You're not a trial lawyer, are you! ten eyewitnesses almost invariably tell ten noticeably different stories, FK, without any of them being either a liar or crazy.
I'm not a trial lawyer, but any lawyer knows that different eyewitnesses often give very different accounts. But different accounts can also be 100% factually true. There are many many minor surface discrepancies in certain details of the same event in different Gospels. That doesn't mean any of them are wrong. It just means that certain facts were emphasized and some were not mentioned.
For example, Luke 24:12 says that Peter ran to the tomb. But John 20:4 says that both Peter and John ran to the tomb. Is one wrong? No, both are 100% factually correct. Luke simply emphasizes Peter and omits that John was also there. No big deal. Therefore, I submit that my statement stands. If John's eyewitness testimony was FACTUALLY WRONG, then he had to know it and was lying or crazy. By the manner of presentation, there is no room here for simple mistake, either Jesus said what He said or He didn't, etc. Of course, all of this presupposes that John was writing on his own, which is not what the Church holds, so it is a bit of a moot point. The only errors in John's Gospel would be ones made by God. It's my understanding that at least the Latins would agree with this.
FK: "To interpret this theme as a superior-subordinate relationship is to simply declare the whole of Christianity void on its face."
But it's OK to deny the "monarchy" of the Father by an embrace of the filioque clause?
As far as I understand the issue, yes. Everyone agrees that the Father sent the Son, and there is no issue of subordination. Why then would there arise an issue over whether the Holy Spirit "proceeded" from the Father alone or the Father and Son? Either way, there should still be no issue of subordination. Whatever the precise meaning of "proceeded" is, I wouldn't think it would infringe on the Three being co-eternal and co-equal.
The Synoptic ones you mean? That's why they are called synoptic, they are harmonized. John's Gospel, on the other hand, is nothing like the other three. Night and day. And even then there are some serious discrepancies among them. Also, Luke's Gospel exists in two versions, long and short.
As far as I understand the issue, yes. Everyone agrees that the Father sent the Son, and there is no issue of subordination
Or co-equality? Even when Jesus says the Father is greater than I?
Why then would there arise an issue over whether the Holy Spirit "proceeded" from the Father alone or the Father and Son? Either way, there should still be no issue of subordination. Whatever the precise meaning of "proceeded" is, I wouldn't think it would infringe on the Three being co-eternal and co-equal.
Where does the Bible says all three are co-equal and co-eternal? And the origin of the Spirit is of utmost importance in the Triniatrian dogma.
For if the Son is begotten of the Father and the Spirit is something that "comes" out of both of them, then then the cause of the Spirit are both the Father and the Son and you have double cause. How is the Spirit co-equal then?
The Spirit doesn't have everyhting the Father has, as the Son does. The spiration and the begotteness, on the other hand, point to Father as the first cause (even if eternal) of everything and all, including the Godhead, and only the Father is uncaused.
Like I said, you're not a trial lawyer. Lying or insanity has nothing, usually, to do with what people see and hear and then recall even minutes later, let alone months or years later. Sometimes the differences can be dramatically different, not just in trivial matters but also in material ones.
"Whatever the precise meaning of "proceeded" is, I wouldn't think it would infringe on the Three being co-eternal and co-equal."
That's the problem, FK. You don't know the meaning of ἐκπορευόμενον. BTW, in the confusing English translation, it's "proceeds" not proceeded and the word has nothing to do with "sending" but, as Kosta points out, with origin. This makes a difference because we are trying, in the Creed, to describe the Triune God we worship. It is not bad theology to say that the Spirit is sent by the Father or by the Father through the Son but that is not what the Creed is taking about.