since you've claimed that i've hard time understanding the concept of trioun god and the fact that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1, maybe you can help me. Let's relook at the that verse:
'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
First: There's no such thing as beginning when it comes to God because He exists from eternity, NO BEGINNING. So does the 2nd god had a beginning?
Second: So when there was beginning of something, there existed a word who was with first god and he was also a god. So we've a first god and a 2nd god; using simple math last time i checked 1 + 1 = 2 not 1.
Third: Three distinct entities having the same attributes doesn't prove that they are all one. How can even someone logically calim that when they also claim they are distinct? The whole conept is contradictory: you got three different gods yet they are one; you got the son who is god and a man at the same time.
Fourth: How can a part of something be the whole thing when it is the part of the whole thing?
Whether you are having a hard time understanding the Christian concept of a triune God or not, I don't know. I said "perhaps", not "it seems that you are having a hard time...." It might also be you understand it very well, and simply reject it. But let me be clear, as long as you talk about a first God and then of a 2nd god, you are NOT talking about the Christian understanding of the ONE and ONLY God who happens to be triune with regard to his nature.
I agree that God exists before the beginning. As the creator of all things God is also the creator of both time and space. God exists outside of these things. Humans being locked into time and space are things which cause some to ask questions like "How could God be both in the garden praying and in heaven hearing that prayer at the same time?" (Not saying that you've ever asked that question, but plenty of people over the centuries have.) Such a question is one that assume that God is limited by time and space rather than outside of them, and since he is not such a question seems irrelevant to me. But I digress from your questions.
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
(John 1:1-3)
What I note is that the Word was present in the beginning. To me that means that whenever, however the beginning occured, when it did the Word was already present. Thus the Word existed before the beginning, just as God would have to exist before the beginning. Like you said, "There's no such thing as beginning when it comes to God because He exists from eternity, NO BEGINNING." This is just what Moses said:
Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.
Psalm 90:2
And all of this is true of the WORD as well, because, as the scripture says: "the Word was God."
As far as a first god and second god, as I've already said, not within the Christian understanding of God. Look at some of the titles that Prophet Isaiah said were to be given to the Messiah:
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:6
That phrase "Everlasting Father" is an interesting one. Especially since Jesus taught his disciples to pray to God as "our Father" and many other Jews of the rabbinical period of Judaism also referred to God as Father. In fact, this concept of God's Fatherhood is true from everlasting to everlasting, i.e. something that was true for all of both time and eternity, it is an unchanging attribute of who God is. Curious, why a Jewish prophet from the 7th century before the birth of Jesus would then apply that particular title to the Jewish Messiah and not to God alone, unless he is making some sort of identification for the divine nature of the Messiah the way that John does for the Word? But, Isaiah isn't here to ask, so we may have to leave that question unanswered. What we can do though is talk about what it means to speak of the Fatherhood of God the way that Jesus did.
I just happen to be a father, mabye you are as well. I don't know. But I do know that I have not always been a father. Do you know when I became a father? When my first child was born. It takes having a child to make a man a father. That is what it means to be a father (unless one is talking about the title given to a Catholic priest, and I think I'm pretty safe in saying that Jesus was not making such a reference to God). Jesus and the Jews were talking about the nature of the relationship that God had with humanity. But I believe it was more than that, this relationship was just a reflection of something more, something that was true of the very nature of God himself, that nature being that God has always been a Father. That is why Isaiah speaks of the
Everlasting Father. In other words, even before the beginning, one of the things that scripture (at least Christian scripture, I know not Islamic scripture) is affirming about God is that one of the aspects that is unchanging about God's being is that of the role of Father. Now, if this is so, and if it was true even before the beginning, then of whom was God the Father. It can only be so if along with the eternal Father, there is an eternal Son. Thus the eternal Father/Son aspect of the nature of God has always been true, since even before the beginning, since before people started counting "1", "2", ... This is not about arithmetic (which again measures time and space, something God is outside of). This is about the nature and character of God who has always been the One God who within himself exists in a divine community of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
I am not sure what you are asking with your last question:
Fourth: How can a part of something be the whole thing when it is the part of the whole thing?
I am not talking about a part of something being the whole or vice versa.
Do you own a pant leg? My guess is you own at least 2 pant legs. When you bought them did you not buy pants? Yet, it was a purchase of single item, not 2 items. Now, if we can in our common every day speach speak of singluar items as plural nouns, and not find this illogical. Why should we not imagine that God might be greater than our logical minds can comprehend and be capable of existing as three distinct persons and yet just one being, for this is all that we are saying. There is just one God; we know him in three distinct persona.
