Answering a Jehovah's Witness

[apostoli]

The Son of God has two natures. You know this. One is not God and one is God. (Mark 13:32, John 8:16,17. John 5:18,23, John 10:27-30.)

My point of reference is what the Jews in John 8 understood Jesus as saying, and they certainly were not considering a dogma formulated 400 years later...Chalcedon declares there is two physes, one hypostasis, so whilst we might perceive two distinct activities of the man Jesus, it is always the man Jesus doing whichever activity. And it is the man Jesus that was the Jews focus in John 8...

If we go back to Jn 8:25 we read "Then they said to Him, "Who are You?" And Jesus said to them, "Just what I have been saying to you from the beginning". What had Jesus been saying from the beginning? John 8:12 provides one answer (cp. Jn 1:6-12), elsewhere we can detect Jesus as having declared himself to being the Son of God (eg: John 10:36).

Throughout John 8 Jesus regularly refers to himself as being sent by his Father. In the temple treasury discussion the Pharisees opposing him didn't understand he was talking about God, the same with those identified as the Jews (vs26-27). Then there is a little twist "Then Jesus said to them: When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am [He], and [that] I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things. And He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him. As He spoke these words, many believed in Him."

What follows we are told (vs31) is a discussion between Jesus and those Jews who believed Him, and the discussion centers around Abraham, imo, right through to John 8:58. At vs42 we read that "Jesus said to them: If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me" (ESV). This is a pivotal passage: as when we read on, Jesus demands that "I do not seek My [own] glory; there is One who seeks and judges". So, imo, we have an indication of functional subordination, the Son being sent by his Father (who he identifies as God).

On the internal evidence of John 8 I detect no linkages to Exodus but plenty of linkages to Isaiah and Genesis 18 (cp. Jn 8:56). Now an interesting thing imo, is Jesus' reply to the Jews statement that "Are You greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? And the prophets are dead. Who do You make Yourself out to be? Jesus answered: If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God."

ps: I do understand the pre-existent Son of God who was incarnated as being the manifestation of YHWH and therefore YHWH in the OT. I just don't see John 8:58 making the case, in the overall context of John 8, I do see John 8:58 as Jesus making himself equal with his Father=God in the definition of John 8. One thing I notice is that several times Jesus was asked who he was, and he never gave a direct answer...

[apostoli]

See, here is the issue, we are talking about different sentences with different constructions. What does Exodus 3:14 say?

Ex 3:14 does not use the phrase "ego eimi" in the important part of the verse "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, Ehyeh has sent me to you. The LXX renders 'o on'...

Earlier in the verse, in the LXX, we read "ego eimi o on", where "ego eimi" has no significance other than as a grammatical mechanism to introduce the subject."

What you don't realize is that the "wn" is a participle. Its not a verb.

What you don't realize is that in the Hebrew of Ex 3:14 we read "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh". The Jews themselves admit it is impossible to accurately translate its meaning. But I'll quote Maimonides again "The first noun which is to be described is ehyeh; the second, by which the first is described, is likewise ehyeh, the identical word, as if to show that the object which is to be described and the attribute by which it is described are in this case necessarily identical...in other words, He is "the existing Being which is the existing Being," that is to say, the Being whose existence is absolute..."
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp073.htm

What you don't realize is that the "wn" is a participle. Its not a verb. So when God says "I Am sent me" it wouldnt really make sense to use "eimi"; since "sent" is the verb....if eimi was used, you would have 2 verbs....which I don't even know if you could even translate that to make any sense....of course, using the participle "ho wn" makes total sense.

Imu, "o on" is being used as a noun in the second part of Exodus 3:14 ie: "the being" or "the existing [one]". "o" is simply the definite article.

Of course, in the same manner, it would not make sense for Jesus to say "Before Abraham was, (ho wn)", because once again, "ho wn" is a participle...not a verb. As I said...different sentence construction.

