Thank you for finally presenting some kind of case, rather than just name-calling. It gives us somewhere to go with the discussion.

As I mentioned in a previous post to you on another thread just a few days ago, Jesus is clearly identified as a prophet in the Scriptures (primarily the Gospels) in the sense that he delivers the message God has for the people:

[list][*] In Matthew 21.11; Luke 7.16; 24.19; John 6.14; 7.40, et al., the people identify Jesus as a prophet.
[*] In John 1.45, a prospective disciple considers Jesus to be the prophet written about by Moses (possibly referring to Deuteronomy 18.15).
[*] Jesus considered himself a prophet (Matthew 13.56; Mark 6.4; John 4.44)
[*] After Jesus's resurrection and ascension, his followers considered him a prophet (Acts 3.22, referring to Deut. 18.15; Acts 7.37, 52-53
[*] along with some of the texts you mentioned above. There are plenty of them.[/list]

At the same time Jesus is consistently identified as more than a prophet. While he did have a prophetic role and was at times referred to as a prophet, the Scripture is clear that He was more than a prophet in the sense that He is the Son of God (multiple places), the Word of God (Jn. 1.1-14), and God Himself (Jn. 10.30). Hebrews 1.1-2 is clear to that end also.

John knew Jesus was a prophet, but he asked, "Are you the Messiah?", i.e., more than a prophet. Jesus's answer is that God has come—the fulfillment of prophecy. In 11.6 He makes an allusion to Isa. 8.13-14 and Jesus's claim to be more than a prophet. Even John is more than a prophet (Mt. 11.9), and Jesus is vastly his superior—the Son of Man of Daniel 7.13.

Jesus doesn't leave it as allowing people to assume he's a prophet and nothing more. He ups the ante. In Matthew 16.16 he won't let it sit that he is a prophet. He pushes them to a deeper, more accurate identification of Him as "the Christ, the Son of the living God."

But you know this. You know the Scriptures regard Him as more than a prophet. Hebrews 1.2 contrasts Him with the mere prophets. They are the mouthpieces; He is the fulfillment. Jesus is the "Son," the appointed heir of all things, the agent of creation, the very radiance of God's glory, the exact representation of God's being, the one who (in a Godly role) sustains all things, the one who forgives sins, the one who sits on the throne in heaven. He is obviously far more than a prophet, filling a role and having a status that is available to no mere prophet.

> I am not misguided. Unitarians don't believe that Jesus is God, as neither Muslims nor Jews believe that Jesus is God.

Maybe NOT your trinitarian God-Man Jesus but they do in Fact believe in Jesus. They believe in him as a prophet & messenger of God and the coming Messiah.

Matthew 21:11 "This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee."

Acts 3:22 For Moses said, 'The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers. You must listen to Him in everything He tells you.

John 4:19 "Sir," the woman said, "I see that You are a prophet.

Mark 6:15 Others said, "He is Elijah," and still others, "He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old."

John 4:25 The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things.” Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he.”

Instead of just jumping to conclusions based on false assumptions, let's have an actual conversation. Let's talk about these Bible texts you've allegedly studied.

The overall thrust of the Gospels is to present Jesus as God, the Messiah sent from God, the Son of God, and the one who will sit on God's throne and perform God's functions: forgiving sins and judging the nations.

> This is patently untrue. The divinity of Christ is solidly in the text and is based on accurate exegesis.

It's quite obvious from your own words that you have NOT read/studied any commentaries and books authored by Non-trinitarian New Testament scholars who provide analysis and facts to the contrary.

Actually I study quite deeply and don't at all "go off" on what my church has taught me. We can discuss any text you like. It's dismaying how you're so quick to judge me prejudicially.

> This is patently untrue. The divinity of Christ is solidly in the text and is based on accurate exegesis.

Only if you take them at face value and go off what your church has taught you.

I am not misguided. Unitarians don't believe that Jesus is God, as neither Muslims nor Jews believe that Jesus is God. Those who do not believe Jesus is God are not counted among those who belong to Christ, who are saved, and who are part of His people. John was emphatic in his Gospel, by using the words of Jesus, that those who did not believe that Jesus is God did not belong to God (John 1.1-14).

> I don't agree. If you don't believe in the deity of Christ, you're not a Christian.

Unitarians do believe in Christ as do Muslims and even some Jewish people so you are misguided.

It is not a lie. The doctrine of the Trinity would not have been raised at Nicene unless it were already being taught. The council met to discuss the heresies of Arius, who was claiming, against Church teaching, that there was no Trinity.

We get indications of the doctrine of the Trinity by the 2nd century heresies that were rejected by the Church: Monarchianism (Adoptionism and Modalism). Tertullian believed in the Trinity as one God in three Persons (even though he doesn't use the language that was common later). Nicea clarifies some of the language we now use about the Trinity, but it was convened to challenge the heresies that were arising in contrast to Trinitarianism, which was the belief of the Church.

Trinitarianism had been a belief since the onset of Christianity.

First, Jesus himself affirmed that He was part of a Trinity (Jn. 10.30; Mt. 28.19-20).

Secondly, Paul espoused Trinitarian belief.
[list][*] 1 Corinthians 8.6, possibly the first New Testament writing about Jesus's divinity, puts Jesus on the "Creator" side of the Creator/creature divide.
[*] In Philippians 2.6-11, Paul presents Christ as truly divine.
[*] 1 Cor. 12.4-6 mentions all three as equals.
[*] In 1 Cor. 12.1-3; Gal. 4.4; Rom. 1.3-4; 8.11 Paul sees the Spirit's identity as defined by how the Father and Christ have sent him, and likewise the identities of the Father and Christ as "in part" determined by the Spirit.
[*] Ephesians 2.18 shows that Jesus gives us access to the Father by means of the Spirit. So Jesus' blood is the means of access, but the Spirit is also the means of access. The result is that by reconciling people to Himself, Jesus reconciles people to God.
[*] For that matter, all throughout Paul's writings God and Christ and Spirit are mutually defining and reciprocally implicating. That is, God's identity is defined in/through/by his relationship to Christ/Son, and vice versa, and also with regard to the Spirit, as listed above.
[*] Romans 8 is infused with Father, Son, and Spirit working as equals and with equal authority, power, and presence. They are one undivided divine essence with different actions appropriate to their persons.
[*] In Romans 9.5, Paul says explicitly that the Messiah (who is Jesus, vv. 1, 3) is God.
[*] Titus 3.3-8. All three Persons of the Trinity are present and cooperating in the act of grace. Each Person has His function in the salvation of our soul.
[*] There are also plenty of the places where the Father is equated with the Son, and the Son is equated with the Spirit. So if the principle holds that if A1 = A2 & A2 = A3, then A1 also equals A3.[/list]

Third, the Gospel writers affirmed the Trinity, particularly and most obviously John 1.1, but we can talk about this further if you wish.

> The doctrine of the Trinity was formalized at Nicene, but it had been a belief system from the beginning of Christianity.

This is a Lie.