That was a dumb analogy. No, it's not like that at all. We're talking about God here.
How is it a dumb analogy? You recognize a contradiction when you see it don't you? I'm sure you do. Lord knows why you feel comfortable affirming the contradiction found in the creed.
Those who wrote the creed understood and believed the Shema, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!" They knew, just as you and I both know, that the Son and the Father are God. And so how to explain what seems to be an apparent contradiction. How can two, or three persons be one? The idea that both the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are all God is taught in the Bible, but the Bible doesn't say how that is possible.
The Creed, which is both faulty and dangerous, is one attempt at an explanation. The foundation and fundamental ideas contained in the creed are the result of Greek Philosophy not Apostolic revelation. To arrive at "oneness" the creed proposes that one essence can contain three persons. Built on top of this foundational concept, is the idea that all three persons share the same qualities: "The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal" and etc.
I don't deny that Jesus is God, I deny the creedal teaching that one essence can contain three people. (I recognize a kluge when I see one.) While this "work around" is cleaver, it destroys the Gospel and causes the New Testament to shatter into a thousand pieces.
Why do you put a limit on what is possible for God?
I ran into this question often during my days as an apologist. The challenge always came up in the form of the question, "Can God make a stone so heavy that it can not be moved?" God is omnipotent so he can make a stone that is so heavy that it can't be moved. But if it can't be moved, then God can't move it. Therefore, God is not omnipotent because he is unable to move the stone.
The solution to this apparent contradiction is to recognize meaningless statements. The question itself is meaningless because it assumes the answer in the predicate. The supposition that God can make a stone that he can't lift is not a limit on God; its a violation of logic. It's like asking whether God can create a square circle, which itself is a meaningless concept.
Likewise, we should not subject ourselves to the following meaningless contradiction: Jesus is fully human; Jesus is not fully human.
Beyond that, scripture teaches that He is fully man and fully God. You should accept it, but instead you cling to your cultish beliefs instead.
I admit, I belong to that small subset of Christianity who accept the truth no matter where it leads.
Colossians 1:15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
Scripture teaches that in Jesus "all things were created". And that "God was pleased to hvae all his fullness dwell" in Jesus. That means He is fully God. Don't try to tell me otherwise. It's what scripture explicitly teaches. You falsely believe that Jesus didn't exist in any way, shape or form before He was born of the virgin Mary and, yet, scripture teaches that He created all things and "is before all things". You don't have a leg to stand on here. Your false beliefs have been thoroughly exposed.
Let's take this one phrase at a time.
The Son is the image of the invisible God . . .
Here Paul clearly denies the idea that Jesus and God share the same essence. Consider the statue of David, a masterpiece of Renaissance sculpture, created in marble between 1501 and 1504 by the Italian artist Michelangelo. The statue is the image of David. The statue is marble, the man David was flesh. The image exists in the medium of marble; David existed in the medium of flesh and blood. David and his statue are not of the same essence.
Likewise, Jesus is the image of God. The image of God in Jesus is expressed in the medium of a human life; God exists as a transcendent creator. Jesus and God are not of the same essence.
the firstborn over all creation.
Here the Apostle places Jesus as second in rank to God the Father. Among humans, and in many cultures, the Father is the head of the household. Second in rank is the first born son. All in the family must obey the Father. And all in the family must obey the first born son except the Father, who is over all creation. With regard to rank, Jesus is first born.
For in him all things were created:
Here, the Apostle employs his oft used phrase "in him" indicating the son's pre-eminence and lordship over all creation, and especially the final state of the redeemed creation.
all things have been created through him and for him.
The passive voice is intended to anchor the discourse on the predicate subject which is God the father, the one to whom we give thanks. (verse 12). Thus we need to bear in mind Paul's claim that the Father created all things to exist "in him" (the son) God the Father qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance; God the father delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of his beloved son. God the Father created all things "through" the son; God the father created all things "for the son." God the father is the creator.