What Jesus uses, is a verb...eimi. So when Jesus says "Ego eimi", once again it is clear what He is saying. He is saying "I am"...as in Isaiah 41:4 (ego eimi)...as in Jesus is the great "I AM". He is claiming that He is both Eternal and Self-Existent..just as the Father is. But at the same time, He is claiming submission to the Father.
By using the present tense "Ego eimi" Jesus, isn't just answering the questions of "when" He existed, but what type of existence He has. He is self-existent. Ontologically, this tells us that Jesus is YHWH....which in English means that Jesus is God (not God the Father...clearly). The emphasis is on Christ's activities as God, yet One who is submissive to the Father.


Dont just focus on Ex 3:14...but go ahead and look at Isa. 41:4. Its clear, Jesus is claiming to be YHWH.

I'm not the one focusing on Ex 3:14, though as it is text that evangelicals run to to convince themselves. I'm simply suggesting that on the internal evidencesof John 8 there is nothing to link us to Exodus, but there is plenty to link us to Genesis 18. Which imo is a far speedier path to convincing a JW who Jesus was to the patriarchs. The thing Jesus constantly and repeatedly stresses is that he was sent...so, imo, if we are to link off to Exodus we must first encounter what the Jewish Targums call the Memra of YHWH = the Word of God = the angel of the LORD in the KJV.

[Phat8594]

Imu, "o on" is being used as a noun in the second part of Exodus 3:14 ie: "the being" or "the existing [one]". "o" is simply the definite article

If only Koine Greek were the same as English...."ho wn" is the participle. I encourage you to seek out legitimate scholarship on this. In other words, as I said before...in the second part of Exodus 3:14, it makes total sense to say "I am (ho wn) sent me"..however, it would not make sense to say "I am (ego eimi) sent me". Why? Because you would have two verbs...which would essentially make the sentence incoherent.

Now, in John 8:58 it makes sense for Jesus to say "Ego eimi"...but it would not make sense for Him to "ho wn". The sentence construction, and the grammar wouldn't allow it; in other words...it wouldn't make sense if Jesus said "Before Abraham was, "ho wn"....the sentence needs a verbal construction (ego eimi).

See..in English, we can make verbs nouns, and we can noun verbs....Koine Greek (and other languages for that matter) aren't as flexible with their grammar.

I'm not the one focusing on Ex 3:14, though as it is text that evangelicals run to to convince themselves. I'm simply suggesting that on the internal evidencesof John 8 there is nothing to link us to Exodus, but there is plenty to link us to Genesis 18

Its not just Ex. 3:14 but Isaiah 41:4, and others. Its a clear understanding of the Jewish culture.

Which imo is a far speedier path to convincing a JW who Jesus was to the patriarchs.

Well...to be clear...I would never use John 8:58 to try to convince a JW. Getting into esoteric translation issues is hardly a way to have a productive conversation with a JW.

[apostoli]

If only Koine Greek were the same as English...."ho wn" is the participle.

Ask any grammarian, the minute the definite article 'o' prefixes a word, in this case 'on', it becomes definitive. Just as the phrases 'o logos' and 'o theos'...change the ideas 'logos' and 'theos'...

I encourage you to seek out legitimate scholarship on this.

I encourage you to seek legitimate scholarship rather than dogmatism (If you are going to use BLB's isolated word definitions, make sure you know about definite articles etc).

It is apparent you are unaware that "ego eimi" in Trinitarian circles is recognised as the LXX rendition of the Hebrew "ani hu" per Isaiah 41, and has no direct relationship to the "ehyeh" of Exodus 3:14. To get from John 8:58 to Exodus 3:14 grammatically, one has to go through an elaborate circuiteous route - basically John 8:58 to Isaiah (where "ani hu" is translated ego eimi) to Revelation (where "o on" is used in the Greek) and then an inference is made to point to Ex 3:14. The inference being that "ani hu" is a euphemism for the very name of God Himself, though not all Trinitarian scholars have been or are convinced.

