Clarifications on Christianity

[metis]

Where do Christians teach that 'God is one but also three'?

The idea of one God, three persons, went unquestioned until modern day, when the old forbidden "heresies" began rearising.

The early Church used the Aristotle/Plato concept of "essence" when writing the "NT" in Koine Greek, whereas the Holy Spirit and Jesus were/are of the "essence" of God.

 

[sherifgg]

1. Gospel of Luke tells several times: "Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart." This implies her testimony. Why did people believe virgin birth? Because they thought it was a fulfillment of a prophecy.

2. Progressive revelation.

"When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth." (John 16:13)

1. Most/if not all prophets prove their truth by showing a miracle. It is easy to claim to be the person mentioned in prophecies, but there has to be a way to prove it to the people. In the Quran, we had an explanation of the miracle that made most people believe, in that Jesus spoke as a child to defend his mother, when people accused her of committing a grave sin by having an extra marital relationship. (Quran, chapter 19 verse 27 to verse 37)

2. This progressive revelation contradicts the messages brought forward by previous messengers of God, rather than progresses it. If Jesus was indeed a prophet, as he never claimed to be God even in the bible, his message would likely be the same message of the prophets before and after him brought, which is to worship God alone. ---“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one" ...Clear message.
The Trinity Doctrine Did Not Exist Until the Late Fourth Century

 

[sherifgg]

Well, who can say? Surely, with a bit of fantasy it would be easy to explain. I could say, for instance, that the fact that they believed her, despite the obvious mundane alternative, was proof that the Holy Spirit was in Her, and in the people around Her. A miracle that provides convincing evidence that She was indeed the virgin Mother of God.

Ciao

- viole

Who can say you ask? God does, in the Quran, as I mentioned in my previous reply. (Quran, chapter 19 verse 27 to verse 37).

 

[sherifgg]

Nobody is claiming that understanding the trinity equals understanding God but that it is a way of thinking about the relationships that Christians have with God. This arises philosophically. It is a philosophical inquiry into the one God not a claim to understand God.


My position is as bit different from that of most Christians, so its probably not helpful though could be interesting. I don't take the gospels literally. This is something I have talked about before on RF, and I've explained why. Its entirely possible that at the writing of these gospels they were understood not to be literal, so there would be no discrepancy. The gospels claims about Mary are ridiculous on their face, but this is on purpose. They carry a meaning, just not a literal historical meaning. They've been taken literally in error and for too long and by too many, but God isn't judgmental. God lets this go on and on and doesn't force anyone to think correct things, or this wouldn't happen. We are not so perfect that God would pay attention to the words we say. If someone were then perhaps it would be different. So, when I read in my NIV the mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14 I am not confused about its actual meaning. I know this is about a child born during the life of ancient king Ahaz. Isaiah's not predicting the birth of Jesus at all, nor are Matthew 1:23 and Luke 1:34 attempting to deceive us about Isaiah's translation. Rather, they are weaving a story with a point. They are written to people who can read Hebrew, who know how to read Isaiah 7:14. Its ridiculous to think otherwise, but subsequent resources do attempt to deceive us about this translation. They do lie, and they do hide the truth. That's what I think, and I don't blame Matthew or Luke. Their works are not intended to deceive.

[Isa 7:14 NIV] 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

The interpretation of the above verse requires, first of all, a rejection of the idea that miracles prove someone is a prophet. This is law for the original readers of the gospels, for anyone who is devoted to the words in Deuteronomy. Every time Matthew says that signs prove things, we automatically should know he's not speaking literally. Its like he's shouting "Not literal." Pharoah's magicians are able to imitate Moses miracles. We cannot rely upon signs to believe who is who. That is 101, so Matthew makes use of this as a writing device to convey a meaning that is beyond the literal.

I would disagree, If we can't rely on miracles and signs, then it becomes impossible to distinguish the truth from falsehood. Why would God give prophets signs at all then? Pharoah's magicians were able to falsely imitate Moses's miracles through black magic, but God prevailed the true miracle and dispelled their magic, so all the magicians immediately believed in God, because they saw the true miracle. If Jesus is a prophet, as we Muslims believe, then his birth is part of his miracles and you do not need to reject that idea.

