each one is believed to be God but they are lumped together as one single God.
Not really lumped together. One God Almighty, YHWH, with a triune nature.
“Person” should be regarded as a contemporary misnomer, an imperfect expression because it connotes a separate rational and moral individual. It is a word erroneously derived from the Latin persona and misapplied in the English modern era, as the Jehovah's Witnesses have done.
Persona: A Latin word regularly used to refer to the three ‘persons’ of the Trinity and to the one ‘person’ of Christ. It therefore fulfills the role in Latin theology performed by hypostasis in Greek. The natural translation into ‘person’ in English is misleading. Persona originally meant a ‘mask’ and then a ‘role.’ It is used to indicate an individual in his or her external presentation, and does not convey the idea of self-consciousness or the internal psychological content suggested by the English word ‘person’ with its close link to the word ‘personality.’ (Oxford, 1210)
http://www.144000.110mb.com/trinity/index.html#2
There is only one almighty God who is the Father,
Trinitarians agree. And that Almighty God is YHWH
the mighty god being his son Jesus,
This is a false teaching, and mischaracterizes the Trinity. Jesus is the Mighty God, as it says in Isaiah 9:6, but that God is YHWH and not some little "a god,", as it says in the next two words: the child born to us is Mighty God, "Eternal Father." That is but one of many reasons. Immanent trinity, the nature of God in himself before creation, does not include Jesus who was not yet born. Jesus is God-Man, God the Son. And because the Word is eternal, he could not be created.
who was God's first creation.
This is arianism, and another false teaching.The Word was not created, and the evidence is overwhelming. Some of it is right here:
The eternal Christ was not created - (Isaiah 9:6)[Top]
In addition to Jesus Christ’s omnipotence, he is and always has been eternal, a Scriptural truth strongly denied by the Jehovah's Witnesses who teach, incorrectly, that Jesus is a created being granted immortality only after his resurrection. But even Isaiah 9:6 in the Jehovah's Witnesses’ New World Translation disproves that theory where Christ is referred to as “Eternal Father.”
For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be on his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
The preexistent Christ’s eternal nature is not the result of a forward-looking grant of immortality as the Jehovah's Witnesses teach, but is a condition that has always been because “He is before all things” (Colossians 1:17), and he created all things (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16). There are only two options: He was created or He is eternal, but since He was before all things and created all things, He must be eternal.
To counter this, Colossians 1:15-17 in the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation (NWT) inserts the word [other] four times so that it reads:
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the first born of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist.
The Jehovah's Witnesses’ insertion of the word [other] does not change the clear language and meaning of Paul’s discourse. They reason:
(3) In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, NW assigns the same meaning to pan’ta at Colossians 1:16, 17 [similar to Luke 13:2] so that it reads, in part, “by means of him all other things were created … All other things have been created through him and for him.” Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation, produced by God. (Reasoning, 408 - 409)
Such an arbitrary addition is based on a distorted reading of Luke 13:2 and the supposed over-all “context” of their Bible. They justify inserting “other” in four places here because the overall context of the Bible, in their opinion, requires it, and because some other Bibles insert “other” into Luke 13:2 where it had not existed before (Reasoning 408, 409). Luke 13:2 provides:
At that very season there were certain ones present that reported to him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. So in reply he said to them: “Do you image that these Galileans were proved worse sinners than all other Galileans because they have suffered these things? No, indeed, I tell you; but, unless you repent, you will all likewise be destroyed.” (NWT)
“The death of the Galileans at the hands of Pilate” were “timely reminders of the need for all to repent, for the victims of these tragedies should not be considered outstanding sinners who were singled out for punishment” (NAB notes 13, 1-5).
Equating Luke 13:1-3 with Colossians 1:15-17 is improper because inserting “other” into Luke 13:2 was not necessary and did not change the nature or status of the Galileans referred to. In the English language “other” might have helped clarify the object of the sentence but it could have been omitted. Leaving verse 2 as it was would still convey the same meaning - that of all Galileans, those killed by Pilate were not particularly worse sinners. Adding “other” here does not convert the Galileans into something entirely different; it does not turn them into Martians.
Inserting “other” into Colossians 1:15-17, on the other hand, fundamentally alters the object of those verses, Christ the Word, by downgrading Him from eternal God the Son to that of a creature; from God to not-god. Nothing could be more radical, theologically speaking, or heretical.