An often repeated warning you will come across in one form or another in accademic circles is repeated by James White as "It is true that many go directly to Exodus 3:14 for the background, but it is felt that unless one first establishes the connection with the direct quotation of ego eimi in the Septuagint, the connection with Exodus 3:14 will be somewhat tenuous".

In other words, as I said before...in the second part of Exodus 3:14, it makes total sense to say "I am (ho wn) sent me"..

'o on' cannot be translated 'I am', it simply means 'the existing [one]' or 'the being' as every grammarian irrespective of religious persuasion will tell you. Whether "ehyeh" can be translated "I am" is a matter of religious persuasion. The Jews find it inadequate, but acceptable.

however, it would not make sense to say "I am (ego eimi) sent me".

Probably why the LXX has it "the [ever] existing [one] = 'o on' and not the ambiguity you want. Read the verse that follow Exodus 3:14 'o on', "Say to the Israelites, [YHWH], the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation".

The Jewish Darmouth Abridgement of the KJV, page 111, concerning "ehyeh asher ehyeh" (Ex 3:14) notes 'it is a play on four Hebrew consonants (in English: Y, H, W, H)'.

Why? Because you would have two verbs...which would essentially make the sentence incoherent.

'o on' is a noun as the presence of the definite article should make obvious to you and any legitimate grammarian/grammar would point out to you!

Now, in John 8:58 it makes sense for Jesus to say "Ego eimi"...but it would not make sense for Him to "ho wn".

It would if he had actually answered the Jews question at vs 53 "Who do You make Yourself out to be?".vs 58 is five verses awa.y If your premise was correct he would have answered "ehyeh asher ehyeh" or if speaking in Greek "ego eimi o on" immediately. If such had been the case we wouldn't be having this discussion. Many Trinitarian scholars see something more significant in vs58.

The sentence construction, and the grammar wouldn't allow it; in other words...it wouldn't make sense if Jesus said "Before Abraham was, "ho wn"....the sentence needs a verbal construction (ego eimi).

It it wouldn't make sense for Jesus to be using 'ego eimi' as a declaration of himself being the God of who he had just said "If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God." (vs54) Now it would make sense, given vs51, for him to declare he exited before Abraham (and given he is present, continues to exist). See Calvin's observation below. The idea I often encounter is that Jesus was claiming there was no beginning or end to his existence. If so, he was claiming an absolute equivalence to his Father...

The sentence construction, and the grammar wouldn't allow it; in other words...it wouldn't make sense if Jesus said "Before Abraham was, "ho wn"....the sentence needs a verbal construction (ego eimi).

I can only assume you have only done a limitated study on the subject and so are arguing from the BLB's isolation of 'on' as a "Present participle of εἰμί" and so are ignoring the fact that in the LXX we encounter a phrase, that is definite = 'o on', which is usually translated as 'the being' or 'the existing one'.

See..in English, we can make verbs nouns, and we can noun verbs....Koine Greek (and other languages for that matter) aren't as flexible with their grammar.

In English once the definite is placed in front of a word eg: 'the King' the idea is no longer subjective but specific. Same in Greek.

I'll conclude with an observation of Calvin...

Before Abraham was. As unbelievers judge only from the appearance of the flesh, Christ reminds them that he has something greater and higher than human appearance, which is hidden from the senses of the flesh, and is perceived only by the eyes of faith; and that, in this respect, he might be seen by the holy fathers, before he was manifested in the flesh. But he uses different verbs. Before Abraham was, 249 or, Before Abraham was born, 250 I am. 251 But by these words he excludes himself from the ordinary rank of men, and claims for himself a power more than human, 252 a power heavenly and divine, the perception of which reached from the beginning of the world through all ages.

