Begotten and being Born are used as parallels in the NT..
There is no one who is begotten and yet not born
Father nor holy spirit are called begotten nor are angels
How do you beget something without it being born (or created)? the very definition to the word corresponds to the concept of "coming into existance"
"The New Testament speaks of Father, but it does not speak of Jehovah or Yahweh. So you can't even identify the two." - well its not hard to figure considering YHWH is called "Father" numerous times throughout the OT... The messiah only once in a completely different sense...
We will go about this the indirect route: What evidence do you have that the coming messiah was ever thought to be God himself?
Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"
by aqwsed12345 136 Replies latest watchtower bible
Begotten and being Born are used as parallels in the NT..
and my last contribution: https://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2011/02/bwf.html
you should research proverbs 8 more.. even the Hebrew word implies something you did not possess originally & the lxx lends quite abit of weight to the "created" translation
Thats my 2 cents worth to this debate
Thanks aqwsed12345 for the interesting conversation. We’ve not discussed doctrines like this for a while. At least I haven’t.
I don’t read Latin but AI translated it for me and it seems that Jerome was arguing that qana doesn’t mean “created”. That makes sense that, since he didn’t translate qana as created in Prov 8.22, he would argue that was the correct decision. I’m not sure it tells us anything new. It’s also worth noting that Jerome did translate qana as “created” in Gen 14.19. There is obviously more to consider than just what Jerome translated, and why, such as the LXX, the Syriac version, the Targums, modern scholarly versions such as NRSV, Robert Alter, and the rest who support the translation “created” in this verse.
Lots of people in the early church called themselves Trinitarian but do not meet the common modern definition of the word. Arius himself described himself as Trinitarian. So from that perspective maybe Lactantius is a Trinitarian. But where he appears to agree with JWs is that Jesus is an angelic creature and that only God the Father is without a beginning. If you say a Trinitarian can believe that Jesus was created before the world was created and still be a good Trinitarian, then I struggle to see what your problem with JWs is because that’s what JWs believe Too.
But lest by any chance there should be any doubt in your mind why we call Him Jesus Christ, who was born of God before the world, and who was born of man three hundred years ago, I will briefly explain to you the reason. The same person is the son of God and of man. For He was twice born: first of God, in the spirit, before the origin of the world; afterwards in the flesh of man, in the reign of Augustus; and in connection with this fact is an illustrious and great mystery, in which is contained both the salvation of men and the religion of the Supreme God, and all truth. Lactantius, Epitome of the divine institutes, 43
Actually, it's ironic that the standard interpretation of the three Bible verses parroted regarding the alleged "creation" of the Son is not in conflict with the Society's theology, they also confess that Jehovah possessed wisdom from the beginning, they also confess that the Son is the privileged, pre-eminent heir of the entire, the whole creation, and the source of creation, so the interpretations presented here would not be contrary to their theology. However, they cannot admit this, because then they would lose their "one-liner" "proof texts"...
The faithful translation of the Bible leaves open what Paul is actually asserting about Christ (Creator or part of the creation process?). Only the textual context and the wider biblical connections can decide in his interpretation.
KIT: "firstborn–of all–creation"
Correct translations and interpretations: „the first-born of all creation” (NASB, NRSV); „the firstborn over all creation” (NIV, NKJV); „he is the firstborn Son, superior to / supreme / the primacy over all creation / over created things” (NEB, REB, TEV, NLT).
According to the WTS, Jesus is just the first, directly created creature, God's 'masterpiece or junior partner', who created the "rest" of creation. The WTS, translating the phrase 'firstborn of all creation' faithfully, kept it as a possessive structure and refers to it in other publications, suggesting that this text of Scripture asserts Christ's status as a "creature".
Based on the context of the text, we see that Paul isn't discussing the timing of Christ's birth, but his identity (image of God), role (creation), and rank (heir).
