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

John 16:30 - 'Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.' Jesus' disciples did not believe that Jesus knew everything because he was God and therefore 'omniscient' they state that they believed Jesus came from God. He received the word of God and did not need to ask anything of men. We must base our assumptions on Biblical evidence. You have submitted Bible verses consisting of two of Jesus' dispels saying that Jesus knew all things and they have clarified why they thought this. My Biblical evidence is Jesus himself confirming the fact that he knows all the things that God chooses to tell him and clearly this does not included everything. The best option for us to take is to logically take each verse into the context of the entire chapter and entire Bible and avoid superimposing preconcived ideas that create contradictions in the Holy Book. John the Baptist did not sin, obeying God's laws means that you do not sin. He was fully man, and not God, and did not sin, his heart was not evil, and nor was he a child of wrath. The same can be said of Job. 'There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.' (Job 1:1) Jesus tells us that some men are righteous; 'I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.' (Mark 2:17) Jesus did not say that only he could live free from sin because he is God. His ministry involved him telling people to repent and sin no more so they cannot have been incapable of doing so; "Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." (John 5:14) "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." (John 8:11) 1 John 3:6-9 states that anyone can be free from sin. 'Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not.' Submitting to God exempts us from our sinful human nature that Paul writes of in Romans 3. In verse 23 Paul writes that all 'come short of the glory of God' Jesus confers that even he comes short of the glory of God;"Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God." (Mark 10:18)"Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God." (Luke 18:19) There is no reason to think that 'El' being used within the same verse excludes it from referring to an earthly ruler and God himself separately. Especially when they are clearly separated within the context. Psalm 82:6 is an example of 'El' being used to describe men and God himself. Ezekiel 31:11 clearly defines an earthly ruler as 'El'. It is not a word preserved exclusively for God. Before Jesus said 'I and my Father are one' he states 'My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all;' (John 10:29) Jesus clearly illustrates that he is not at all 'fully God' by confirming that God is greater than all. We know that Jesus includes himself in the 'all' that God is greater than from John 14:28 were Jesus says; "I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."The Father conferring divine authority on the Son proves that the Son is not divine. If he were then he would not need to have anything conferred unto him. You are asserting that God has created another God. God spoke through Isaiah fully clarifying that this is false. 'understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.' (Isaiah 43:10)3439. monogenés means 'one of a kind', 'unique' not specifically 'only son. Exodus 33:11 does not say that God took the form of a man. Neither of the words describing Jesus in Jude 1:4 (1203. despotés nor 2962. kurios) mean God. despotés means master as does Kurios which also means sir. I have not added any words to John 1. I am simply reading it in its original text. The translators are the ones that have changed the text to 'The word was God' from 'God was the word'. We know that within this sentence the subject is 'the word'. 'In the beginning was the word' explains that the word was in the beginning. 'The word was with God' denotes the location or origin of the word. 'The word was God' may literally mean that the word is God whilst 'God was the word' describes the attributes of 'the word'. The word is about God, the word declares God. This clearly connects with the ending of this piece of writing; verse 18 states that 'theos' declares God. Colwell is arguing against using the article within the sentence. That is not what I have done so his refute is irrelevant. He is refuting the JW Bible that reads 'The word is a God'. I have not made the case that the article should be added or that any other words should be added, simply that we should read it in its original format. Nonetheless it is besides the point as to whether or not God's word described within John 1:1 is actually God or simply declares God. Your interpretation of this verse is built upon the assumption that 'the word' being described is Jesus and you have no solid justification to do so as it is not until verse 14 that we read of the word becoming flesh. 1 Corinthians 8:6 may not have been translated as 'because of' in any of the translations but the word does include this within its broader meaning. 1 Corinthians 8:6 provides us with clarity of the fact that Paul believed that all things originated from the Father. When Jesus highlights that his words were from God and not from himself then Jesus is expressly denying his divinity. The seven spirits of God do not all speak, God does. One God with one voice referring to himself in the plural form. The seven spirits denote attributes. Attributes are what make us who we are. God made us with these seven attributes and we are therefore alike him. I agree with you, you're doctrine is beyond understanding, because it is not based on logic nor scripture. It is an explanation based on scripture. As I have previously demonstrated God being a trinity is based on no scriptural evidence whatsoever. All of my Biblical evidence explicitly illustrates that Jesus is not God. All the verses that I have submitted are taken within the context of the chapter and are supported by other verses thorough the Bible. God reveals many things about Jesus throughout the Old Testament. These 'Messianic prophecies' which mainly speak of his mortal disentrance also include his characteristics and what he will do. These prophesies about the coming Messiah that are repeated numerous times make up the Messianic prophecies. The scriptures were not written to convey that the Messiah would be God which is why this expectation was not included within the Messianic expectations. Each and everyone one of these expectations are built upon multiple supporting Biblical evidence. The Biblical evidence that you have provided for Jesus being called God from Psalms 45:7 referenced in Hebrews 1 is in complete isolation, it cannot be confirmed by any other scripture. One good explanation for this is that 'el' is not referring to God himself and that it is a mistranslation to do so. I have fully proven that this is a possibliity and therefore your evidence is weak to say the very least.