Posts by aqwsed12345

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

So let's see the question specifically. There was a total of ONE textual variant, in this case the Codex Sinaiticus, which renders the ominous passage of 3:14 as "the arche of God's church", not "the beginning of God's creation". Well, if you look at the critical apparatus of NA28, it turns out that there were quite a few textual variants of the New Testament, in this case, okay, there was one in this one. And then you (or your selected source), what conclusion do you draw?

1. The orthodox Nicene school must have been "afraid" of the original version. This is completely baseless. The fact that "the arche of God's creation" in the given Hellenic cultural-linguistic environment did not mean at all that he was the "first created being", but rather the primordial principle,, etc. of creation. This was the meaning of the word "arkhe" in the original language, which the English word "beginning" cannot accurately reflect.

2. This text variant was a deliberate, purposeful forgery. And this is the usual JW conspiracy theory, about the evil corrupt church that was willing to falsify the Bible. It was certainly just as random a copyist's error as any of the textual variants seen in the footnotes of NA28. It is typical that he assumes some malicious intention behind everything.

3. There was a central church effort to falsify the Revelation 3:14. Well, the Church has never ordered this, no such church instruction, decree, synodal decision exists, no deliberate mistranslation has ever spread, and the Vulgate officially accepted by the Latin Church did not contain this, nor did the Patriarchal Text used by the Eastern Church.

Well, it is not the Catholics or Orthodox who deliberately falsify the Scriptures, but rather the Arians. The mistranslation of Proverbs 8:22 is not their fault, but an inadvertent mistake of the Jewish translators before Christ, but they persisted in it even after it was revealed that it was a mistranslation of the corresponding Hebrew verb ('qanah', not 'bara') in the appropriate place.

The Arians of the 4th century did not interpret John 1:1c as saying that the Word was only "a lesser god", a demigod, but interpreted this verse by putting a period, a full stop after «God was», and the end of the verse, "the Word" was placed as the beginning of sentence in the next verse.

The Gothic translation made by the Arian Wulfila (Ulfias) is a good example of this, Philippians 2:6, which correctly means "thought it not robbery [harpagmos] to be equal with God", the Gothic Arian Bible has "thought it not robbery to be similar (galeiko) with God".

The NWT is the worst of all these, which clearly and intentionally mistranslates a bunch of christologically relevant verses.

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

I assume you work at the WTS headquarters, that's where they do like it. They collect all kinds of half-sentences that can be grasped, put them next to each other, and then our position can be presented as a scientific consensus. That’s false. There are a lot of apologists who went after the WT articles citations, cherry-pickings.

Quotation picking are collected to support a pre-prepared concept, which is usually taken out of context, the opinion of the given scholar is often misrepresented, and the marginal opinion was completely falsely presented as if it were an established scientific consensus tomorrow, like the George Howard hypothesis.

This is a completely dishonest and unscientific method, and in itself is evidence that their position is weak, but it is good for impressing the uneducated in religion with the idea that wow, even Dr. X said that? Moreover, another Dr. Prof. Y?

Your citation says nothing about an intentional distorting of the Rev 3:14 is completely nonsense. Typical JW conspiracy theory, like the alleged removal of the YHWH from the NT. The Vulgate translated the same, since orthodoxy has nothing to “fear” about Son being called the arkhe of the creation. You can check the textual variants in the NA28.

And in many passages of the divine oracles is the Son said to have been born/begotte , but nowhere to have come into being; which manifestly convicts those of misconception about the Lord’s generation, who presume to call His divine and ineffable generation a making, a creation.

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

"You argued that Arians in the fourth century didn’t base their beliefs on scripture."

This is a misrepresentation of what I said: I claimed that they started primarily (not exclusively) from speculation: that it CANNOT be this way (because it is not "logical"), therefore it is not so, and then they also looked for biblical passages for this conclusion. One is the mistranslated Septuagint It was Proverbs 8:22, the other was Colossians 1:15.As far as I know, they did not use Revelation 3:14, because according to them they did not think that being the "arkhe" of creation was the same as the first creation.

The method of today's JWs is the same, on the one hand, based on an unproven assumption, a conspiracy theory, that the YHWH was "erased" from the original manuscripts of the New Testament. On the other hand, what is left is also mistranslated by NWT.