The translation of "firstborn of all creation" depends on the meaning of 'ktisis' (creation) and 'pas' (all, whole), as well as the interpretation of the possessive structure (whose is it?). Regarding the translation of "firstborn of all creation", the 'ktisis' here is a richly meaningful word: establishment, foundation, institution (1Pt 2:13), the creation of the world as a process, although looking back it is a completed act (Rom 1:20, 2Pt 3:4), or the created world and its things, the creatures (Rom 8:39). The verb 'ktizo' (to create) appears twice in verse 16, usually translated as "was created". Its first occurrence (ektisthe) refers to creation as a one-time event, and the second form (ektistai) also refers to the created world as a permanent, existing one. It's not about the firstborn of "all the creatures" (ktismata), but the firstborn of creation, i.e., the thole created world (ktisis).
The meaning of 'pas' is "all" or "every single one", depending on what it refers to. Since it is about the created world here and not individual creatures, the meaning of "all" is evident.
The basic meaning of 'prototokos' is the firstborn, first born; the Bible often uses it in a biological sense, less often in the sense of priority, superiority in rank. In our case, the choice may be influenced by the fact that everything in heaven and on earth was created by Christ (verse 16, cf. Jn 1:3), which excludes the possibility that he himself could be classified into the "creatures" category. Thus, Christ "has the rights of the firstborn over all creation". This possible use of the word is confirmed by the whole Bible. When God gives firstborn status to David, he talks about his rank among kings (Ps 89:28 LXX), since he was the last son in his family. Jacob considered the firstborn status a purchasable legal position (Gen 25:31 LXX, Heb 12:16). God calls Israel his firstborn because of its privileges (Ex 4:22 LXX; according to Jer 31:9 LXX, however, Ephraim).
The WTS among its objections claims that the Bible uses the expression in a biological sense, e.g. Pharaoh's firstborn or the firstborn of animals (as we saw: it also uses it in another sense). It also asks why, if firstborn status means rank, the Bible only uses it for the Son, and not for the Father and the Holy Spirit? The answer is simple: the Son is the one who became human, and with whom this concept can be associated at all, based on its basic meaning.
Therefore, the interpretation of 'prōtotokos pasēs ktiseōs' primarily depends on how we understand the possessive structure. From a purely logical point of view, several cases are possible (1) Jesus is the firstborn of the entire created world, i.e., he is the firstborn in all creation, therefore he is a "product" of the created world, but the Society would also deny this, (2) Jesus is the firstborn of the entire creation process, the first product, as the Society understands it, so he is someone born before all creatures (3) Jesus is the firstborn over all creation.
Paul cannot claim of Christ that he lists Christ among the creations (the created world) created by creation, since he claims that he created everything (see following verses and Jn 1:3). It is not about creatures (ktismata), but about creation (ktisis). He does not claim that Christ is the "firstborn of the Creator (ho ktistes)" (which would be prototokhos tou ktistou), but that he is the firstborn of all/whole creation (he ktisis). For this reason alone, the analogy drawn with the parental relationship is also unthinkable (e.g. "like Pharaoh's firstborn," etc.) is incorrect.
As for the repeated insertion of "other," it does not follow from the textual context. The textual context can also assist in the correct translation of the phrase "the firstborn of all creation". This is about the Heir who was before all, is above all, precedes everyone in everything (1:17-18), and in whom is the inheritance of the believers. The text talks about, and only about, that he created everything, so we can exclude the interpretation that he could be the firstborn, the first product of the universe he created.
According to verse 16, the world was created "in him" (en autó), or "with him" (di' autou), and thirdly "for him" (eis auton), or according to interpretive translations: "for his sake", "flowing into him" was created. Some translations interpret "eis auton" as "for him" everything was created, i.e., that it should be his; since 'eis' expresses some kind of intentionality, Jesus could also be the goal of the created world in the sense that man in the world should have been like him.
The Bible never calls Christ a creature (ktistheis), a creature (ktisma) or the first creature (protoktisma or protoktisis). The Bible claims that he created everything, without him nothing came into being that has become (Jn 1:3, Col 1:15-17). From all this it logically follows that he cannot belong to the created, the things that have become, so he cannot be the "first creature" either.
