Okay. Thanks. But are you saying that your objections are because of what you initially said or something else?

Here's why I ask. There's a difference between having a real problem with the rationale of something and saying something is "beyond comprehension." Something can be logical and beyond comprehension. But I am unclear as to whether you object because the doctrine has a propositional problem (like something is a and non-a at the same time and in the same relationship) or if there is a problem like, "I Just don't understand this. I cannot fully comprehend this." For example, God is infinite and beyond comprehension; however, that does not mean we cannot know things about Him.

At the same time, the doctrine of the Trinity can easily be laid out logically. But, you cannot picture a triune God. You cannot fully comprehend Him. But you also cannot throw it out on those grounds alone, either.

Just a thought...(I do not argue for the Trinity on these grounds, just trying to help you think about it.)