Furthermore, such unsubstantiated alteration of Scripture violates the context of verse 15, Hebrews 1:3, Philippians 2:6 and 2 Corinthians 4:4. Hebrews 1:3 states that Christ is “the express image of His essence (Green’s Literal Translation). Here, image (Greek charaktar) denotes that the Son is “literally equal to” God, “of whose essence He is the imprint. It is the fact of complete similarity which this word stresses” (Strong and Vines, 269).
Philippians 2:6 says that the Word existed in the form (Greek morphe) of God prior to His incarnation. Here, form (morphe) means nature or essence, but not in the abstract, subsisting in the individual (Strong and Vine’s, 167). “It includes the whole nature and essence of deity” (ibid.). And at 2 Corinthians 4:4, the “image of God” means that Christ is “essentially and absolutely the perfect expression of the Archtype, God the Father” (Strong and Vine’s, 77).
[I]n Colossians 1:15, “the image of the invisible God “gives the additional thought suggested by the word “invisible,” that Christ is the visible representation and manifestation of God to created beings; (5c) the likeness expressed in this manifestation is involved in the essential relations in the Godhead and is therefore unique and perfect; “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father,” John 14:9. (ibid., 77)
As such, Luke 13:2 cannot serve as justification for altering the very nature and identity of Christ. Inserting “other” into Colossians 1:16, 17 in order to convert Christ to nothing more than a man or a created angel would obliterate all parallel contextual verses which show that the Word Christ was and is the exact imprint of deity, a perfect match, an exact equivalent with the divine essence. Inserting “other” would result in a “created” Christ being something far less than what He truly is.
When determining what context within which to assess the nature and identity of Christ it is best to start at the beginning and move forward in time, to reach back as far as possible. And in the beginning there was the Word (John 1:1) and the Word was before all things (Colossians 1:17) and all things were created by Him and through Him and for Him (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16). This is the proper context within which to begin to analyze subsequent Scripture. You don’t end here.
By now it should be evident that the Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t conform to context, they create it.
It is understandable why the Jehovah's Witnesses altered the Bible to accommodate their idea of what they wish it said. Had the preexistent Word been a created being he could not have been “before all things,” nor could He have “created all things” (Colossians 1:16, 17) which would by necessity have included himself. But, since the Bible says that the Word was “before all things” and “without Him nothing came to be” (John 1:3) Christ the Word cannot have been created. It is absolutely impossible … unless you change the Bible.
Lastly, as expounded on in section 19(A) the baptismal formula at Matthew 28:19 reflects in one sentence the Trinitarian doctrine of three Persons as one by virtue of the singular “name” into which Christian believers are to be baptized. By means of logical deduction Christ must be eternal in accordance with the baptismal formula.
For example, the Jehovah's Witnesses would have Christians baptized under three distinct and separate authorities which is scripturally unfounded. If they were right, and the Son is separate from the Father, the Holy Spirit must also be separate from the Father, but that in turn would imply that the Father was without His electrical current or authority and He is not all powerful. If, on the other hand, the Holy Spirit is inseparable from the Father then neither can the Son be separate from the Father because Christ is the Spirit.
To illustrate further, Paul taught at Romans 8:9-11 that the Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ and 2 Corinthians 3:17 teaches that Jehovah God (or the Lord) is the Spirit (NWT; “the Lord is the Spirit” RSV). And, it is this Spirit, the Holy Spirit, that dwells within the Christian believer. Thus, there are not two separate Spirits that reside within, God’s and Christ’s, but one Spirit, according to Ephesians 4:4.
There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:4-6)
But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if the Sprit of God really dwells in you. Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although your bodies are dead because of sin, your spirits are alive because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you. (Romans 9:8-11 RSV)
Jehovah is the spirit. (2 Corinthians 3:17 NWT; “the Lord is the Spirit” RSV)
However, if, as the Jehovah's Witnesses falsely teach, the preexistent Christ is a created creature only, then the Holy Spirit must also have been created and accordingly there would have been a time when there was no Holy Spirit and therefore God would have lacked power and authority and would not have been omnipotent, according to their theory. But, since the Holy Spirit is eternal, which the Jehovah's Witnesses must concede, and the Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ, and this Spirit is the Holy Spirit, Christ the Word must be eternal.
Not surprisingly, the Jehovah’s Witnesses changed Romans 8:10 by inserting the word “union,” so that Christ is not in the believer, but only in union with the believer, writing: “But if Christ is in union with you, the body indeed is dead on account of sin …” NWT).
http://www.144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-5.html#20
The mystery of the Trinity is no more mysterious than unity which is what bonds the Father, the son and the Spirit or God's active force together.
Not sure what you mean by this. The trinity doctrine isn't all that mysterious and it is perfectly reasonable, even if some people don't understand it.