In the Bible, there is only one Creator, God Himself (Genesis 2:4-7, Acts 14:15), and God created everything with His own hands (Neh 9:6, Isa 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, Ps 95:5-6) and by His word (Ps 33:6, Jn 1:3). Creation is thus solely and directly God's work. A "first created" being, an assistant, did not participate in it, not even indirectly. Based on all this, the Society's interpretation that Christ would be the first product of the creation process, who then created everything else, is excluded.
The interpretation "the firstborn in all creation" is not acceptable. Even in this train of thought, in verse 23, we find a text that can be translated as: 'en pasé ktisei' = "in all creation [under heaven]". If Paul had thought the same in verse 15, he would surely have formulated it just as clearly (en ktisei) there.
The "firstborn among all creation" could only be acceptable if the text was 'prototokos ek ton ktismaton'; this structure only has a linguistic basis in verse 18 (ek = from, out of, among), where Paul says that Jesus is the 'firstborn from the dead' (prototokos ek ton nekron).
You must have misunderstood my argument. The passage does not specifically claim to say that Christ would be the "ruler of God's creation" (arkhón), nor that Christ is God's "first creation" (protoktisma), the "first fruit of God's creation" (aparkhe), or the "beginner of God's creation" (arkhegos). It also does not specifically say that Christ would be the "ruler of God's creation" (arkhón), but arkhé and arkhón are synonymous words. I did not interpret 'arche' in the sense of "ruler" here - although there are many examples for that meaning in the New Testament (see Luke 12:11, 20:20; Romans 8:38, Ephesians 1:21, 3:10, 6:12 , Colossians 1:16, 2:15; Titus 3:1, Titus 3:1), so it's also a possible understanding.
According to the WTS, God's Son, the Archangel Michael, was the first created being. By retaining the possessive structure, it enables its publications to use its own definition ("the first creation") for validation. The faithful translation of the Bible verse leaves open what Paul claims about Christ (Creator or part of creation?). Its interpretation depends on the wider biblical contexts.
The message of the text, its message is, how does Christ identify himself? First of all, an accurate translation of the texts related to the topic (Jn 1:3, Col 1:15-17) is crucial. Secondly, the Bible's testimony about the Creator must be taken into account: there is only one Creator, God Himself (Gen 2:4-7, Acts 14:15), and God created everything with His own hand (Neh 9:6, Isa 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, Ps 95:5-6) and by His word (Ps 33:6, Jn 1:3). Thus, creation is solely and directly the work of God.
You can translate it as "beginning" to English, but you still can't make the mistake of thinking in English rather than considering the contemporary Greek connotation. You you can translate this as "beginning", but cannot understand it as "beginner", but in the sense that the whole creation originates from it. Thus source, primordial pincple, active cause. God called 'arche' in Revelation 21:6 and 22:13.
The fact that only 'ho theos' can be a real God, standing without a noun ('theos') can necessarily only mean some lesser god, demigod, well, neither the New Testament nor Greek grammar knows such a rule. The New Testament also calls the Father simply 'theos', and there are even examples where 'ho theos' refers not only to the true God, but also to Satan (e.g. 2Cor 4:4 "the god of this world" = ho theos tou aiōnos toutou).
All the more apparent is the convulsive effort to call Jesus 'ho theos', get rid of it somehow, even though John 20:28 is not the only example of this.
KIT: Answered–Thomas–and–he said–to him–The–Lord–of me–and–the–God–of me!
According to the Watchtower Society, Thomas here simply exclaimed in emotional surprise, turning to Jesus, but actually addressing his words to God the Father, not to Jesus. As for the text, neither the kyrios (lord) nor the theos (god) is in the vocative case, that is, the addressing mode (e.g., the vocative of kyrios would be kyrie). However, this does not mean that Thomas did not say what he said to Jesus. Both nouns are preceded by the definite article: ho kyrios and ho theos, which is of decisive importance.
As for such constructions with definite articles, which sound a bit strange to a Greek ear, this is one of the special Hebrew and Aramaic linguistic turns found in the Greek text of the New Testament. In Hebrew, the vocative case is expressed with the definite article: e.g., in Mk 14:36 the 'abba ho pater' is literally "God, the Father", in English: "My God! My Father!" In Aramaic, the vocative is expressed by the -a (article) attached to the noun; e.g., in Mk 5:41 the 'talitha kumi'! According to Mark's Aramaic Greek translation, 'to korasion', literally "the little girl, arise!", in English: "Little girl, arise!"