 

[sherifgg]

Under the Mosaic law Mary would have been put to death if she had committed adultery. Death was the penalty for committing adultery. (Deuteronomy 22:22-24)

Mary was a virgin. Mary confirmed she was a virgin. (Luke 1:34) The Gospel writer Luke wrote that God sent the angel Gabriel to a virgin promised in marriage whose name was Mary. (Luke 1:26-27)

Mary's pregnancy came about by means of holy spirit, which is God's power in action. (Matthew 1:18) Jehovah God miraculously transferred his Son's life to the womb of Mary, causing her to conceive a child.

The God of the Bible, Jehovah, is never described as being part of a Trinity. The word Trinity never appears in the Bible.

Instead Jehovah is one Jehovah. He alone is the most high. He shares his glory with no one. (Deuteronomy 6:4) (Psalms 83:18) (Isaiah 42:8) (Galatians 3:20)

Jesus is the Son of God. The expression "Son of God" acknowledges that God is the Creator, or Source, of all life, including that of Jesus. (Psalms 36:9) (Acts 17:28) (Revelation 4:11)

I would agree with most of what you said, except that Jesus is merely a prophet of God. If Jesus was truly a son of God, he would actually be worthy of worship, but Jesus never asked anyone to worship him. (Quran 43:81 Surah Az-Zukhruf - 81)
Many prophets in the bible are called Son of God, but that's never meant in a literal sense.

 

[sherifgg]

As you said, and I would agree with you, that the majority of the people wouldn't believe Mary.

Even Joseph didn't believe it until the angel Gabriel came and set his mind straight, and he was her wife.

However, I like the Berean church when it was said, "and (they) searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."
Acts 17:11 KJV

Why would people believe? That probably isn't as hard as one might think. I'm sure Mary shared the history and, combined with the miracles that Jesus did and all of the fulfilled prophecies, it was just a matter of studying, witnessing, and verifying the specifics and then trusting that it was so. He was born in Bethlehem, check; he came out of Egypt,check; he lineage was from David; check; Of course, I could go on.

Apparently they did believe since it was written as historical record.

But other than what is written, we have no other statements.

I doubt people would wait a significant amount of time until Jesus performed miracles to believe Mary, even with these prophecies. The Quran mentions a more detailed post birth events in which she is confronted by her people carrying Jesus and was accused of having extra marital relations, and Jesus PBUH spoke as an infant to defend her, and that was the main reason people (not everyone) believed in her immediately. (Quran, chapter 19 verse 27 to verse 37)
I understand this is not described in the bible, so Christians may not believe in it, but to me it at least gives a strong explanation as to why people would believe in Mary immediately after Jesus was born, so if you take away that story there's not a lot to convince the majority of people, especially at the beginning of Jesus's birth (before he performs his miracles).

I'm not sure what you are addressing here I think. (my apologies) -

I was referring to this part of your previous post:

---As far as "why didn't previous religions worship that way"... well, I'm not sure they didn't (subtracting those who worshipped false gods.

The Jerusalem Edition of the Zohar, in its comment on Genesis 1:1, explains why the authors believe that God is triune. They point out especially that the name of God, Elohim, is made up of the two Hebrew words El and Haym. El means God and Haym means they; therefore, they conclude that God is a plural being. The Zohar passage is as follows:

Jehovah, Elohaynu, Jehovah. There are three steps to accept the mystery from above. In the beginning God created. In the beginning is the first mystery from where all else spreads…The name takes three forms and from there the name is interpreted in several ways… Rabbi Bechai explained: Elohim is El Haym. These are gods. Remember your creators (Ecclesiastes 12:1). The wise will understand.----

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Why would people believe? That probably isn't as hard as one might think. I'm sure Mary shared the history and, combined with the miracles that Jesus did and all of the fulfilled prophecies, it was just a matter of studying, witnessing, and verifying the specifics and then trusting that it was so. He was born in Bethlehem, check; he came out of Egypt,check; he lineage was from David; check; Of course, I could go on.

Born in Bethlehem. Irrelevant. The prophecy regarding Bethlehem has to do with a Davidic lineage, not place of birth.

Came out of Egypt. This is an example of Matthew quoting out of context. The full verse is: When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. Hosea 11:1 Now that you see the whole thing, it is very obvious that the verse is referring to the Exodus, and that the son is Israel. Whoever wrote Matthew ought to be ashamed.

