If Jesus Christ is God Almighty, why would He pray to Himself?
I'm going to label this argument Strawman #1. This question assumes that Jesus is God Almighty, which the Bible doesn't teach, and which, consequently, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe or teach, so why would you be here positing the argument that Jesus is part of a trinity based on the whether it is plausible that Jesus would have prayed to himself. Such an argument might be posited by a trinitarian that sough to debunk such an idea, but it is not something strange to Jehovah's Witnesses that on many occasions Jesus would pray to his God and Father, since we do not believe, as do trinitarians, Jesus to be a "Person" of God, but an individual distinct from God.
You write that "Christians do not teach that God the Father and Jesus are the same Person," and this portion of your statement is true for Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jehovah and Jesus are two distinct individuals, but you go on to write "rather [Christians] teach that God the Father and Jesus are two different Persons who share the same Nature or Essence," which portion of your statement is not true, for Jehovah's Witnesses do not teach that Jehovah and Jesus are two distinct individuals because they "share the same Nature or Essence." Jehovah and Jesus are spirits, that is, spiritual beings, for Jesus Himself taught that "God is a Spirit" (John 4:24), and like the angels of heaven, they are both sharers of the same divine nature.
Whatever it is that "modalism" teaches, Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept the premise of trinitarians that because Jehovah and Jesus "share the same Nature or Essence" that this makes them the same God, but separate "Persons."
If Jesus Christ is God Almighty, why does Colossians 1:15 call Him "The Firstborn of all creation"?
You provided three strawman arguments within the same post, so I'm going to label this first one in this particular post Strawman #2.
This question assumes that Jesus is God Almighty, which the Bible doesn't teach, and which, consequently, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe or teach. The word "firstborn" used at Colossians 1:15 doesn't take on a meaning different than it does elsewhere in the Bible. Inheritance rights aside, the word "firstborn" designates the first to be begotten, the first to be born. Of Lot's two daughters, the "firstborn," that is to say, the one that was the first to be born to Lot, is the one that tossed to her sister, "the younger woman," the idea of "[preserving] offspring from our father," so that they both "became pregnant from their father." (Genesis 19:31, 32, 34-36) The account continues by saying that "the firstborn became mother to ... Moab, who became "the father to Moab," while "the younger ... gave birth to ... Ben-ammi," who became "the father of the sons of Ammon" (Genesis 19:37, 38)
There's nothing about the word "firstborn" as it is used elsewhere in the Bible that suggests a reference to "rank" or "position," so there is no reason for anyone to take a different view of what the word "firstborn" means at Colossians 1:15.
If Jesus Himself were part of creation, how could He exist before one thing was ever created by God? Did God create Jesus through Jesus? (See John 1:3; Colossians 1:17)
I've labelled this second argument in this post of yours Strawman #3.
This question assumes that Jesus is God Almighty, so that if Jehovah's Witnesses should teach that God created Jesus, that this would be an absurd conclusion if it were true that Jehovah and Jesus were, in fact, one God, but "two different Persons who share the same Nature or Essence." But Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe Jehovah and Jesus to be "two different Persons who share the same Nature or Essence," which makes this a false argument.
You make the point that at Hebrews 1:6, we read how "God commands all of His angels to worship The Firstborn Son, which would be idolatry if The Firstborn were a creature." But this point makes no sense, for the New World Translation -- the Bible translation that you stated at the outset of this thread you would be using to prove that the Bible supports belief in God being a trinity -- does not use the word "worship" at all! Is there a reason you are here violating your own rules here?
Idolatry is the veneration, worship or adoration of an idol, and typically involves religious ceremony, but which also may be subtle, for one's love for money or for food can become idolatrous for one may seek to satisfy one's own fleshly cravings is lieu of their doing God's will, and those disposed to rebelliousness are, in fact, worship of one's own self in lieu of obedience to God.