If John wrote following the Greek linguistic procedure, then Thomas's sentence is an exclamation stemming from recognition, addressed to Jesus: in Jesus, he finally recognized his Lord and his God. If John translated the sentence originally spoken in Aramaic "literally" into Greek, it is also clear that he originally said what he said to Jesus, in the vocative case. Based on all this, it can be said with certainty that from Thomas's recognition, a statement, ultimately a confession of faith, arose: "My Lord, and my God!" or more simply, said to Jesus ("to him"): "Lord! My God!" The conjunction 'and' (kai) does not refer to the separateness of Thomas's Lord and God, but is one of the expressive tools of pathos in both Hebrew and Greek. For example, in Paul's blessings, 'ho theos kai pater' is literally "God and Father", but in meaning it is "God the Father" (see 1Cor 15:24, 2Cor 1:3, 11:31, Gal 1:4, Eph 1:3). Therefore, the "and" can be omitted in the English translation.
Thomas's words cannot be interpreted merely as signs of astonishment ("Oh my God!"). He not only exclaimed, but clearly spoke to Jesus, said what he said to him (auto = to him). Thomas transitioned from doubting to confessing faith after Jesus appeared to him. And Jesus did not correct him to be just "one god" among many or "god with a small g".
The WTS points to the precedents in interpreting Thomas's words: In the high priestly prayer, Jesus called his Father the only true God (Jn 17:3), and after his resurrection, he told Mary Magdalene, "I am going up ... to my God", so Jesus also had a God: Jehovah. However, Jesus was not there and then trying to answer the Society's question (can Jesus be God?).
In his high priestly prayer and his brief conversation with Mary Magdalene, he was not preoccupied with defining his own essence. In his prayer, the Son who has become flesh and human speaks: He calls his Father 'the only true God' and God 'holy Father', while preparing to atone for the sinful mortals. No wonder that eternal life also depends on recognizing Jesus, for he is 'the holy and the true' (cf. Acts 3:14, Rom 3:26, 1Cor 1:30). Speaking to Mary is the Messiah who was believed to have failed, even kidnapped, but has risen and is alive. And there, in that desperate moment, barely seeing through her tears, Mary needed these words: don't cling to him, rather bring a message to his disciples, because he will go up to the Father, who is also theirs, and to God, who is also theirs. So God did not abandon either the Messiah or them, but prevailed: the Messiah is alive, the Messiah's Father and God is also theirs! They did not pray in vain ('Our Father...!'), indeed 'God is with them' (Immanuel). Obviously, this was too much for Mary, so it's no wonder that Jesus did not say more there and then.
However, the Watchtower Society denies that God, the Son, was among us in Jesus and died a sacrificial death. Therefore, they try to translate and interpret Thomas's words in a way that they do not sound like a confession of faith stemming from recognition. According to the Bible verse, however, Thomas recognized his Lord and his God in the resurrected Jesus, and Jesus accepted his confession of faith.
To be continued...
I recommend John 5:23 to your attention
"regarding Hebrews 1:2: not according to some trinitarian scholars Iv read."
You fail to respond, the whole 1st chapter of the Hebrews completely excludes the possibility that the Son is an angel. 1:2 is a clear statement, absolutely fits to the Nicene Creed.
"your verb "was" argument is laughable.. try a dictionary."
You misunderstood this too, the point was not the word "was" per se, but "in the beginning was..." as opposed to "created in the beginning", etc. For John 1:1a: https://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1_ov1.htm
"your "outside of time" argument is even more laughable and not even worth an actual response."
You can laugh, but according to Christian teaching, time itself, temporality is also a created reality, the Scriptures indicate this with the term "aión" (αἰών), the Son was "born" (tikto), or "begotten" (gennao) from the Father before the creation of the αἰών-s. And if the Son was "already" born of the Father when there were no αἰώνs, then this is equivalent to the fact that there was no such time when he did not exist. That is why John writes that he already was in the beginning. This description is included in the Nicene Creed.
