and YET, you will be explaining those "parts" below!
Yes, the nature of the trinity is that God is distinct in three fully divine persons, yet he in one God. The exact nature of the trinity is considered as a mystery by Christianity.
as rock is a rock! a rock is not God and God is not a rock!
It is a metaphor deigned to illustrate how something can exist in three ways all being fully the item of which we speak. Fear not, neither I nor any other sane individual believes God is a rock.
Plato was a Pagan! as such, he had NO IDEA as to how God operates. Philosophy is trying to guess whereas Revelation is God actually informing us! why do do prefer pagan concepts of God?
I am not advocating for Plato's position on God, especially since he had no concept of the trinity. I am using his way of explaining the states in which a thing can be fully existent. This useful explanation is like the gold that the Jews took leaving Egypt, it is from an ungodly source, but it can be usefully pressed into the Lord's service for his Glory none the less.
a rock is a rock, even charlie Brown knows that!
Lets not bring Charlie brown into this now
actually, your gospels said that Jesus said that about himself
Very true, because Jesus is in fact fully God
actually, the idea of "the logos" comes from pagan Philosophy. and a god that is dependent upon another god can only be a junior god or not even a god really. and IF you always have 2 or more gods, then you were NEVER monotheists.
"Logos" is first and foremost a Greek word, not an pagan idea (That I know of), it simply is used In the Bible for its efficient way of explaining how Jesus is the word, likeness, symbol, full embodiment of God, description, ect..... without having to name off what I just did and more. Conveniently the Greeks had a word that fit our meaning, so why not use it
Jesus is not a God dependent on another God, there is one God, he holds both a dependent position that is co-eternal with god, and a fatherly one which is not dependent, as I illustrated in my first post, the same "thing" can be fully itself in multiple forms without becoming multiple things, or being divided into parts that would make up a whole.
One cannot explain of course how there can be one in three and three in one
just stop right there. no further explanation called for!
Of course, I disagree, as I have offered the best explanation I can, and believe it to be true. You have heard my explanation, take it or leave it, the choice is up to you. I simply ask that you ponder the possibility of the trinity without the forgone conclusion that it is false.
Peace