Furthermore, God can certainly make a law for human beings that would not have the same "teeth" or would even be "toothless" with regard to the angels of heaven, and, similarly, God can make a law for angelic host that would be totally inapplicable to human beings. For example, whereas it is not unlawful for human beings to engage in sexual relations with someone to whom they have become "one flesh" and procreate, it is unlawful for an angel to engage in sexual relations and procreate with a human being for sexual relations between angels and humans is unnatural. However, a law forbidding an angel to not engage in sexual relations with a human being to whom he is not married would have no teeth and would be totally unnecessary just as a law forbidding a human being from trying to enter the spiritual heavens with his or her flesh-and-blood body would be toothless since this is impossible for a human to do!
The last thing I would say on this point regarding Hebrews 1:6, the apostle Paul states there, "But when [God] again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: "And let all God's angels do obeisance to him." God's Firstborn has yet to come into the inhabited earth; this is yet future!
The only point I wish to make here is that your argument seems to rely upon your own belief that there is something wrong with God's angels bowing down (or "[doing] obeisance") to Jesus, but has God yet brought Jesus "into the inhabited earth"? Did "the sign of the Son of man" (Matthew 24:30) already make an appearance in heaven? IOW, it you should think that Paul is saying that God's angels have already bowed down in deference to the authority of God's Firstborn, you have another think coming.
If Jesus Himself were part of creation, how could He exist before one thing was ever created by God? Did God create Jesus through Jesus? (See John 1:3; Colossians 1:17)
I've labelled this third argument in this post of yours Strawman #4.
Some believe that Colossians 1:15-18 is speaking about Jesus Christ as a Human, and that, as a Man, He was indeed a creature in the sense that His Human Body was created by God the Father and the Holy Spirit. Calling Him "Firstborn" would then mean that He holds first place among all of God's creation, or that He is the First of all of God's new creation (which are those believers who have been born again and will go to heaven with immortal human bodies). I do not agree with that understanding because Colossians 1:15-17 is talking about when Jesus Christ created angels and humans, and Jesus was definitely NOT a Human at that time.
Whatever your reason for not believing what you describe as being "a different understanding of this Scripture on the part of some Christians," erecting such a strawman and then knocking it down doesn't alleviate the fact that this entire third argument or yours is a strawman, for Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe "that Colossians 1:15-18 is speaking about Jesus Christ as a Human."
As to the addition of the word "other" used in the NWT, so what? You are supposed to be proving the trinity using the NWT, which Bible includes the word "other" at Colossians 1:16, 17. These were the terms that you set. Deal with it! We're supposed to be discussing what the Bible teaches according to the NWT and not what statements a Bible study aid like the "Reasoning" book or the "Insight" volumes might include in order to clarify what one reads in the Bible. If you cannot follow your own rules, then I'm going to withdraw from this thread.
If Jesus Christ is God Almighty, why does Revelation 3:14 call Him "The Beginning of the creation of God"?
I'm going to label this argument Strawman #5.
You write that "[a]t first glance, [Revelation 3:14] does look like it is teaching that Jesus was created by God," but no one is reading this verse "at first glance." This is how the verse is rendered in the NWT Bible. As to how the Greek word _arche_" might be rendered in some other Bible translation, this is how this Greek word is rendered in the NWT.
You also wrote: "Since this verse has many different possible translations, it does not seem wise to interpret it in a way that contradicts the rest of Revelation and the rest of the Bible," but this rendering of this verse doesn't contradict any other scripture as you here assert to be the case. This argument is just a strawman based on your supposed wisdom in deciding which English language word best translated the Greek word, _arche_, but you believe in the trinity, so, really, how wise could you possibly be? The fact that you end this specious argument saying about Revelation 3:14 that "it could still be understood to mean that Jesus is the One who began God's creation, the One who started it," that is not my understanding, but you are free to comprehend this verse as you wish.
If Jesus Christ is God Almighty, why does the Bible call Him "The Only-Begotten Son"?
I'm going to label this argument Strawman #6.
This is yet another case of your opining that the Greek word _monogenes_ used in the Christian Greek Scriptures could also be rendered in other ways. So what? The NWT renders this Greek word "only-begotten," not "Only," not "One-and-Only," not "Unique," and this has nothing at all to do with what "the latest Biblical Greek research and scholarship has determined" this word ought to be rendered in the English language.