I don't think that "the modern scholarship" (??? everyone? all? some? with full consensus? oh really?) would say that, you gave some excerpted quotes, I assume you haven't read any of their books in their entirety. I have no idea who Maurice Wiles, Rowan Williams, or Karen Armstrong, and how much authority they would actually represent in theology or church history.

On what basis did "modern scholarship" come to a completely new conclusion? Perhaps previously unknown early Christian sources have come to light? They don't describe what they based their conclusions on, and you, as an authority, wave it in front of me.

Well, according to the scientific methodology, you have to start from the primary sources. Have you read through even one entire writing of a single apostolic father? Or do you just collect quotes?

This is also a typical WTS method: quote scissoring. This is the "work" of the Bethel workers, Raymond Franz also described it well, to look for a catchable half-sentence in lexicons that can be flagged: "See? Even he said that!"

Then the discussion partner should run after the resources. Well, no, it's well known, the unfair citation method of the WTS, it was clearly shown when they cited some supposedly "supporting" scholars about the NWT, JW critics asked them, if they really meant it, and it turned out that they really didn't...

"the Nicene/Athanasius faction was prone to using the language of philosophy to define their beliefs in terms of “essence”, something rejected by many as unscriptural."

Yes, this was indeed an argument of the Arian faction, that since the term "ousia" is not found in the Greek Scriptures (which is true), it follows that the theological formula described by this term cannot be true either. Well, this claim would require proof. The term "ousia" indees doesn't appear in the Greek Scriptures, but there are many other terms known and used in Greek philosophy do, such as: pleroma, logos, arkhe, hypostasis, physis, etc. So the apostles were not at all averse to the use of terms and concepts that had their own precedents and parallels in Greek philosophy as well.

Furthermore, the Arians also used the concept of ousia to describe their position, when they first described the relationship between the Father and the Son with the concept of heteroousios and then homoiousia.

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

raymond frantz:

"A simple nominative noun lacking the article before the verb, (such as the one found in John 1.1c) usually points to a quality about someone, not "degree of divinity," or identity."

That's what Nicene Trinitarian Christians also means. According to the Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible translation, John 1:1c "and the Word was {what} God {was}", the footnote for this verse explains the difficulty:

This second theos could also be translated 'divine' as the construction indicates "a qualitative sense for theos". The Word is not God in the sense that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the Father (God absolutely as in common NT usage) or the Trinity. The point being made is that the Logos is of the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father, with whom he eternally exists. This verse is echoed in the Nicene Creed: "God (qualitative or derivative) from God (personal, the Father), Light from Light, True God from True God… homoousion with the Father."

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

slimboyfat

Again, you are basing what some modern person said on secondary sources, what they think Justin said. Why don't you go ahead and read only the first 1-2. century Christian writers, the writings of the apostolic fathers, from beginning to end, not their secondary interpretations.

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

Journeyman:

"certain verses imply the Father and Son share some kind of common 'nature', origin or existence"

We are almost at a homoousious :) But to be concrete: the Father and the Son do not only share "some kind of" of common nature, but having the same nature, being co-essentials. He is begotten from the Father before the aeons, and He is the eikon and kharakter of the Father's hypostasis.

In Jesus, the fullness (pleroma) of "divinity" (theotes, not theiotes) resides bodily, not the fullness of the "divine quality", as the JWs falsely translated it. Here it becomes clear why the correct translation is important and what kind of dodgers these watchtower mistranslations pave the way for.

"however in those scriptures there is no reference to, or indication of, an equal third party that could be assumed to be the triune part (the Spirit)."

The issue here was not the Holy Spirit, I note that the Arians did not deny the personality of the Holy Spirit either. Not even the sect of the Pneumatomachi denied it.

"The Father is a single conscious being who has always existed"

Where does the Scripture say that in the beginning there was only the Father? John 1:1a clearly says that the Son "was" in the beginning, not "created". And in the first chapter of Hebrews, it is said that even time (aion) was created by the Son, so there was no "sometime" when the Son was not yet.

"The Son is a separate conscious being..."

That's a straw man, only Modalism aka Sabellianism holds that the Son is not a separete person from the Father.

"who at one time did not exist"

Where does the Bible say it?