Yet these words may be explained in two ways. Some think that this applies simply to the eternal Divinity of Christ, and compare it with that passage in the writings of Moses, I am what I am, (Exodus 3:14.) But I extend it much farther, because the power and grace of Christ, so far as he is the Redeemer of the world, was common to all ages. It agrees therefore with that saying of the apostle, Christ yesterday, and to-day, and for ever, (Hebrews 13:8.) For the context appears to demand this interpretation. He had formerly said that Abraham longed for his day with vehement desire; and as this seemed incredible to the Jews, he adds, that he himself also existed at that time. The reason assigned will not appear sufficiently strong, if we do not understand that he was even then acknowledged to be the Mediator, by whom God was to be appeased. And yet the efficacy which belonged, in all ages, to the grace of the Mediator depended on his eternal Divinity; so that this saying of Christ contains a remarkable testimony of his Divine essence.

We ought also to observe the solemn form of an oath, Verily, verily. Nor do I disapprove of the opinion of Chrysostom, that the present tense of the verb is emphatic; for he does not say, I was, but I am; by which he denotes a condition uniformly the same from the beginning to the end. And he does not say, Before Abraham was, but, Before Abraham was made; which implies that Abraham had a beginning.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom34.xiv.xi.html

Well...to be clear...I would never use John 8:58 to try to convince a JW. Getting into esoteric translation issues is hardly a way to have a productive conversation with a JW.

I agree!!!

[Phat8594]

Probably why the LXX has it "the [ever] existing [one] = 'o on' and not the ambiguity you want.

'o on' cannot be translated 'I am', it simply means 'the existing [one]' or 'the being' as every grammarian irrespective of religious persuasion will tell you

I think you are missing my entire point. Grammatically, in Koine Greek, it would not make sense to say "Ego eimi sent you". And vice-versa it would not make sense to say "Before Abraham was, ho wn."

As you have even stated, ho wn is not a verb! It does not mean I AM...but rather "the (ho) existing (wn) [one]".

So the point that you keep bringing up that if Jesus wanted to make a claim to deity, he would have said "ho wn" is absolute nonsense. It wouldn't make sense grammatically. And thats my point.

The point still remains that the present tense was used...and not the perfect tense. To say "I AM" says the same thing as I am the "Existing one"...it talks about Christ's self existence...and therefore, ontologically speaking, proclaims Christ's deity...because there is only one who is self-existent.

I encourage you to seek legitimate scholarship rather than dogmatism

I have.

'o on' is a noun as the presence of the definite article should make obvious to you and any legitimate grammarian/grammar would point out to you!

Why you said this, when I said that "ego eimi" is a verb is beyond me...."wn" is clearly a participle with a definite article "ho"...and yes...this makes it essentially function as a noun. There is no disagreement here. The point is that verbs, nouns, and participles are not interchangeable in koine greek, as you seem to be asserting. You can't just insert a participle for a verb, or vice-versa in a sentence, and have it make sense.

[apostoli]

I think you are missing my entire point. Grammatically, in Koine Greek, it would not make sense to say "Ego eimi sent you". And vice-versa it would not make sense to say "Before Abraham was, ho wn."

I think you are missing my entire point. Three times Jesus was asked to identify himself. Three times he did not give a direct reply. The last occurance at Jn 8:53 "Who do You make Yourself out to be?". If Jesus had answered them directly and had equated himself to Ex 3:14, he would in Greek have replied 'o on'. Interestingly, 'o on' is used to identify God (the Father of Jesus) at Revelation 1:4. Jesus' response at Jn 8:54 to the question "Who do You make Yourself out to be?" is most enlightening = "Jesus answered: If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God". Imo, whatever follows must be attributed to Jesus' Father, which links back to verses 42-43, 49-51, so while I agree vs58 indicates Jesus claims absolute existence, the implication is that it is by virtue of him being the Father's Son!

As you have even stated, ho wn is not a verb! It does not mean I AM...but rather "the (ho) existing (wn) [one]".