"Begotten and being Born are used as parallels in the NT.. There is no one who is begotten and yet not born"
Precisely, the terminology of the scriptures very much separates the origin of the Son (and the Holy Spirit) from the Father, from the creation of creatures. For the former, he always uses the verbs "gennao", "titko" and expressions formed from them, while for the latter he consistently uses the verbs "ktizo", "poio" and structures formed from them. Well, don't you think this strict terminological distinction is at least interesting?
"Father nor holy spirit are called begotten nor are angels"
Yep, because the Father is not begotten, the Holy Spirit is not begotten, but proceeds from the Father, through the Son, and the angels are created. Only the Son is begotten, that's why only-begotten. Just as the Athanasian creed:
"The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding."
"How do you beget something without it being born (or created)? the very definition to the word corresponds to the concept of "coming into existance""
Ah, so you would subject to the concept of birth developed for humans (or even the concept of occurrence developed for objects), for the Son, about whom we know was not born from the Father the same ways as humans born. However, you see, you fall into a logical inconsistency with this. Likely continuing an already initiated analogy or searching for a counterexample, I brought up the example of human procreation, but not as a tool for proof, because otherwise, there's a great difference between them. The analogy between the two procreations fails in that while a human is the son of his parents according to the flesh, but a creature of God (because human procreation relies on God's creative power), the Son was begotten by the Father, and as such, does not require a separate act of creation. The birth of the Son is unique and differs not only in terminology but also in essence from that of the creatures. For he is the only begotten Son (and only begotten God), that is, he is unique in terms of sonship and begotten divinity, even when he already has many brothers from the Father. This difference includes non-creatureliness, because the only begotten God cannot be a 'created God' - this expression in itself would be blasphemy.
Indeed, it is written that 'In the beginning was the Word.' And this emphatic statement stands in the place of the Genesis paraphrase that 'In the beginning, God created the Word.' Thus, instead of the time of the Word's birth, we read about him as someone who 'in the beginning' (that is, when time began) already 'was,' that is, existed. This means that his birth did not occur in time. And this is indeed logical, based on the Word, despite your short conception of time resisting it.
Behold: 'Before Abraham was, I am.' (No wonder the JWs also falsify this in their translation.)
If by 'before the beginning' you mean 'outside of time,' then yes - and this is trivially true. If you mean that there was a time when the Son did not yet exist, then you are mistaken, and this is also trivial. Because in this case, the 'beginning' would not have been a beginning, because there would have been a point in time before it. And in this second case, at most it could be in the text that 'In the beginning, the Word was made.' But it doesn't say that. Therefore, the Son was not born in time, but 'was in the beginning.'"
That the Father is the source of divinity, and that he also begot the Son together with his divinity. Therefore, if in the relationship between the Father and the Son God is specifically called the Father, it stems from the fact that the Son did not give his divinity to the Father, but vice versa.
The phrasing "all things were created in Him" excludes Jesus from being a creature. Creation is nothing else but the bringing into existence during time of a thing or being that did not exist before. Thus, if Jesus were a creature, then according to the text he would have had to create himself, which is a conceptual impossibility. (Someone who is created in, by, etc., must precede him in time, so there would have been a moment when Jesus simultaneously existed and did not exist.) So, everything could only be created in him if he himself is not a creature. And in this case, "in Him" does not mean "by His creation," but rather with His cooperation, through His action, etc. Or the worst-case scenario occurs, and you have to interpret "all things" as the JWs mistranslate it in the Bible: "all other things."
Scripture reveals that there was no time when the Son did not exist. The Father is not greater than the Son in divinity, but in fatherhood, for it is written: In Jesus dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. (What kind of divine fullness is there that has something greater or more?) On the other hand, Jesus was a Son, and as such, was inherently obedient to the Father in the work of redemption, thus in the ekonomia (although in His divinity he was equal with Him). Prompted by this obedience, He became human (because He owed it to no one, not even the Father), and as a human, He learned obedience in a new way: as a creature. This is another reason why he could admit that He was less than the Father.