"but was created by the Father"

Where does the Bible say that the Son is "created" by the Father? It says He is "begotten", not that he is created.

"The Spirit is a force or energy"

The Spirit is not the same as God's force and energy, cf. Zechariah 4,6, Luke 1:35, Acts 10:38, 1Cor 2:4 and 1Thess 1:5.

Where does the Bible say that the Son was created, or that he is a creature? Nowhere.
On the contrary: that he was born / begotten.
Where does the Bible say that the Son is an angel? Nowhere.
On the contrary, He is superior to all the angels (Hebrews 1)
Where does the Bible say that Son is the same as archangel Michael? Nowehere.
The difference between Jesus and Michael is also well illustrated by their relationship with Satan: the apostle Jude writes that Michael "did not dare" to bring condemnation/judgment on Satan (Jude 9; cf. 2 Peter 2:11), but Jesus pronounced a clear judgment on him (Jn 16:11; cf. John 5:22, 27; 1 John 3:8; Col 2:15).
Does it say the Son is LORD and GOD? Yes, in many places.
Where does the Bible say that the Son had a beginning in time, and there was a time when he didn't exist? Nowhere.
On the contrary, the Bible writes that even time, the ages (aions), were created by him and in the beginning He already "was".

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

You are quoting secondary sources again. On what basis does Locke say the ante-Nicene Fathers were Arians? No answer, it's just his opinion with any substancial argument.

Have you read Justin's any writing? Btw. which Apology? First or Second? Justin is arguing that Jesus was fully God!

Yeah, I know this JW argument, that angels and judeges were also called "gods" in the Bible, so the Son can also be "god" in that sense. This argument suffers from the common issue of analyzing the word God ("god") instead of what it signifies. Because neither angels, nor judges, nor even Moses were God in the same sense as the Son. He truly created the world, was present from the beginning, and without Him, nothing came to be; He was in the form of God, etc. When we combine these, we still get a higher concept of divinity than what is applied to people or angels in Psalm 82 or other places.

Jesus did not apply Psalm 82 to Himself but to beings of lower dignity to whom the word of God was addressed. Judges, or perhaps angels. And He immediately added: If it was allowed to be said about them, how much more about me?

I can easily show that Jesus' divinity is greater than theirs (i.e., they are not only begotten gods, alphas and omegas, creators, etc.), but all you can bring up to support your claim is that Jesus received His divinity from the Father (through His birth). So, you arbitrarily claim that Jesus is in a category below the Father regarding divinity based on the mentioned "below the Father" category. You only tried to prove the existence of such a category, but you couldn't deal with the fact that Jesus doesn't fit into it. For example in terms of dignity, He is immediately equal to Him (Jn 5:23), and for now, this is enough for the sake of proof.

The fact that the Father is the source of divinity and that He begot the Son along with His divinity. Therefore, if in the relationship between the Father and the Son, God specifically refers to the Father, it is because the Son did not give His divinity to the Father but vice versa.

I recommend that you read the New Testament coherently from the perspective of how many times the indefinite "theos" also means "the God." Such is Phil 2:13 or 2 Cor 1:21. Indeed, one cannot infer a lower degree of divinity from the absence of the article.

Thomas' exclamation was indeed an address, but a singular address usually refers to a specific person, which in itself replaces the definiteness that might be missing from the address and is not always indicated there. But regarding the essence, Thomas called Jesus not "a god" but his own God, even though both of them knew the commandment: You shall have no other gods. And Jesus approved of this use of words by Thomas at John 20:28. As for the source you quoted, it claims that this is a similar ranking formulation as the speech to the judges in Psalm 82; it is merely a desperate effort to impose an analogous use of words on Jesus' divinity elsewhere (which is of much higher rank than the judges).

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

First of all it should be noted that Origen was clearly Trinitarian, believed Jesus was fully God:

“Although he was God, he took flesh; and having been made man, he remained what he was: God” (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:0:4 [A.D. 225])

I checked up your quote from the Greek original of Origen:

Ὁ δὲ τοῦ θεοῦ υἱός, ὁ «πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως», εἰ καὶ νεωστὶ ἐνηνθρωπηκέναι ἔδοξεν, ἀλλ' οὔτι γε διὰ τοῦτο νέος ἐστί. Πρεσβύτατον γὰρ αὐτὸν πάντων τῶν δημιουργημάτων ἴσασιν οἱ θεῖοι λόγοι, καὶ αὐτῷ τὸν θεὸν περὶ τῆς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου δημιουργίας εἰρηκέναι· «Ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον κατ' εἰκόνα καὶ ὁμοίωσιν ἡμετέραν.»