His lineage was from David. Not if he was born of a virgin. The only way a Davidic lineage gets passed on is patriarchally, through the biological father, not a foster father or the mother. As long as you go on about Joseph not being his dad, you cannot claim he had Davidic lineage.

Let's look at some of the other Messianic prophecies.

The Messiah will usher in an era of world peace. Jesus did not. He can't be the messiah.
The Messiah will bring all the Jews back to the Promised Land. Jesus did not. He can't be the Messiah.
The Messiah will reign from Jerusalem. Jesus did not. He can't be the Messiah.

Gee, all we need is ONE prophecy to be unfulfilled for Jesus to be excluded. I have given you three.

 

[viole]

Who can say you ask? God does, in the Quran, as I mentioned in my previous reply. (Quran, chapter 19 verse 27 to verse 37).

Well, the Christian can also claim that God does, since the virginity of Mary is mentioned in some of the Gospels. And for a Christian, the entire Bible is inspired by God.

So, I am not sure what your case really is.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Brickjectivity]

I would disagree, If we can't rely on miracles and signs, then it becomes impossible to distinguish the truth from falsehood. Why would God give prophets signs at all then? Pharoah's magicians were able to falsely imitate Moses's miracles through black magic, but God prevailed the true miracle and dispelled their magic, so all the magicians immediately believed in God, because they saw the true miracle. If Jesus is a prophet, as we Muslims believe, then his birth is part of his miracles and you do not need to reject that idea.

I probably am not a good enough bible student to answer your objection, but I'll try. In Exodus (which is Shemot) 3:12 it says that the sign that I Am has sent Moses is that he will take Israel to a particular mountain to worship there. That is the sign. The sign that he is a prophet is that he takes them toward the L-RD, not away. The words strangely say to Moses "This will be the sign to you that I have sent you." Why does Moses get a sign to himself that won't happen until after he has already obeyed?

 

[Kenny]

I doubt people would wait a significant amount of time until Jesus performed miracles to believe Mary, even with these prophecies. The Quran mentions a more detailed post birth events in which she is confronted by her people carrying Jesus and was accused of having extra marital relations, and Jesus PBUH spoke as an infant to defend her, and that was the main reason people (not everyone) believed in her immediately. (Quran, chapter 19 verse 27 to verse 37)
I understand this is not described in the bible, so Christians may not believe in it, but to me it at least gives a strong explanation as to why people would believe in Mary immediately after Jesus was born, so if you take away that story there's not a lot to convince the majority of people, especially at the beginning of Jesus's birth (before he performs his miracles).

Very interesting and informative

I was referring to this part of your previous post:

---As far as "why didn't previous religions worship that way"... well, I'm not sure they didn't (subtracting those who worshipped false gods.

The Jerusalem Edition of the Zohar, in its comment on Genesis 1:1, explains why the authors believe that God is triune. They point out especially that the name of God, Elohim, is made up of the two Hebrew words El and Haym. El means God and Haym means they; therefore, they conclude that God is a plural being. The Zohar passage is as follows:

Jehovah, Elohaynu, Jehovah. There are three steps to accept the mystery from above. In the beginning God created. In the beginning is the first mystery from where all else spreads…The name takes three forms and from there the name is interpreted in several ways… Rabbi Bechai explained: Elohim is El Haym. These are gods. Remember your creators (Ecclesiastes 12:1). The wise will understand.----

And yet, I would still hold that the three are one as expressed clearly in:

Deut 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: -

Just like man is three (spirit, soul and body) and yet one.

 

[Kenny]

1. Born in Bethlehem. Irrelevant. The prophecy regarding Bethlehem has to do with a Davidic lineage, not place of birth.
2. Came out of Egypt. This is an example of Matthew quoting out of context. The full verse is: When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. Hosea 11:1 Now that you see the whole thing, it is very obvious that the verse is referring to the Exodus, and that the son is Israel. Whoever wrote Matthew ought to be ashamed.
3. His lineage was from David. Not if he was born of a virgin. The only way a Davidic lineage gets passed on is patriarchally, through the biological father, not a foster father or the mother. As long as you go on about Joseph not being his dad, you cannot claim he had Davidic lineage.

Let's look at some of the other Messianic prophecies.

1. The Messiah will usher in an era of world peace. Jesus did not. He can't be the messiah.
2. The Messiah will bring all the Jews back to the Promised Land. Jesus did not. He can't be the Messiah.
3. The Messiah will reign from Jerusalem. Jesus did not. He can't be the Messiah.

