It is critical to understand that the word "God" does not by any means have a clear definition. It is a label only that various people take to mean various things. This being the case a greater concern than where the label goes is what exactly it means.
Suppose two criminals hear a knock at the door, one goes to see who it is, and the other asks who he sees. The first might answer, "It's the law." This is a label that is often attached to officers of the law. It might be Sergeant Ernest Q. Waites. He is just a person who represents the law. The "law" is a combination of statutes, court decisions, judges, police officers, lawyers and other personnel. Ernest Q. Waites is only the representative of that complex thing, an officer of it. After he knocks he might say, "Open the door in the name of the law because only the law has authority to require the door be opened. Ernest Q. Waites only has that authority when he is on duty as an officer of the law, not on his own.
What appears consistent with most scriptures is that Jesus is only "God" in the same sense Ernest Q. Waites is the "law." In this perhaps imperfect analogy the trinity is not "complete" in any separate part. The scriptures are not God, they're writings. They can be shredded, God can't. God is not known except by those writings, a spiritual revelation to the people who wrote them down, and perhaps further inspiration for readers.
The word "trinity" in English only means three persons or things. It does not imply any rankings or equality of rank. Some passages of scripture have been taken to mean that there must be an equality of rank, but those notions are not consistent with other scriptures.
Quite often the issue when people attempt to call Jesus "God" is some attempt to subvert the "law" in some manner. It is likely a misunderstanding of being under "grace" instead. For a better understanding of what it means to be under grace consider the very different sources of resentment.
Two different kinds of people resent being told what to do. One kind would much rather do something else. The other kind wants what they do to be their own decision. They want to follow the plan, but they like to think it is their own plan. The kind that wants to do something else might be guilty of any sin including adultery and murder. The other kind is only guilty of pride.
Is pride a sin? The "seven deadly sins" aren't in the Bible. What commandment is there against pride in the Bible? Pride is not a "sin" but excessive pride can be a violation of the first commandment that God is God.
Wanting obedience to be out of love rather than fear is not a sin. It is actually a good idea. The message can get distorted though and that is what usually happens. People reach a point where they want to subvert God, the Law and the Prophets. If they followed the Bible carefully they would not try to subvert God, but they do not follow the Bible carefully.
Obedience out of love and knowledge is a good plan generally. Obedience out of fear is extremely awkward. It is important for people to develop personal responsibility and they seldom do that when obedient out of fear only.
Removing all fear is just as bad or worse. There needs to be a reasonable measure of fear of the Lord. Removing all fear results as we see today in the sinners being made lords over the saints. Because they have misunderstood what it means to be under "grace" instead of under the "law" people have passed evil laws, and all citizens are very much under those now.