Origen's words here ("presbýtaton pánton tón dimiourgimáton" doesn't neccessarily mean what you to see in it, the translation is dubious, it can be translated as "He is older than all creatures", the genitive doesn't put him into the category of the "creatures" either. The use of the term demiurge is interesting, which is the clear sign of Platonism, Christian Greek teriminology would be κτίση. This also doesn't prove any Christian consensus prior Arius about the Arian/JW-like understanding of the createdness of the Son. Arians never used the authority of Origen to support their views, and the term homousios appears twice in Origen's writings. Origen's Christology and wording were confusing, but the church fathers unequivocally separated him from Arianism.

Check this:

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

Jennifer Strawbridge fails to name even one single source about any early Christian before him understood Colossians 1:15 wording as Arius or the contemporary JWs. If Jennifer Strawbridge asserts this was the earlier consensus well before Arius, she is clearly wrong, and makes statements without any proof at all.

What have I told you about primary sources? I asked you in to other topic to look up the early Christian writing themself.

https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/Colossians%201:15

Arius' starting point was not Colossians 1:15, but rationalist philosophy and speculation. The Antiochenes were followers of Aristotelian wisdom, mainly focusing on the interpretation of writings and preferring the literal meaning; they leaned towards rationalism. The founder of the school was Lucian of Antioch, a disciple of Paul of Samosata, and the teacher of Arius. Arius was an Alexandrian presbyter who, following in the footsteps of his teacher Lucian, the founder of the Antiochene catechetical school, forcefully asserted the unity of God in his work "Thalia" around 318.

According to him, the one true God (ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεός) cannot share His nature because He is simple; nor can He beget, because a begotten God is a contradiction. Consequently, the Son, who is a different person from the Father, was not born of the Father's essence but was made (γενητός, not γεννητός) by Him, a creation (κτίσμα) and came into existence from nonexistence (ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐστίν); there was a time when He did not exist (ἧν ποτε, ὃτε οὐκ ἧν). But He was created before all "other" creatures, and God created through Him; thus, He is an intermediate and mediating being between God and the world; like the aeons that emanate from divinity according to the Gnostics, but Arius believed the Logos encompasses these non-worldly, non-divine aeons, the pleroma (cf. Col 1,19).

So it was from this speculation that Arius derived his teaching, and only afterwards did he look for "evidence" from the Scriptures, such as Proverbs 4:18, mistranslated in the Septuagint, or Colossians 1:15, at the same time - in contrast to today's JWs - he did not refer to Revelation 3:14.

On the other hand, unlike today's JWs, the Arians of the 4th century did not interpret John 1:1c as saying that the Word was only "a lesser god", a demigod (of course they really knew Koine, unlike Fred Franz), but interpreted this verse by putting a period, a full stop after «God was», and the end of the verse, "the Word" was placed as the beginning of sentence in the next verse.

In this way, Arianism was the first major degradation of Christ's divine excellence and the Christian ideal and life, a precursor to modern liberal Protestantism. This explains its enormous historical impact. This teaching, which was greatly promoted by Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea, was condemned by the First Council of Nicaea, mainly at the urging of Alexander of Alexandria, Athanasius, and Eustathius of Antioch.

If you make conformity to "common sense" the criterion for religious truth, not much would remain of Christianity, as it is full of miracles: they simply do not comply with "common sense." I don't mean the quick answer that "God can do it," but the question of how exactly. But here it is evident that if one has to explain miracles, even the wildest rationalist-biblicist can dismiss it as transcending reason and not worry about it not conforming to formal logic, while they are not able to do the same for the doctrine of the Trinity. What inconsistency! By the way, Russell's method was also like this: he did not start from the traditional theologians' approach of summarizing what is in the Bible and then establishing the doctrine based on that, but rather like this: let's sit down and think about whether it is reasonable for it to be this way. If not, then this should be used as a basis for Scripture interpretation. This rationalism, in fact, apriori excludes the possibility of a mystery existing.