So the point that you keep bringing up that if Jesus wanted to make a claim to deity, he would have said "ho wn" is absolute nonsense. It wouldn't make sense grammatically. And thats my point.

As most grammarians will advise you, both A.John and A.Paul regularly break the rules of grammar that accademics assume as a standard. For instance: the ANF Irenaeus lamented how atrocious A.Paul's grammar was/is. Daniel Wallace in his 'Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics' (I assume you recognise Wallace as an authoritive Trinitarian grammarian) notes concerning Rev 1:4 (I assume you accept A.John as the author of Revelation) that "This is the first and worst grammatical solecism in Revelation, but many more follow...Few scholars would disagree with Charle's assessment: 'The Seer has deliberately violated the rules of grammar in order to preserve the divine name'...The Seer is no doubt alluding to Ex 3:14 in the LXX...a text well familiar to early Gentile Christians..."
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...rammar&f=false

Rev 1:4-5, excludes Jesus from being 'o on'. So either A.John is contradicting his account at John 8:58, or Jesus was not identifying himself as the 'o on' of Ex 3:14 at John 8:58.

The point still remains that the present tense was used...and not the perfect tense. To say "I AM" says the same thing as I am the "Existing one"...it talks about Christ's self existence...and therefore, ontologically speaking, proclaims Christ's deity...because there is only one who is self-existent.

So, is it your opinion that the Father, Son & Spirit are the same individual? In standard Trinitarian theology the distinction between the three is strenuously defended, and so the unity and equivalence of the three is affirmed.

I assume your phrase "it talks about Christ's self existence" is simply a poor choice of words, particularly as only the Arians claimed the Son was autotheos, the Niceans (Trinitarians) have always argued against such an idea, arguing that being begotten, the Father is the source and cause of the Son's existence...and if you read John 8:54 you find an affirmation of this idea in consideration of John 8:58.

I encourage you to seek legitimate scholarship rather than dogmatism.

I have.

I suggest you read the grammarians and church fathers directly. On face value, you seem to be parroting third, fourth, fifth party bias...

Why you said this, when I said that "ego eimi" is a verb is beyond me...."wn" is clearly a participle with a definite article "ho"...and yes...this makes it essentially function as a noun. There is no disagreement here. The point is that verbs, nouns, and participles are not interchangeable in koine greek, as you seem to be asserting. You can't just insert a participle for a verb, or vice-versa in a sentence, and have it make sense.

See Wallace...

[Phat8594]

So, is it your opinion that the Father, Son & Spirit are the same individual?

No. And until you can stop projecting this belief on me, I find that this discussion will go nowhere.

Perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree on the proper translation of the present active indicative. I say it should be translated in the present tense, you say in the perfect tense.

[37818]

My point of reference is what the Jews in John 8 understood Jesus as saying, and they certainly were not considering a dogma formulated 400 years later...Chalcedon declares there is two physes, one hypostasis, so whilst we might perceive two distinct activities of the man Jesus, it is always the man Jesus doing whichever activity. And it is the man Jesus that was the Jews focus in John 8...

If we go back to Jn 8:25 we read "Then they said to Him, "Who are You?" And Jesus said to them, "Just what I have been saying to you from the beginning". What had Jesus been saying from the beginning? John 8:12 provides one answer (cp. Jn 1:6-12), elsewhere we can detect Jesus as having declared himself to being the Son of God (eg: John 10:36).

Throughout John 8 Jesus regularly refers to himself as being sent by his Father. In the temple treasury discussion the Pharisees opposing him didn't understand he was talking about God, the same with those identified as the Jews (vs26-27). Then there is a little twist "Then Jesus said to them: When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am [He], and [that] I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things. And He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him. As He spoke these words, many believed in Him."