Jesus did not cease to be the same God as the Father, but He set aside the use of His power and glory, humbled Himself, and relied only on the Father. If He had only been some kind of creature, He could have relied on the Father without emptying Himself, and not on Himself. Moreover, if He had been a creature from the beginning, He could have died without self-emptying. However, since He was God and remained God, it was necessary for Him to take on human form and die as a human (as a creature).
According to Paul, the fullness of the divine nature bodily dwelt in Him. Because if there is a creature in whom all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily, that would be a strange creature indeed. (A God who was not always so, but "became" God?) And yet, you can only try to move away from the compelling current of the text by saying that "originally" He was not God (although why not: "The Word was God"). But if He had not been God throughout His existence, but had only been made so after his "creation," then it's your turn to say: on what occasion and at what time did He acquire this fullness of divinity. And what kind of fullness is it that does not extend to every moment of His existence?
"well its not hard to figure considering YHWH is called "Father" numerous times throughout the OT... "
That according to the OT the Father is YHWH is not the same as that exclusively the Father of the NT is Jehovah. Jesus is not the Father, but both Jesus and the Father are Yahweh. Compare e.g. Hebrews 1:10.
aqwsed12345 I’m guilty of making long posts too, but realistically the longer they are the less likely they are to be read. I try to make shorter posts for that reason, although it’s not easy if you have a lot to say.
You mention that the Bible doesn’t use particular words to say Jesus is a creature. There are lots of words the Bible doesn’t use, and if we are talking about Trinitarian dogma the list gets very long indeed.
The point is what words the Bible does use and what they mean. The Bible says Jesus is the “firstborn of all creation” (Col 1.15), and he is “the beginning of the creation of God” (Rev 3.14). While on earth Jesus said “I live because of the Father” (John 6.57) whereas the Father “has life in himself” without anyone else giving it to him. As Wisdom personified, Jesus said, “Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way” (Prov 8.22).
vienne mentioned an excellent one the other day too: Micah 5.2 says that Jesus’ “origin” is from ancient times. God doesn’t have an origin but a creature does.
Those are just the scriptures that say Jesus is a creature most directly. There are dozens of others where it’s implied because he is distinguished from God, knows less than God, is less powerful than God, relies on God for everything.
One of the words later Trinitarians insisted didn’t apply to Jesus was poieo “made” yet that is used of Jesus in Heb 3.2. That verse doesn’t directly say that Jesus was created, but it is ironic the Bible, without a fuss, uses a word of Jesus that later Trinitarian dogma would say must not be used to describe Jesus.
Blotty & slimboyfat
There are a lot of sources discussing the translation of Proverbs 8:22, like
I've found it strange, but this letter of Jerome is not translated to English, so I've done this myself:
“Something similar is also read in Proverbs [in in the Septuagint], of the person of the Wisdom, who is the Christ: »The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works. He established me before time was in the beginning, before he made the earth: even before he made the depths; before the fountains of water came forth: before the mountains were settled and before all hills, he begets me.« Here, the word »created« should not confuse us, since in the Hebrew text, there is no »created«, which is expressed with BARA, but »possessed«. For it is written: »ADONAI CANANI BRESITH DERCHO«, which in our language means: »The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his ways«. However, there is a great difference between »possession« and »creation«. Possession signifies that the Son has always been in the Father, and the Father in the Son. But creation is the beginning of a new state of that, which did not exist before.”
Here Jerome basically explains the Psalm 90, and touches on this issue only as an aside. According to the researchers, he learned this interpretation during his stay in Bethlehem, from the Jewish community there.
By the way, none of the schools of thought in the Arian controversy raised the question whether translation of the Septuagint here is correct, since at that time Origen was no longer, and Jerome was not yet alive. The discussion was in Greek and about the nuance of the meaning of the verb "ktizo", which is already extensive in Greek. Check this: http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/christou_crebegot.html
It would have been simpler if they had pointed out that Wisdom here is not the Son himself, but a female allegory that can only be applied to the Son according to the rules of typology, and that according to this even the Old Testament makes a distinction between "qanah" and "bara". By the way, in the Old Testament "bara" is sometimes also translated as "begetting".