A. Gee, all we need is ONE prophecy to be unfulfilled for Jesus to be excluded. I have given you three.

1 I wholeheartedly disagree
MATT 2: 4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. 5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, 6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

2. I wholeheartedly disagree:
which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet,
not Balaam, in ( Numbers 23:22 ) or ( Numbers 24:8 ) but in ( Hosea 11:1 ) "when Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt": the meaning of which passage is, either in connection with the last clause of the foregoing chapter thus; "in a morning shall the king of Israel be cut off", (ren) (yk) , "because Israel is a child", a rebellious and disobedient one, acting a very weak and wicked part; "yet I have loved him, or do love him", and "have called", or "will call", (the past tense for the future, frequent in the Hebrew language, especially in the prophetic writings,) "my son out of Egypt"; who will be obliged to retire there for some time; I will make him king, set him upon the throne, who shall execute justice, and reign for ever and ever; or thus, "because Israel is a child", helpless and imprudent, and "I love him", though he is so, "therefore l will call", or I have determined to call
Matthew 2:15 - Meaning and Commentary on Bible Verse

3. I wholeheartedly disagree... although I agree with the lineage

So both are correct... born of a virgin and born from the lineage of David.

Joseph might very rightly be called, as he was supposed to be, the father of Jesus, by a rule which obtains with the Jews F26 that he
``that brings up, and not he that begets, is called the father,''or parent; of which they give various instances F1
F26 Shemot Rabba, sect. 46. fol. 143. 1.
F1 T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 19. 2. Vid. T. Bab. Megilla, fol. 13. 1.

not to mention it is matriarchal

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/601092/jewish/Why-Is-Jewishness-Matrilineal.htm

Other prophesies:

Did you conveniently omit the fact that Jesus is coming back to finish the job?

Isaiah 61:2 KJV
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

When Jesus said "this day these scriptures are fulfilled in your eyes" - he purposefully omitted the "day of vengeance of our God".

Your statements deal with the returning Messiah when He comes as King of Kings.

So your last statement has no truth in it.

 

[metis]

The minute we take such narratives at the literal level is the minute we may be missing the mark. The scriptures are subjective in nature, not objective, plus they use analogies to previous peoples and events quite often.

Jesus being borne in Bethlehem doesn't seem to add up, and some Christian theologians that I have read do believe it was meant to be a subjective way to connect Jesus with the Davidic line. IOW, Jesus being the "new David" that will lead and save his people.

So, is this hypothesis correct? How could any of us know for sure? Thus, I don't lose any sleep over it, but what is VERY important to me was Jesus basic message of love God and love my neighbor. This is really what Christianity is based on per Jesus' own words.

 

[BrightShadow]

2) Since Christianity is considered an Abrahamic Monotheistic religion, and since all the prophets in Abrahamic religions prior to Christianity and after (i.e. Islam) always preached that god is one, without mention of any trinity (to my knowledge), wouldn't that prove against it?

In my opinion God sent many Prophets to many parts of the world. Some made a name for themselves and we hear about them and there are many that tried doing their job and were eliminated in the process by the locals because of the controversy or threat they presented to their existing practices. There are some prophets who worked discretely and were able to influence their followers a bit but their contribution wasn't that great in the long run!

When a certain Prophet revealed the basic concepts about God's directives to his immediate followers - some understood him. Unfortunately almost immediately after the prophet's departure - they drifted back to their old ways or began to adopt new concepts according to their understanding or to suit their selfish needs. Thus the ideology got corrupted! So there was a need to send another prophet to give some basic guidance to humankind all over again. (By the way - I believe we don't even deserve any guidance at all but that is another story!)

Christianity - in my opinion - is a religion where its fundamental concepts have been systematically changed or corrupted over the centuries. The fundamental concept of any religion (ideology) from God (monotheistically speaking) supposed to be a declaration of "One God concept" and a belief system that collaborates and celebrates God's absolute authority over everything. It is a concept that doesn't put anyone else on the same "standing" as God by any means! By the way, this (in my opinion) is the most important thing to God and this is one thing we must adopt in our hearts!
However trinity makes a hole in that concept and shoots that concept right out of the ballpark!

