Responding to Jehovah's Witnesses

This argument names the JW Christology historically. The position that Jesus is the first and greatest creation of the Father is not a first-century belief — it shares the same core claim a presbyter named Arius taught in Alexandria around AD 318, that Jesus is a created being. (The JW identification of Jesus with Michael the archangel is an additional JW-specific claim not held by Arius; the shared ground is that Jesus is a creature, not the uncreated God.)
Arius's slogan was 'there was a time when the Son was not.' The church responded at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325 — the largest gathering of bishops in Christian history to that point, with delegates from Britain to Persia — and rejected Arianism as contrary to the apostolic faith, affirming the Son is 'true God from true God, begotten not made.' Only two bishops out of roughly 318 refused to sign. This was not Rome imposing a doctrine on dissenters — it was the entire Christian world, East and West, rejecting Arius's novelty.
The Watchtower narrative is that Jesus's promise to preserve his church (Matthew 16:18) failed catastrophically within 300 years, that the entire body of Christian memory was corrupted, and that the truth was finally restored by Charles Taze Russell in Pittsburgh in the 1870s. Arianism had already been examined and rejected by the church 1,500 years before Russell was born.
Be kind here. Most JWs have never been told that their Christology has a historical name. They have been taught it was 'restored first-century truth.' The simple fact that the position has a fourth-century name — Arianism — and was rejected by the undivided church can be a genuine jolt.

Constantine convened the council but did not vote on doctrine. The bishops who attended — most of them — had personally suffered under Roman persecution just a decade earlier under Diocletian. Many bore scars, missing eyes, crippled limbs. These were not men easily bullied by imperial politics. And they came from everywhere — Spain, Britain, Egypt, Persia, Syria — not just Greek territories. The vote was essentially unanimous. If Constantine or Greek philosophy corrupted them, how did 316 out of 318 bishops from every corner of the known world agree on the same corruption at the same moment?

There were minor disagreements — about the date of Easter, about when to baptise, about whether to eat meat sacrificed to idols. But on the deity of Christ, the pre-Nicaean fathers are remarkably unified. Ignatius of Antioch (died AD 117) called Jesus 'our God.' Polycarp called him 'our Lord and God Jesus Christ.' Justin Martyr said the Son 'is even God.' Irenaeus, Melito, Clement, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen — every pre-Nicaean father who wrote on the question affirmed Christ's deity. Arius in AD 318 was the innovation, not the default.

Athanasius addressed this exact verse in his Contra Arianos. The Greek word prototokos (firstborn) does not mean 'first in order of creation.' It means rank or preeminence. Psalms 89:27 says God made David 'the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth' — but David was the youngest of Jesse's sons, not the first biologically. Israel as a nation is called God's 'firstborn' in Exodus 4:22, but Israel came long after Egypt and Babylon. Firstborn is a status, not a birth order. The very next verse (Col 1:16) says 'by him all things were created' — so Jesus cannot be in the category of created things.

Proverbs 8:22 uses the Hebrew verb qanah, which more often means 'acquired' or 'possessed' than 'created.' The Septuagint translates it both ways depending on context. But even taking it as 'created,' Proverbs 8 is personified wisdom as a literary device — not a Christological statement about the pre-incarnate Son. Arius and the Watchtower both treat a poetic passage as though it were a systematic declaration about Jesus's origin. The New Testament never applies Proverbs 8:22 to Jesus's creation. Paul, John, and the writer of Hebrews consistently place Jesus on the uncreated side of the creator-creature distinction.

I am not blaming you — I am pointing out that your Christology has a historical identity. When the Watchtower says Jesus is the first and greatest creation of Jehovah, that is Arianism by definition. The church examined this exact position in AD 325 and concluded it contradicted what the apostles taught. If you believe the Watchtower restored first-century Christianity, you have to explain why the position it 'restored' is the same position that the post-apostolic church rejected unanimously as a novelty.

Look up the Council of Nicaea in any standard history of Christianity (not a Watchtower source). Note the date (AD 325), the number of bishops (about 318), the vote (essentially unanimous against Arius), and the creed that resulted. Then look up Arius of Alexandria — his teaching, dates, and the slogan 'there was a time when the Son was not.' Finally, trace the chain backwards: Athanasius, who led the case against Arius, was trained in Alexandria where Origen had written (AD 225) that 'the Father is called omnipotent and the Son is also called omnipotent.' Tradition records Origen being taught by Clement of Alexandria, and Clement by Pantaenus — placing the anti-Arian memory chain within living distance of the apostolic generation. Ask yourself whether the position you hold about Jesus is closer to Arius or closer to Athanasius.