"Lots of people in the early church called themselves Trinitarian but do not meet the common modern definition of the word."
No one said that the doctrine itself has not developed over the centuries, this is the development of dogma in the Catholic sense, which does not mean a change in teaching, but a more precise, sophisticated, systematized explanation of the faith professed in essence and content until then. Here the main point is the key phrase: Jesus is true God and begotten, not a creature <- vs -> just a creature, an angel.
For example, the Apostles' Creed already uses the Trinitarian formula, without expanding it, so even the very first Christian creeds without theological explanation spoke of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, mentioning them in one line, but they never spoke of Jehovah, Michael and about the active force. Here, one must start from the fact that there was no alleged "great apostasy", which the WTS is forced to force in order to present the conspiracy theory, that in fact the Christians of the apostolic age professed a WTS-type theology, only "true Christianity" for a couple of decades disappeared without any trace.
"You mention that the Bible doesn’t use particular words to say Jesus is a creature. There are lots of words the Bible doesn’t use, and if we are talking about Trinitarian dogma the list gets very long indeed."
But here we are only talking about this one special issue: was the Son born (tikto), in other words begotten (gennao), or was he created by the Father (ktizo, poio)? The NT always uses the first two for the Son orign from the Father, and never the latter two. And vice versa: the NT always uses the last two in relation of the creation of the creatures, never the first two. Don't you think that this has a theological significance and indicates that there is a substantive-qualitative difference between the two?
The issue about Col 1:15 and Rev 3:14 I've expresed many times. I don't want to repeat myself, just this part: ironically, the interpretation I gave for these verses, is NOT in conflict with the WTS theology, they also confess that Jehovah possessed wisdom from the beginning, they also confess that the Son is the privileged, pre-eminent heir of the entire, the whole creation, and also the source of creation, so the interpretations presented here would NOT be contrary to their theology. However, they cannot admit this, because then they would lose their "one-liner" "proof texts"...
"While on earth Jesus said “I live because of the Father” (John 6.57) whereas the Father “has life in himself” without anyone else giving it to him."
This is not in contradiction with Nicene theology, which professes that the Son received everything from the Father, including His existence and divinity, not through creation, but through begetting, thereby sharing His entire being and divinity with Him. Additionally, the Father remains in the Son, and the Son in the Father, thereby sharing their divine essence. This is precisely why you should take out a theology book and first of all look at what the Catholic-Orthodox doctrine teaches about the issue, and not shoot at "straw men".
"Micah 5.2 says that Jesus’ “origin” is from ancient times. God doesn’t have an origin but a creature does."
God the Father does not have orign, but the Son has, not in the sense of being created, that does not exclude to be truly God. Just to repeat, the Nicene Christology never denied the Father is unbegotten, while the Son is begotten, thus having the orign from the Father. The point is: this generation of him from the Father is NEVER called creation, but "begotten", "born." The Scripture makes a clear distinction between the two. Micah 5:2 says the Son's origns are from ancient times, from the eternety/everlasting [ūmōwṣā’ōṯāw miqqeḏem mîmê ‘ōwlām].
"Those are just the scriptures that say Jesus is a creature most directly. "
If those are the vereses, that "say" that the Son is a creature "most direct" way, then your position is quite weak. At the same time, to what extent does the Scriptures affirm the Nicene teaching that the Son was born/begotten?
"There are dozens of others where it’s implied because he is distinguished from God, knows less than God, is less powerful than God, relies on God for everything."
Non-Sabellian, non-modalistic orthodox Christology never equated the Son with the Father as they were the same persons, although those way is speaking is clearly justified since the Incarnation. He is naturally inferior to the Father in his humanity, which does not preclude his being equal in his divinity. It's simple: when Jesus emphasizes these things, it means his humanity, and when he emphasizes other things, it means his divinity. This is the hypostatic union. You don't disprove this theology by pointing to these verses.