The trinity concept IMO was never meant to be a part of God's directive but yet after almost 350 years since Jesus roamed the earth - it was/is widely adopted by majority of Christians, if not by all!
Even Bible teaches that - Jesus never directly claimed to be a God and asked anyone to worship him. On the contrary - in many verses Jesus claimed just the opposite! He only claimed to be a messenger of God!

If Jesus was indeed God then - I am puzzled - why would a God or a god try to hide his true identity? If he did try to hide his identity that he was god then why would any Christian dare to expose him and start worshipping him in the generations to follow?

It doesn't add up. So, in my opinion trinity concept is flawed!

I think it was adopted in the council or Nicaea 325 AD. The person primarily responsible for this was Constantine the great. He was the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity. He had a Pagan background. There were too many doubts already floating around surrounding Jesus' divinity and Constantine summoned all the well known Bishops and decided to have one voice to proceed forward but IMO what they decided took Jesus' ideology on wrong path! In my opinion everyone who is following "trinity" concept is following what Emperor Constantine started! Not Jesus!
Back in the fourth century - Christianity was already losing its popularity because the other existing religions at the time were more fun to follow. other religions had multiple gods and many rituals and celebrations. So, it was a little bit business decision as well on the council's part to make Christianity more appealing thus draw more crowd to it. So, in 381 AD I think even "holy spirit" was added to a divinity status.
But remember you can't have your cake and eat it too! Once trinity concept was adopted - Christianity lost its real face! Now regardless of any claim by Christians - the religion of Christianity cannot be a monotheistic one IMO. But since it came from the religion of Judaism - it has to try and claim to be monotheistic.

A God can have three forms but in one form he wouldn't claim other form is all powerful He cannot say - in form he cannot do anything!
One form wouldn't point to another form and say - "he sent me".
On the cross during crucifixion - one form wouldn't ask the other form - "if there was another way out of that predicament".

 

[sherifgg]

And yet, I would still hold that the three are one as expressed clearly in:

Deut 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: -

Just like man is three (spirit, soul and body) and yet one.

Funny enough, If I were to quote something from the bible to prove against the trinity it would be that same verse.. how is it expressed clearly that the three are one? and why would Jesus PBUH say "Our" in reference to part of himself?

As many others have mentioned, even some Christians as linked below, the concept of the trinity likely started centuries after Jesus PBUH, and has no clear mention in the bible. It would have been easy for Jesus to explain the trinity, if it is really the truth, instead of letting people try to put pieces together, especially for such a crucial subject.

The Trinity Doctrine Did Not Exist Until the Late Fourth Century

 

[sherifgg]

In my opinion God sent many Prophets to many parts of the world. Some made a name for themselves and we hear about them and there are many that tried doing their job and were eliminated in the process by the locals because of the controversy or threat they presented to their existing practices. There are some prophets who worked discretely and were able to influence their followers a bit but their contribution wasn't that great in the long run!

When a certain Prophet revealed the basic concepts about God's directives to his immediate followers - some understood him. Unfortunately almost immediately after the prophet's departure - they drifted back to their old ways or began to adopt new concepts according to their understanding or to suit their selfish needs. Thus the ideology got corrupted! So there was a need to send another prophet to give some basic guidance to humankind all over again. (By the way - I believe we don't even deserve any guidance at all but that is another story!)

Christianity - in my opinion - is a religion where its fundamental concepts have been systematically changed or corrupted over the centuries. The fundamental concept of any religion (ideology) from God (monotheistically speaking) supposed to be a declaration of "One God concept" and a belief system that collaborates and celebrates God's absolute authority over everything. It is a concept that doesn't put anyone else on the same "standing" as God by any means! By the way, this (in my opinion) is the most important thing to God and this is one thing we must adopt in our hearts!
However trinity makes a hole in that concept and shoots that concept right out of the ballpark!

The trinity concept IMO was never meant to be a part of God's directive but yet after almost 350 years since Jesus roamed the earth - it was/is widely adopted by majority of Christians, if not by all!
Even Bible teaches that - Jesus never directly claimed to be a God and asked anyone to worship him. On the contrary - in many verses Jesus claimed just the opposite! He only claimed to be a messenger of God!

If Jesus was indeed God then - I am puzzled - why would a God or a god try to hide his true identity? If he did try to hide his identity that he was god then why would any Christian dare to expose him and start worshipping him in the generations to follow?

