Insofar as the members of the trinity are separately identifiable and can act independently of each other, I would go with divisible, if only functionally - not that I'm sure there is any other facet to divisibility.
I can't poke any holes in this as a working explanation, maybe you can:
Man is created in the image and likeness of God: i.e. as an analogue of God, so the doctrine of the trinity becomes easy to understand at its most basic level. Man being body, soul, and spirit is himself a trinity. The Bible makes reference to the mind of the flesh and the mind of the (person's) spirit - equivalent to the Freudian id and super-ego. There are major differences in man between body, soul, and spirit which are not commensurate with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: particularly with regard to the composition (corporeal/non corporeal). Nor can a human's body act independently of soul and spirit (insofar as I can tell), but their counterparts of God can.
I can't poke any holes in this as a working explanation, maybe you can:
Man is created in the image and likeness of God: i.e. as an analogue of God, so the doctrine of the trinity becomes easy to understand at its most basic level. Man being body, soul, and spirit is himself a trinity. The Bible makes reference to the mind of the flesh and the mind of the (person's) spirit - equivalent to the Freudian id and super-ego. There are major differences in man between body, soul, and spirit which are not commensurate with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: particularly with regard to the composition (corporeal/non corporeal). Nor can a human's body act independently of soul and spirit (insofar as I can tell), but their counterparts of God can.
Comment