As a wannabe polymath (which of course is a binary condition - one is or is not), I love your article and will follow.

That being said, your example above is flawed, dependent not upon what was actually written in the earliest extant scripture, but upon how such were reinterpreted by long-dead scholars who insisted that the evidence fit their belief, rather than the belief fit the evidence.

A deep examination of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament shows precisely *zero* hard evidence for a trinity, or that the coming Messiah would be God made flesh. If one reads the New Testament with that in mind, one comes to the realization that Jesus cannot have been God but Man only, that the Bible does not in any way support trinitarian doctrine.

Of course, it's all too easy to challenge Biblical scripture by pointing out the apparent influence of Zoroastrianism and of the Epic of Gilgamesh, just to provide two examples.

But this comment isn't meant to discuss the veracity of scripture, but compare what it actually states as compared to modern-day popular perception.

In other words - and please take no offense at this - your effort to fit religion into the Rule of Three is little different from trying to fit a kila - a three-sided peg - into a round hole. Like those ancient scholars, you were trying to make perceived evidence fit your personal belief.

Unless, of course, your original intent was to see how many bought into it in the first place. You wouldn't be the first highly-intelligent person to do so.

Otherwise, your article is excellent.