If articulation of the nature of god is too complex for human minds, why do you insist on your point of view being the correct one? You are admitting that no one can understand it.
Maybe the complexity of the trinity arises because it makes no logical sense.
Your comment is quite reasonable. Religion is not supposed to be completely logical. There must always be some mystery, some counterintuitive aspect for the faith to stand apart from the mundane/profane. The degree of acceptable mystery has varied over time and culture. In this example, Christian theologians inherited tradition, terminology and metaphor that were merged into a single figure. That required new theological definitions. Son, doesn't mean what it means for humans, for example.
As we come from a faith spawned in the 'Rationalist Movement' we have little taste for mystery. Our beliefs were framed in a more concrete, seemingly rational way. To do that however, the framers of this religion ignored scores of passages that didn't fit the model. They created a new God, a God that fit 19th century standards, a God that never existed before. A God our minds could embrace. Understanding ancient theology requires a paradigm shift for us, acceptance of mystery and the irrational.
The theologians that framed the Trinity doctrine, had done the same, they created a new deity that had never been conceived in precisely the same way before. They however, selected different texts to emphasize, those that focused upon the deity of Christ. They did however embrace the mystery in a way many 19th century readers could not.
In the end neither model accurately represented the texts. That is because the texts reveal an evolving character, not a singular nature or personality.