What follows we are told (vs31) is a discussion between Jesus and those Jews who believed Him, and the discussion centers around Abraham, imo, right through to John 8:58. At vs42 we read that "Jesus said to them: If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me" (ESV). This is a pivotal passage: as when we read on, Jesus demands that "I do not seek My [own] glory; there is One who seeks and judges". So, imo, we have an indication of functional subordination, the Son being sent by his Father (who he identifies as God).

On the internal evidence of John 8 I detect no linkages to Exodus but plenty of linkages to Isaiah and Genesis 18 (cp. Jn 8:56). Now an interesting thing imo, is Jesus' reply to the Jews statement that "Are You greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? And the prophets are dead. Who do You make Yourself out to be? Jesus answered: If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God."

ps: I do understand the pre-existent Son of God who was incarnated as being the manifestation of YHWH and therefore YHWH in the OT. I just don't see John 8:58 making the case, in the overall context of John 8, I do see John 8:58 as Jesus making himself equal with his Father=God in the definition of John 8. One thing I notice is that several times Jesus was asked who he was, and he never gave a direct answer...

For the sake of argument, let's say your understanding of Jesus saying "I am" (v.24, 28, 58) is the correct understanding of His usage. And yet as it is I see it in Exodus 3:14 plus as we agree ". . . the pre-existent Son of God who was incarnated as being the manifestation of YHWH and therefore YHWH in the OT." And so as I see it, it is then therefore, in my view in agreement with Exodus 3:14, being none other than the Son of God speaking to Moses, as YHWH in the first person. (John 1:18, KJV, RV, ASV, NKJV)

My question for you here then, you being correct, and I being mistaken, not thinking I am, what consequence is this?

[apostoli]

Perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree on the proper translation of the present active indicative. I say it should be translated in the present tense, you say in the perfect tense.

Well there is the problem between us, I have never argued that the "ego eimi" is in the perefct tense. Repetatively I've stated it is "first person singular present indicative"...I presume we agree that Jesus is using "I am" as an absolute, my only argument is that he does so in comparison to Abraham (cp. Jn 8:51-53), and he attributes his state to his Father (cp. Jn 8:54-55). In the other thread I appealed to Calvin, in that respect I suggest (along with Calvin) that at Jn 8:58 we have a witness of the economy and not a statement of ontology.

[apostoli]

For the sake of argument, let's say your understanding of Jesus saying "I am" (v.24, 28, 58) is the correct understanding of His usage. And yet as it is I see it in Exodus 3:14 plus as we agree ". . . the pre-existent Son of God who was incarnated as being the manifestation of YHWH and therefore YHWH in the OT." And so as I see it, it is then therefore, in my view in agreement with Exodus 3:14, being none other than the Son of God speaking to Moses, as YHWH in the first person. (John 1:18, KJV, RV, ASV, NKJV)

My question for you here then, you being correct, and I being mistaken, not thinking I am, what consequence is this?

First notice Ex 3:2. It is the "angel of the LORD" whom Moses encountered. So following Calvin (for the sake of argument) we have a witness to economy but not a witness to ontology.

[37818]

First notice Ex 3:2. It is the "angel of the LORD" whom Moses encountered. So following Calvin (for the sake of argument) we have a witness to economy but not a witness to ontology.

What do you mean?

Exodus 3:2,

. . . And the angel of Jehovah appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: . . .

Genesis 12:7,

. . . Jehovah appeared unto Abram, . . .

Isaiah 6:5,

. . . for mine eyes have seen the King, Jehovah of hosts.

[apostoli]

What do you mean?

Exodus 3:2,

. . . And the angel of Jehovah appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: . . .

Genesis 12:7,

. . . Jehovah appeared unto Abram, . . .

Isaiah 6:5,

. . . for mine eyes have seen the King, Jehovah of hosts.

That the pre-existent Son is "the angel of Jehovah" has been a consistent teaching of the Church since its inception. Until the Reformation, or possibly much later, no church father has ever disputed the fact...to do so is to deny the mediatorship of the Son throughout mankind's history...