Rationalism means the principle guided by reason; and the rationalist theology is a Scripture interpretation and theological direction that, following the spirit of the Enlightenment, places human reason above the Holy Scripture; what it does not consider reasonable, it is unwilling to accept as the word of God, but attributes it to the human weakness, error of the sacred authors or the copyists, or subsequent, deliberate, detectable, and correctable changes. This view that professes the unconditional authority and unlimited cognitive ability of human reason; a theological direction that accepts only those doctrines that can also be understood by logical means.

Their handling of the Bible is liberal: reason overrules revelation, so what is not logical at first glance must be denied (e.g., the Trinity). Cf. Acts 17:29

If there is something "illogical" in the Bible for them, it is either the human error of the writers (Unitarians) or the result of ancient Bible forgery (e.g., according to Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus and God became "confusable", because of the supposed removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament). Cf. Mt 24:35, 1Pt 1:23-25

Although they constantly speak condemningly about "philosophy" (without knowing or defining more precisely what it is), they actually derive their theology from such philosophical speculations, adjusting their interpretation of the Scriptures to it, and later even its text (see the distortions of the NWT) , which was previously determined speculatively. If a teaching is not "reasonable", not "logical", then it "cannot" be in the Bible, so it is not in it.

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

raymond frantz:

"The image is not the same as as the prototype"

Who said the Son is the same (in person) as the Father? You are confusing the Nicene Christology with Sabellian Modalism.

In the original Greek it's eikon. if you're really Greek, you should know that is word has a much deeper meaning the the English word "image".

Prōtotokos does not mean "first created" but "firstborn". The first half of the word "first" here does not mean first in order, but roughly like in the English word "Prime Minister", "prime" does not mean the first ever minister. And the second half of the word says the same thing as the Nicene Christology: born. In the contemporary context, prōtotokos here is a title, a dignified name, roughly meaning "distinguished, pre-eminent heir".

Let's see the next thought, "pasēs ktiseōs" is in the genitive case, which in English we connect with "of". Jehovah's Witnesses interpret it approximately as "among", thus "firstborn among the creatures'', even though in the case when Paul expressly wanted to include the firstborn in that group, instead of using the genitive case, he specifically put it this way, like in Romans 8:29 where he calls the Son "the firstborn among many brothers" (en pollois adelphois).

In the Old Testament the nation of Israel was called "firstborn" (Exodus 4:22), even though it was not counted among the nations (Numbers 23:9). So in Biblical context being "firstborn" of a something, doesn't mean that the firstborn is to be counted a part among that category.

In summary, the correct meaning of "prōtotokos pasēs ktiseōs" here is not that he is the first created being, but rather that he is "distinguished, pre-eminent heir (ruler) of the whole creation", thus "over the whole creation." This interpretation corresponds to the linguistic and cultural context of the time and the biblical context also.

Nowhere does the Bible call the Son a created being (ktistheis), a creature (ktisma) or the first creature (protoktisma or protoktisis). Indeed, he declares that he created everything, and without him nothing came into being that came into being It follows logically from all of this that it cannot belong to the created, became things, so it 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 himself with his own hands (Neh 9:6, Isa 44:24, 45:12, 48:13 , Psalm 95:5-6). Creation is the work of God alone and directly. Another question is whether God is more than Father: He is also Son, and when God created, then the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit created.

The fact that Christians considered the Son to be God and uncreated long before the Arian controversy can be well supported by contemporary sources, including the writings of the apostolic fathers.

The Son really receives his being, but not by creation, but by birth (also known as "begotten"), and not in time, but from eternity (John 1:1a: "In the beginning was the Word", and not "In the beginning God created the Word" compare Genesis 1:1), therefore he is eternal, like the Father, therefore he has no beginning in time (he is the beginning), and such qualities can only be possessed by God, therefore God is as real as the Father. The New Testament and Early Christians emphasize many times that the Son is "born" and "begotten" from the father, but nowhere says he is merely a creature or he is made. There is a significant difference between the two.

In the New Testament, the Greek word gennaó, related to the birth of the Son, is the same word that appears in the Nicene Creed (which was originally written in Greek, like the New Testament), when it says that the Son was "begotten, not made." Thus, Trinitarian theology's terminology here directly follows the language of Scripture. The word gennaó is not the same as female childbirth ("tikto"); it can be translated more like "begetting." It expresses that the essence of the Son is identical to the essence of the Father and not a creature.