It doesn't add up. So, in my opinion trinity concept is flawed!

I think it was adopted in the council or Nicaea 325 AD. The person primarily responsible for this was Constantine the great. He was the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity. He had a Pagan background. There were too many doubts already floating around surrounding Jesus' divinity and Constantine summoned all the well known Bishops and decided to have one voice to proceed forward but IMO what they decided took Jesus' ideology on wrong path! In my opinion everyone who is following "trinity" concept is following what Emperor Constantine started! Not Jesus!
Back in the fourth century - Christianity was already losing its popularity because the other existing religions at the time were more fun to follow. other religions had multiple gods and many rituals and celebrations. So, it was a little bit business decision as well on the council's part to make Christianity more appealing thus draw more crowd to it. So, in 381 AD I think even "holy spirit" was added to a divinity status.
But remember you can't have your cake and eat it too! Once trinity concept was adopted - Christianity lost its real face! Now regardless of any claim by Christians - the religion of Christianity cannot be a monotheistic one IMO. But since it came from the religion of Judaism - it has to try and claim to be monotheistic.

A God can have three forms but in one form he wouldn't claim other form is all powerful He cannot say - in form he cannot do anything!
One form wouldn't point to another form and say - "he sent me".
On the cross during crucifixion - one form wouldn't ask the other form - "if there was another way out of that predicament".

Yep that makes sense.

 

[sherifgg]

I probably am not a good enough bible student to answer your objection, but I'll try. In Exodus (which is Shemot) 3:12 it says that the sign that I Am has sent Moses is that he will take Israel to a particular mountain to worship there. That is the sign. The sign that he is a prophet is that he takes them toward the L-RD, not away. The words strangely say to Moses "This will be the sign to you that I have sent you." Why does Moses get a sign to himself that won't happen until after he has already obeyed?

Sorry but I'm unable to figure out the point your trying to make

 

[sherifgg]

Well, the Christian can also claim that God does, since the virginity of Mary is mentioned in some of the Gospels. And for a Christian, the entire Bible is inspired by God.

So, I am not sure what your case really is.

Ciao

- viole

Again I did not say that its true because God says so in the Quran, I said the Quran had a specific explanation for why people believed Mary when she brought Jesus PBUH to her people, as he spoke to defend her as an infant. From the verses I quoted: (19:27-30)

Then she (Maryam/Mary) came to her people carrying him (the baby). They said, “O Maryam you have committed something grave indeed.
O sister of Hārūn, neither your father was a man of evil nor was your mother unchaste
Thereupon Mary pointed to the child. They exclaimed: "How can we speak to one who is in the cradle, a mere child?"
[Jesus] said, "Indeed, I am the servant of Allah. He has given me the Scripture and made me a prophet.

Since this story was not mentioned in the bible, I am looking for an alternative explanation from a Christian standpoint.

 

[PearlSeeker]

2. This progressive revelation contradicts the messages brought forward by previous messengers of God, rather than progresses it. If Jesus was indeed a prophet, as he never claimed to be God even in the bible, his message would likely be the same message of the prophets before and after him brought, which is to worship God alone. ---“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one" ...Clear message.
The Trinity Doctrine Did Not Exist Until the Late Fourth Century

Christianity - in my opinion - is a religion where its fundamental concepts have been systematically changed or corrupted over the centuries.

This doesn't make sense. The Trinity doctrine didn't come out of nothing. First there was a belief in Jesus as pre-existent Christ and it was formed very early.

 

[Teritos]

The Trinity Doctrine Did Not Exist Until the Late Fourth Century

180 AD Theophilus of Antioch Chapter XV. - Of the Fourth Day, To Autolycus 2:15
In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity,. of God, and His Word, and His wisdom.

190 AD Clement Of Alexandria (Stromata, Book V, ch. 14)
I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father.

200 AD Tertullian (Against Praxeas, ch 11)
All the Scriptures give clear proof of the Trinity.

 

[Kenny]

Funny enough, If I were to quote something from the bible to prove against the trinity it would be that same verse.. how is it expressed clearly that the three are one? and why would Jesus PBUH say "Our" in reference to part of himself?

Yes, I'm am sure you are right just as you showed there are those who have a different viewpoint. I believe they even wanted to stone Jesus for the viewpoint that He was equal with God.

John 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.