This "parting shot" of yours in which you say that "since Jesus was begotten by God, He must be God by Nature -- in other words, He has the same Nature or basic makeup as God does," isn't conveyed by the Greek word _monogenes_ used in the Christian Greek Scriptures, so whatever the supposed significance of this parting shot, this in no way changes the character of your argument here from being what it is, namely, an empty strawman.
If Jesus Christ is God Almighty, why does John 1:1 (NWT) call Him "a god"?
I'm going to label this last argument of yours Strawman #7.
You wrote that:
Nearly all modern Bible translators and Bible scholars do not agree with the rendering "The Word was a god" found at John 1:1 in the New World Translation.
But then you go on to compare what WTS publications have to say about the rendering of John 1:1c as "... and the Word was a god," with respect to the qualitative nature of the Greek word _theos_ that the apostle John uses at John 1:1c due to "an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb" per Philip B. Harner, except where a singular anarthrous predicate noun precedes the verb, the rule that governs the rendering is that the indefinite article, "a" or "an," precedes the noun.
To be clear, John 1:1c would be rendered literally as "... and godwas the Word," which means that where the predicate noun is "god" (here in bold) and it should precede the verb "was"(here in italics), then it ought to have been rendered literally as "... and (a) godwas the Word," or, as in the NWT, "... and the Word wasa god." Why would you be here quoting Harner as if he actually supported your contention? Harner is even quoted as saying that John 1:1c could rightly be translated, "the Word had the same nature as God."
The same "Reasoning" book from which you quoted in your post indicates, too, that there are passages in the Bible where a singular anarthrous predicate noun occurs before the verb, such as at John 6:70 ("a devil") and John 9:17 ("a prophet"). In both of these Bible verses, each sentence has an article-less predicate noun before the verb, just like at John 1:1c, so we should be consider each of them as qualitative, no? And yet, here at John 1:1c, where we have the same singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, the "Colwell Rule" you mention in your post doesn't seem to have been applied. I wonder why?
Now you asked the following two questions:
 When you read "The Word was a god" in the NWT, do you think that it means The Word shares the same exact Nature that God Almighty has?
My answer to this question is Yes.
 Or, rather, do you think of the Word as a separate, lesser, inferior created god?
My answer to this question is also Yes.
You then go on to ask a third question:
 What does it mean for the Logos ("Word") to share the same exact Nature that God Almighty has?
My answer to this question is that just as Jehovah God is divine, so is the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ.
I'll answer the fourth question now, even though it is a loaded one:
 God, in His Nature, is Eternal, Immortal, and Almighty. How can He share in that same Nature and still not be Almighty, Eternal, or Immortal?
Without regard to the 1933 article, "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament" by the Greek scholar, E.C. Colwell (Ernest Cadmen Colwell), from which article came the so-called "Colwell's Rule" (mentioned above), I cannot take what Colwell states to be accurate, for his own article contains data that shows so many exceptions to his rule (that is, fifteen definite nouns that do have the article even though they are before the verb) that no one should really have taken Colwell's claims seriously. (And I don't.)
For example, when Pilate asks Jesus at John 18:35, "I am not a Jew, am I?" no one would think that Pilate is asking Jesus, "Am I circumcized?" or "Do I pray at set times of the day?" or "Do I observe the sabbath?" which would all be attributes of one's Jewishness. But what Pilate means is this: "Do I belong to the category of persons -- Jews -- for whom what you are saying would have some meaning?" Instead of Colwell, I'd go with Prof. BeDuhn who teaches Greek at Northern Arizona University.
Jason BeDuhn received a PhD from the University of Indiana in Comparative Religious Studies, and uses the Kingdom Interlinear Bible when teaching Greek at Northern Arizona University. BTW, BeDuhn is not one of Jehovah's Witnesses and never has been one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Let me quote BeDuhn here:
Greek has no specific grammatical form for conveying something as tightly defined as "nature." Instead, what you have is a choice between individual and class. You are absolutely correct that reading theos in John 1:1c as individual yields a kind of modalism, conflates God and Word indistinguishably. [However], that is precisely what is conveyed by the traditional English translation in the absence of any sort of commentary or explanation. I wouldn't be concerned with that problem if that is what John wrote.