Calvin in the Institutes of the Christian Religions, chapter 13, paragraph 10, makes the point "But if this does not satisfy the Jews, I know not what cavils will enable them to evade the numerous passages in which Jehovah is said to have appeared in the form of an Angel (Judges 6:7; 13:16-23, &c). This Angel claims for himself the name of the Eternal God...The orthodox doctors of the Church have correctly and wisely expounded, that the Word of God was the supreme angel, who then began, as it were by anticipation, to perform the office of Mediator. For though he were not clothed with flesh, yet he descended as in an intermediate form, that he might have more familiar access to the faithful. This closer intercourse procured for him the name of the Angel; still, however, he retained the character which justly belonged to him—that of the God of ineffable glory. The same thing is intimated by Hosea, who, after mentioning the wrestling of Jacob with the angel, says, “Even the Lord God of hosts; the Lord is his memorial, (Hosea 12:5). "
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iii.xiv.html

[37818]

Witnessing to JWs we would do well to be very familiar with all those OT passages where of the Angel of Jehovah is identified as Himself as God, along with all the passages where God is said to be seen of men. (John 1:18, ASV.)

JWs claim the preincarnate Son of god is God's first creation, and given the identity of Michael (Who is like God) the archangel. We need to ask them when they make these claims how they come to that conclusion. And be ready to state your biblical understanding of the truth against their error of supposing the Son of God to be a creation...

[apostoli]

Witnessing to JWs we would do well to be very familiar with all those OT passages where of the Angel of Jehovah is identified as Himself as God, along with all the passages where God is said to be seen of men. (John 1:18, ASV.)

They'll agree that via Jn 1:18 it was the Son that appeared to men in the OT, and say in the OT he is identified as the angel of the Lord. When you bring up your proposed strategy, they'll just tell you that the angel as emissary would speak as if he was the one that sent him, and prove their point from historical circumstances where the emissaries of Kings did just that, and were treated as the King himself. They have a very well rehearsed script for such an approach. A cleaver JW might even point you to John 12:45 etc...

My approach is to keep things short and simple, starting with Jn 1:18 as you indicate, then point to Genesis 18:1 and ask why the NWT says "Jehovah appeared to [Abraham] among the big trees of Mamre...", and while they formulate a response point out that the text says three men appeared to Abraham, one is identified as Jehovah, the other two as angels (cp. 18:22 with 19:1), so it can't be an angel that remained behind and chatted with Abraham while the angels went on their journey. In fact Gen 18:22 says it was Jehovah himself.

JWs claim the preincarnate Son of god is God's first creation

Thats true. But they also claim that the preincarnate Son of God created all other things. In effect they ultimately hold that the Son is the only creation of the Father, though I've encountered various opinions on creation in general, usually the example of architect (Father) and master craftsman (Son).

, and given the identity of Michael (Who is like God) the archangel.

Upto late in the Reformation it was a common opinion of the Church. If I recall correctly, the witness of Revelation 12&19 with Daniel is/was used by the church to support the idea. Imu, it was the rise of the Socians that took the idea out of church discussion. A JW in the know might point you to various church fathers who equated the Archangel and the Son of God. To me it is an unneccessary distraction...

We need to ask them when they make these claims how they come to that conclusion.

Except for a newbie they are well prepared for 'the tpical attack"...

And be ready to state your biblical understanding of the truth against their error of supposing the Son of God to be a creation...

Most people haven't got a hope of offering a defense against the JWs as they are ill equiped having only a sunday school idea of what the greater church has been teaching for centuries...So, rather than preparing an attack on JWs, I'd recommend people learn about what the Church teaches, decide if they really, truely believe it, and be able to defend their beliefs from scripture and not opinion.

Those that deny the teaching of Nicea finding it heretical and/or deny the two begetals of the Son (once in eternity, and the other at the incarnation) will find such in common with the JWs...The JWs deny the real Sonship of the Son.