An Explanation of the Trinity?

[Bucky Ball]

Aquinas said if anyone says they understand the trinity, they are lying. Even he said he didn't get it.

What it is though, is unequivocal proof of how humans cooked up this shit, then demanded assent to their stew of crap. For centuries, they (the old guys in dresses) argued about this.
The "filioque procedit" argument went on for centuries, as they argued over it's recipe. The term ("filioque" ... Latin for "and the son") refers to their holy spirit, and refers to the phrase in the Western version of the Nicene Creed which says that the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Father "and the Son". This was NOT in the confessions actually agreed to in the councils, .. Nicaea (325 BCE) and Constantinople (381). You can read the proceedings of all the councils online. The "preceeding FROM BOTH" first appears/inserted, in the proceedings of the Council of Toledo (589) and was vehemently opposed. It was not officially endorsed until 1017. Photius of Constantinople denounced it in the ninth century, and it formed the main doctrinal issue in the rupture (Great Schism), along with the primacy of Roman authority, in 1054. There was an attempted compromise at Florence in 1439, but it flopped. Among the "fathers", Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, Epiphanius, and Cyril of Alexandria may be seen to have agreed with it; Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret against it; and the Cappadocians tried to walk in the middle .. "from the Father through the Son."

In support of the Eastern side, there's this : John (15:26) speaks only of a proceeding from the Father. Second, the addition NEVER had "ecumenical" approval.

There's so much wrong with this crap, it's impossible to know where to even begin. First and foremost, it refutes Judaic monotheism, (except by Special Pleading it away). Divine beings in the OT were in no way held to be equivalent to Yahweh, (and there were many).