods. I am trying to show that Jesus is fully God, yet is a separate person from the Father. That is why I brought up the Trinity; I do acknowledge that I should not have said, "it is true to say that God is not man, and to say that Jesus is God." What I should have said is something to the effect of, "It could be true to say that God is not man, and to say that Jesus is God, if the Father and Son are distinct persons yet one God." And so to call God the Father not a man does not exclude the person of Jesus, fully man, from being a member of the Godhead, fully God. I hope that cleared it up, though I fear I may have muddied the waters. I am no practiced debater, nor am I 24 like my profile says. The reason (and I should have expanded upon this earlier, once I again I concede my mistake) I mentioned that Moses did not have knowledge of Jesus is this: he did not have the collection of the scriptures nor an actual encounter of Jesus for him to even consider distinguishing between God the Father not being a man and a separate person, the Son, not being a man. However, I do not place great importance on this argument at all, as it still remains true that I am not arguing that God and Jesus are the same person, but that they are separate persons of the same being. I also do not disagree that God's character is incompatible with that of a human. Jesus also was incapable of lying, so his character is still compatible with God. He was tempted externally in the desert, but that does not mean he was capable of giving into the temptation. Psalm 95:9 speaks of God (Father) being tempted as well (the Hebrew nacah). You have then separated the word from the physical Jesus, by saying that the words were in Jesus" mouth, and they become flesh in Jesus. However, the Word and Jesus are one and the same. John says that through the word, all things were created. Colossians 1:16 says that by Jesus, all things were created. If they are separate, then by which was the world created? And if the words came out of Jesus" mouth, then Jesus was the direct impetus by which the world was created. Yet Gen 1 says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". It does not say God, through another entity, created the heavens and the earth. You have said that the original translation of John 1 does not indicate that the word was God, simply because in Greek, it lacks the article "the". "When John writes 'The God' he is referring to 'The God of the Hebrews; the one and only God'. He does write that the word was with 'The God' (Yahweh). He does not write that 'The God' was the word. Instead he writes 'God' was the word. The definitive article 'the' is absent rendering God a predicate of the subject 'the word', 'ho logos'. The predicate is used to denote the attributes of the subject. God is the word therefore reads that 'the word is about God, the word declares God." However, while the literal translation you provided is accurate, you have not shown why the word "the" is necessary to indicate that "theos" is the true God. You say that John wrote that the word was with "The God" (Yahweh). But as you know, he does not use the word Yahweh, since he is writing in Greek. What I found showed that, though the article is dropped in Greek, it is due to the structure of the Greek sentence, and it does not need to be dropped in English. The word order indicates the importance of the noun -- the meaning remains the same (1). When dealing with John 8, you make the conclusion that Jesus" teachings were from above. Yet you have not addressed the fact that Jesus says that he himself (not his teachings) is from above, and that he is not of this world. Your first quote says that Jesus does nothing of himself, but of God; yet all humans are capable of doing things of themselves -- that is why Adam and Eve ate the fruit. Jesus, when considering that, if he were only human, he could have done something of himself, is in fact indicating his divinity through this verse. Because he is the Son, a divine person within the being of God, he only works through God. You then say that he is a man; this is indisputable. The doctrine of Jesus" divinity says that he is fully man and fully God. This combination is necessary, because only a man"s death could fully redeem the sins of man, but divine perfection is also necessary, for only a divinely perfect sacrifice could be deemed enough to satisfy the wrath of God for eternity. You have not actually refuted Colossians 2. It does not simply say, "God dwelt in Jesus". It says the fullness of deity dwelt in Jesus. If God is an infinite, omniscient, omnipresent being, it would be ludicrous to say that the fullness of infinity dwelt in someone who did not also share those traits. If Jesus is a mediator, he must be able to be on the same level as both parties. He cannot merely be like God. He must be God. If he is anything less than infinite, then he is infinitely less than God. Even if he is a lesser infinite than God, he is still infinitely less than God (mathematically - see comments if you dispute this). And if he is infinitely less than God, how could God possibly find him worthy to be a mediator? A mediator is someone who both parties agree to mediate a dispute; how could God appoint a mediator that is anything less than Himself? Now, to say that Jesus is on the same level as God does not mean that God (Father) has no authority over Jesus. I"ll now go to the Genesis text. 1:26: "And God said, "Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion"" Many people will reference the plurality mentioned here, with the words "us" and "our". However, I suspect you already have a refute for that, and as I do not know Hebrew, I will not make that case. What I want to investigate is the "image" of which God speaks. If God is totally incompatible with humanity, and is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent, then how could the human form be the image of God? The only logical conclusion is that, both in nature and form, humanity does resemble God. There must be some form of God that causes people to be shaped as they are; it cannot be God the Father, for He is omnipresent, and the human form is not. Since God the Father is literally not a man, as you have said, then some aspect/person within the being of God must be a man; otherwise mankind is not in God"s image. And thus, the Godhead must contain a human --- that is, Jesus. There is certainly no other man which could possibly be a person of the God being. That addresses the form; however, not only does God say image, he also says likeness. How could a finite being in any way be the likeness of God? I submit that the answer is in our very own triune nature. Humans are endowed with a mind -- this mind can be said to contain all the thoughts of our existence; it is everything we are. Humans have a body -- this body also has all of the information that makes us who we are. Finally, we have a spirit (though this is not important to this specific debate). And in humans, the mind has ultimate authority over the body. The body does what the mind wishes. This does not mean that the body is less human than the mind; and so, God (the divine nature on which the mind is based) can have ultimate authority over Jesus (the divine nature on which the human form is based) and they can still be One being, yet have distinct persons. Well, I fear I have rambled, and lost my train of thought. I"ll continue on though. The fact that Jesus is the firstborn of all creation, in fact (now bear with me) proves his eternal nature. If Jesus is the first created thing, then he comes before Gen 1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Jesus was before the heavens and the earth -- and the heavens and the earth were the beginning. Thus, Jesus was before the beginning, and as such, must be eternal. Any concept of creation outside of time is incomprehensible by the human mind, since all of our experience is based in space and time. And so, Jesus does not need to fit into our concept of a created being after the universe"s inception. I pray to Jesus (ha, ha) that this argument is coherent. Thank you for making me delve into Scripture - I look forward to your response! 1. http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com...