The formulation of John 1:1a "In the beginning was the Word..." (as opposed to "became", or "is created", or "came to be", as in John 1:3) was an important reference during the Arian controversy, since Arius asserted that the Son was a perfect creature, at most a kind of demigod subordinated to the Father. Arius insisted ‘there was when he [the Logos] was not.’ The opponents of the Arianism pointed out that according to John 1:1a the Son "in the beginning" already "was", not became, and consequently is not a creature, and did not come into existence in time, but is eternal like the Father.

In order to condemn Arianism, the First Council of Nicaea formalized the creed, according to which the Son is "begotten from the Father before all ages (æons), Light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not created, of the same substance (homoousios) with the Father". At the same time, the synod anathemized those, who say 'There was a time when He was not;' or 'He was not before he was made;' or 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'.

you just need to put together the following biblical verses, examining them in their original text:

Neh 9:6, Isa 44:24, 45:12, 48:13 , Psalm 95:5-6
John 1:1-4
Philippians 2:5-11 ----> here the only word which is difficult to translate is "harpagos", which only could be circumscribed. The good analogy for "harpagmos" is something like Gollam clings the one ring in the Lord of the Rings
Colossians 1:15-20
the whole 1st chapter of the Hebrews

I really cannot understand how anyone who has read the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews can say that the Bible teaches that the Son is an angel? The NWT translators forgot to insert the usual word "other" to appropriate places where the narrator speaks of "all the angels" :-)

You just have to answer the rhetorical questions the Scripture ask you there:

For to which of the angels did God ever say,
“You are my Son; today I have begotten you”?
And, “In the beginning, Lord, you founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands"? (quote from Psalms 102:25, where it's stated about YHWH God)

Here the narrator is talking about the Father's statements to and about the Son. It is no coincidence that Paul wrote this letter to the Hebrews, that is, to the Jews, who knew the Old Testament well, and in their eyes to attribute such statements to an angel would be blasphemy, since he makes statements about the Son that, in the light of the Old Testament statements, only are applicable to YHWH God.
You should just answer the rhetorical question YHWH God asks in Isaiah 44:24. There is clearly no place for a secondary creator demigod.
How can you say that the Son is not of the same substance, if Hebrew 1:3 clearly says about the Son, that he is ""exact imprint/representation/expression [charaktér] of God’s very being/substance [hypostasis]" ?
The real teaching of the Bible about the Son is clearly the same which the Nicene creed contains, that the Son is "begotten of the Father before all ages/world (æons)". The respective word here (æons) is the same in Hebrews 1:2: "through whom he also created the ages/worlds". If the Son is begotten before the creation of the aións, it clearly means He has no beginning in time, since He is begotten before the creation of time, that's why John 1:1a says that in the beginning He already was, therefore eternal, and only fully God can be eternal. The Nicene formula fully summarizes biblical teachings both in its content and in its terminology. The only term that is truly a later development is the term homoúsios, but it is a direct consequence of the cited biblical statements that if the Son is the exact image (eikon, character) of the Father's hypostasis, what else could the Son be but not "of one substance" with the Father?

Where does the Bible say that the Son was created or that he is a creature? Nowhere.
On the contrary: that he was born / begotten.
Where does the Bible say that the Son is an angel? Nowhere.
On the contrary, He is superior to all the angels.
Where does the Bible say that Son is the same as archangel Michael? Nowehere.
The difference between Jesus and Michael is also well illustrated by their relationship with Satan: the apostle Jude writes that Michael "did not dare" to bring condemnation/judgment on Satan (Jude 9; cf. 2 Peter 2:11), but Jesus pronounced a clear judgment on him (Jn 16:11; cf. John 5:22, 27; 1 John 3:8; Col 2:15).
Does it say the Son is LORD and GOD? Yes, in many places.
Where does the Bible say that the Son had a beginning in time, and there was a time when he didn't exist? Nowhere.
On the contrary, the Bible writes that even time, the ages (aions), were created by him and in the beginning He already was.

You see, it is not that difficult, with these few steps we have reached the content of the Nicene Creed.