Enough to realize that you refuse to recognize what is actually in the Bible - sheer numbers of quotations should be proof enough.
The council that "defined" the trinity only put in formal writing what was already written throughout the Bible and believed by the church. Jesus had a subordinational role only so far as his humanity and his mission determined. You cannot deny that both the OT and the NT including the Gospels and the epistles teach over and over that Jesus IS God in the flesh. Since we do not worship multiple gods - because there only is one true God -- then if Jesus is God then he is equal to God Almighty. It didn't take a council hundreds of years to "decide" that God was a triune God. It was in Scripture all along.
Umm, there are still less non-subordinationist verses in the Bible than subordinationist ones - and that is after the editing of the first few centuries. The addition to Matthew is one of the better known ones.
If Jesus is subordinate to God then follow the example given that the woman submits to her husband as her husband submits to Christ as Christ submits to God. Scripture says there is no male or female in Christ but that we are all equal. So Christ is also equal to God. Any subordination was as it concerned position and purpose. It does not mean that Jesus was not God.
Your analogy is not quite as good as it might be, however, it seems that I was unable to convince you, either, that I am not a subordinationist. I fully accept the Christian Trinitarian belief - better than most Protestants, as it seems. Look at the heresies being promoted even here on FR.
Finally, how much longer will you cling to the distrust of Holy Scripture? You have been reading the wrong books or websites if you presume we can have no confidence in the authorship of the Scriptures. Read this and get back to me.
I have no distrust of the Scriptures. You persist in misunderstanding me on yet another point. I have confidence in the Scriptures.
I read through your source. It is labeled: "Basic Issues in Defense of the Authenticity of the Gospels"
Let us see what wisdom is prated here...
Actually, I am surprised that you would even consider offering this up as defence. The author(s) simply offer up irrelevant strawmen more suited to answering unbelievers and even then don't do a good job. They state at the beginning the analogy of the example of Tacitus, going into elaborate detail, and somehow this proves that information on the Gospels, from source to source to tradition, is quite justified.
Were I not a believer, I would use this website as evidence that (at least Protestant) Christianity was mere bunk. As a Christian, I could only say that this site merely offers more evidence to the enemies of the Faith, using the analogy that Obama the American President is the best evidence that this country has to vote Republican.
Sorry my analogies don't meet your standards, but I thought they made an adequate point in the context of what we were speaking about. I am glad to hear you do not hold "subordinationalist" beliefs. However, my point was that the early Christians did not need the council of Nicea to figure it out for them and put it into writing. They had the Scriptures as well as the teachings of the Apostles, so they believed in the truth of the divinity of Christ and the triune nature of the Godhead long before Nicea.
I have no distrust of the Scriptures. You persist in misunderstanding me on yet another point. I have confidence in the Scriptures.
Again, glad to hear that. So why do you feel the need to post such things as:
Dude, show me proof who wrote the four Gospels. Show me proof who wrote Jude. Show me who the various Johns were. Prove to me Peter wrote both of his epistles. And while you are at it, prove that Paul actually wrote more than half of the books attributed to him.
Finally, I can tell by your response that you probably did not bother to read the article at the link. It discussed far more things than Tacitus. But seeing as you declare that you fully trust the Scriptures and have complete confidence in them, the point is moot. However, I would suggest you go back and read the whole article, if even just for "grins". There is a lot there.