It strikes me that a lot of the argument about this is based upon the idea that the Bible Writers were inspired and had knowledge from god, therefore we have to argue that because one Scripture says thus and so, another Writer could not have thought differently.
The Bible is not inspired in any way, so we cannot take what is an Anthology of Writings from very different times in history, and in religious Thought, and try to make sense of it as a whole.
The Bible Writers had their own concepts of Theology, and later of Christology, often very different and in tension with the thoughts of other Writers.
The very basis for the Trinity Doctrine can be traced back to the ideas that the Jewish Educated Elite encountered and adopted while in Exile in Babylon, the concept of Hypostasis was not foreign to them, so the three in one, ousia or substance of a deity is not some new 3rd Century C.E idea at all.
What has complicated matters is anthropomorphising each "substance" or "essence" of the Deity to make them three different individuals within one "Godhead", a concept because of its muddled constituent parts, is difficult for us to process.
It would have been far easier for Christianity if had stuck to the more understandable concept of god that the Jews had, and if Christians hadn't tried to graft in the Jesus Figure to the person of YHWH.
