Jesus was a part of a trinity.
There is, and always has been controversy about this. The "trinity" was a piece of dogma introduced in about the 4th century, in order to attempt to explain several inconsitancies on the question of whether Jesus was god, man, or just what. The trinity explanation attempts to use just a bit of logic to make this quandry less problematic.
Jesus said: "If anyman thirst let him come unto me and drink." (John 7:37)
Here we have a quote from the book of John. This book is entirely different from the other 3 (and more contemperaneous) gospels, has significantly different ideas on the divinity of Jesus, yet it is the one which fundamentalists quote the most. Why?
Jesus was a Capricorn. (December 25)
Nope, sorry. December 25th was the Roman Saturnalia festival. Early christians used this date, since it was a festival of rebirth. The new testament refers to "shepherds watching their flocks in the field" on the night of the birth. There are also references to their being lambs with the flock. This would put the birth at around march or april.
Jesus was a carpenter.
...As were most farmers during the winter months. He was also described as a fisherman, and as a shepherd. Likewise, these were some of the many part-time occupations of a poor farming person. This is probably the point of this description, not that he had any sort of a profession.
As far as my beliefs go, well, I spent many years searching for "the truth". I never found it, but it did make me ask many more questions. In the end, I realised that religious dogma, on the whole, contains things that no intelligent person would believe if it were concerning anything other than their faith.
I'm sorry if I offended anybody, but I was just trying to point out the faults of reducing faith to pointless one-liners. I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said "My saviour can beat your saviour". Is this what the debate has come to?