"One of the words later Trinitarians insisted didn’t apply to Jesus was poieo “made” yet that is used of Jesus in Heb 3.2."
This is bogus, here it is not about the Son's pre-incarnation orign from the Father. Again, where does the New Testament describe the origin of the Son from the Father with the terms "ktizo" or "poio"? I'll tell you: nowhere.
>>> the whole 1st chapter of the Hebrews completely excludes the possibility that the Son is an angel. 1:2 is a clear statement, absolutely fits to the Nicene Creed.
False. One may choose not to believe it, but Hebrews Ch 1 does not "completely exclude the possibility".
v2 - "But in THESE days (eschatou - or these last, final or latter days) he has spoken to us through his Son."
v3 - "he SAT DOWN (kathizo - to sit, be seated, sit down) at the right hand"
v4 - "Thus he BECAME (genomenos - having become) far greater than the angels..."
v5 - "You are my Son, and TODAY (semeron - this day, now) I have given you the honour that goes with that name."
v 13 - "SIT (kathou - to sit, be seated, sit down) at my right hand"
These are not continuous actions, thus indicating a situation where one originally WASN'T in one state or condition, but subsequently BECOMES or DOES those things. That is particularly relevant in verse 2 which explicitly says Jesus "became" far greater than angels - he at one time was not far greater in rank, but was later elevated to higher status by his Father.
The analogy between the two procreations fails in that while a human is the son of his parents according to the flesh, but a creature of God (because human procreation relies on God's creative power), the Son was begotten by the Father, and as such, does not require a separate act of creation.
Again, this is semantic nonsense. God created - He "begat" a son, a son originated from a direct act of His - therefore it was an act of creation.
To "begat" can mean "to bring into being by the process of procreation", but also more broadly "to bring about", "to cause to be" or "to bring forth". It does not only mean to produce in flesh by sexual reproduction. That is the same error of understanding that many Muslims make regarding Jesus being God's Son.
In fact, for those who subscribe to the understanding that the Son assisted God in creating "all other things", then the Son was in fact the only "thing" created entirely by God alone, without him directing the Son as his "master worker". (hence the scriptural term "only-begotten", not simply "begotten").
However, the recognition that the Son was created by God does not require belief in the latter (that the Son assisted in all other creation). The two are not mutually exclusive. Although Hebrews 1:2 is explicit that "through the Son he created the universe", which again makes it clear that God directed and guided Jesus in the creative works.
Oh, and guess what else? Again, in all of those verses in Hebrews 1, no mention of a person called "Holy Spirit". It's all about the relationship between TWO persons. Why? Because the Spirit is not a person!
One might ask, how could Jesus be used by God as his "master worker" in creation, yet not be "greater than the angels"? The point is that the scripture is talking about STATUS and AUTHORITY not work or effort.
I am a father of several sons. One day, I ask the eldest to join me in constructing a new house for all the family. I provide the materials, and direct his work according to my plans.
However, during this time I do not give him special status or favours - he wears no fancy attire, isn't favoured with better food, more luxurious accommodation, greater wealth or more rights in the household compared to his brothers.
Because he loves me, he is often the first and most vocal to speak in support of me, but I do not conspicuously elevate him above the rest of my children.
However, years later, after he has finished the family house and other activities, he takes on a special mission to travel to a distant land to promote my business. While there, he suffers abuse and in recognition of his work and affection for me I contact the people of that land directly, letting them know I endorse him and he has my full authority to act on my behalf and will inherit my business. However, the people there do not listen and eventually he is deported back to my family's homeland.
As a reward for his considerable efforts and sacrifice, I *then* reward him with extra favour and status in front my family, giving him full inheritance.
Jesus was humbly content to remain just as subject to his Father in the same way as all the (other?) angels UNTIL the point when the Father GAVE him greater authority. This is why Philippians 2:6 says "he did not consider equality with God something to be seized" - he was content, although being a spirit person the same as his Father is, not to try to take equal status with his Father. He was content to stay on the level with the other spirit persons at that time (inferior to, and subject to, the Father), until his Father would elevate him to His right hand in due time.