[I]n fact John was very careful to distinguish the individual definite God from the Word which is characterized as belonging to the god/deity/divine class. Philosophically and theologically you can define that class ("sharing the same nature") and set limits to it (monotheism), but the language of John does not itself provide those philosophical and theological fine points in John 1:1.
If Jesus Christ is God Almighty, why would He say "The Father is greater than I am"?
Your question presupposes that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus Christ is God Almighty, when we believe Jesus' Father, Jehovah, to be God Almighty, whose name is Jehovah, while believing Jesus to be "the Son of God." (John 10:36) Why would you ask one of Jehovah's Witnesses such a question? Or did you not know that I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses?
Notice, God Almighty is The Alpha and The Omega and The Beginning and The End and The First and The Last
Yes. Jehovah is "the Alpha and the Omega"; also "the Beginning and the End."
Notice, in the following Verses, Jesus Christ is The Alpha and The Omega, The Beginning and The End, and The First and The Last
Yes. While Revelation 22:13 speaks of Jehovah as the Alpha and the Omega, but Revelation 1:8 as well as Revelation 4:8 and Revelation 22:12, 13, show that Jehovah is "coming, but only representatively though Jesus. At Revelation 21:6, 7, where reference is made to "the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end," Jehovah is the Alpha and the Omega. At Revelation 22:16, it is clear that Jesus is there speaking, but what one reads at Revelation 22:16 has no bearing on what one reads at Revelation 22:13. While at Revelation 1:17, Jesus is there referred to as "the First and the Last," it is to Jehovah and not to Jesus that Revelation 22:13 refers.
What does Alpha and Omega mean? What does First and Last mean?
"Alpha" is the first letter of the Greek alphabet and "Omega" is the last letter of the Greek alphabet (Revelation; somehow I believe you already knew the answer to this question. "First" refers to Jesus being the first one to be raised up to incorruptibility and immortality and "Last" refers to Jesus being the last one to be resurrected by Jehovah (pay attention to the context in which "the First and the Last" is used at Revelation 1:17, 18, which gives this designation a restricted meaning than what one reads "the first, and ... the last" at Isaiah 44:6, as applied to Jehovah without any limitation!), since all future resurrections to heavenly life or to earthly life will be accomplished by God through the Lord Jesus Christ.
How could there be TWO DIFFERENT GODS who were BOTH The First and The Last?
If you are concerned how the title "the First and the Last" could be applied to both Jehovah and Jesus, consider this: At Hebrews 11:24-26, the apostle Paul refers to Moses as the "Christ." You don't have a problem accepting that the leadership of Moses over God's people as God's anointed one was prefigured by Jesus Christ as God's anointed one, do you? At Matthew 17:11, Jesus, in referring to his second cousin, John the Baptist, tells his disciples that "Elijah has already come." You don't have a problem accepting that the ministry of John the Baptist was prefigured by the prophet Elijah, do you? I suspect figures of speech and anything mentioned in the Bible that foreshadows realities haven't really been your forte.
The Bible says that only God Almighty can read human minds and hearts:
The Bible says that Jesus can read human minds and hearts:
Jesus Christ has the same Unchangeable Nature as The Father:
You cited Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 1:12 and Hebrews 13:8 for a reason, but why? You say that Jesus has the same unchangeable nature as the Father, but what exactly is this supposed to mean? That "unchangeable nature" signifies equality? The angel Gabriel has the same nature as the Lord Jesus Christ, being that he is divine, except that Gabriel isn't immortal. Does Gabriel's being possessed of the same divine nature as Jesus also make Gabriel equal to and a part of the Trinity? What exactly are you saying to me here?
The Holy Spirit intercedes for us to the Father. How can an impersonal force intercede or pray for us?
Are you not aware that the Psalms are filled with prayers that resonate with our own feelings, the prayers written under inspiration that God's own servants have uttered to Jehovah in the past? When we read certain psalms, e.g., Psalm 23, the holy spirit joins in to help us in pleading to Jehovah without our having to say anything. This impersonal force -- God's holy spirit -- intercedes for us when we read the psalms. I don't why you thought you could guess at the meaning of the apostle Paul's words at Romans 8:26, 27, but what you guessed was incorrect.