> Well, the goal of those theologians should of course be to interpret the Bible not just any old way, but *correctly*. It's an unfortunate reality that interpretation of both types ("correctly" and "however it suits me") has been done in the past, and the waters are somewhat muddied as a result, as it were. But I'm convinced that the doctrine of the Trinity arises naturally (if not explicitly) from the Biblical testimony, rather than being forced onto it. And there is this to consider, too, although it takes faith to accept: the early believers who worshipped God as Father, Son and Spirit were not merely trying to work through the doctrine intellectually. The spirit of God worked in them and guided them in the truth, just as Christ promised the Holy Spirit would do. That's not a thing that I expect everyone to believe, but it explains in part why orthodox Christians accept the Trinity even though it is not spelled out clearly in any one Scriptural text. God confirms its truth personally, through His Spirit.

The doctrine of the Trinity I've always been a bit leery about, m'self... that's not so much because of the doctrine itself, I suppose, as it is because of some of the interpretations and corrolaries of that doctrine. It's actually a lot more complex than it seems at first, and an imperfect understanding can lead to some really absurd theology. But since that has absolutely nothing to do with my point, I think I'll shut up about that now.

I'm just a little bit curious about some things... specifically, the statement that "orthodox Christians accept the trinity." How do you define "orthodox?" I assume you're not referring to the Orthodox Catholocism of the Byzantine Empire. What is the distinction between "orthodox" and "unorthodox" Christianity? In the protestant faith, anyhow, that's a really obscure line.