To the ancient Greek poets, playwrights and storytellers, the idea of God visiting some poor woman and begetting a son who was thereby a demigod (half-god, half-man) was a common element.  In none of the stories is the begotten, demigod son equated with the fathering God (e.g. Jupiter, Apollo, etc.).  The names are never swapped or confused.  But that the son shared the divine nature of his father, at least in part, was equally clear, gifting him with certain gifts (e.g. strength, cunning, speed, wisdom, etc.).  In at least one story, the demigod, because of his exploits, was elevated in status to full Godhood, becoming a god in his own right.  Of course, the Greeks did not conceive of only one God, but many, who were part of the Universe, not its maker(s).  This explains why Paul, preaching at Athens, had to begin with the Creator & Judge instead of with Christ.  So, when the New Testament affirms that Jesus is the Son of God, are we to understand these words in the same way as the Greeks understood Hercules to be a son of Jupiter?  Was Jesus only a demigod, a (lesser) god?  Is that what the Apostles taught?  Or was it simpler than that?

The doctrine of the Nature of Christ, as taught by the Watchtower Society and Jehovah's Witnesses, is confessed by them to be alike to the same doctrine as taught by Arius and his son in the 4th century.  However, they further affirm that the doctrine is derived from scripture and logically, therefore, was Apostolic in origin.  If this is true, it is reasonable to assume that there would be some early Church writings which reflect their view.  It is equally logical that, if this is true, any subsequent introduction of a Trinitarian explanation of God and Jesus would immediately be condemned as heresy, and that there would be evidence of this condemnation in the early writings.

Basically, the Arian doctrine states that before the creation of the changeable universe, the Father begat the unchangeable Son, which implies that the Son had a beginning, before which the Son had no existence.  The Watchtower teaches that the Father first created the Logos.  The Father then commanded and the Logos created all [other] things.  In this way it is taught that the Father created "by/through the Son" and that "Jesus created all" other "things".  Jehovah's Witnesses also believe that the Father is Jehovah and Jehovah is the singular "spirit being" who is the Father of Jesus.  When the Watchtower speaks about God or Jehovah, it is always, and ONLY, the Father that they are speaking and thinking of.

Before a discussion even begins as to the scriptural justification for such a view, we should investigate and discover (if possible) if this was indeed the original view of the Church.  If it was, then it is not to be doubted.  If it was not, then no matter how cleverly, or persuasively, or reasonably an argument is constructed from scripture or other sources to support the view, the view should be condemned and rejected as heresy.  For if it was not taught by the Apostles (i.e. by Jesus), then it is wrong.  Or rather, if the Apostles had a different (opposing) teaching, then the Apostolic view must be accepted, no matter how it may conflict with our theology and most cherished beliefs of what is true.

Parallel to the views which follow, various Gnostic believers held that the Christ and Jesus were separate, as Spirit from Man.  That it was the Man, Jesus, who suffered and died, not the Christ or Spirit.  The Docetists went so far as to maintain that Christ's human body was only apparent.  But these views do not relate to the question being considered and so will not be recorded in detail.

It must be noted that even the Gnostic statements about Jesus, as well as those below, are clearly attempts to explain the nature of Jesus in the face of the ancient claim that there is only one God.  We must especially note the fact that both Gnostic and these other explanations would hardly have occurred unless there was some early and Apostolic teaching that Jesus was in some way, God.  These early teachings MUST have been of such a nature that the hearers were led to believe there was a kind of equality between the Father and Jesus that went far beyond a mere oneness of purpose and will.  The explanations of Jesus' nature seldom, if ever, mention this quality when trying to explain divinity, proving that this was NOT how they were understanding that "the Father and I are one."

How early did the idea of Trinity occur?  All that can be demonstrated is how early the word occurs in the writings of the Church, and who used the term.  As shown below, it was used very early (within one generation from the Apostles) and mostly by those accepted by the whole Church at the time of the writing as being authoritative in such matters.
 

Early Views

...Therefore we can ignore the objection of those who say, "If he was born at that time it follows that Christ did not exist before then."  For we have shown that the Son of God did not THEN begin to exist, since he existed with the Father ALWAYS;   [Against Heresies, 3.18]

* Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch
   [To Autolycus, Bk 2, Chap. 15: Of The Fourth Day of Creation - ca 180 a.d.]

The stars... The sun... the moon... In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom.  And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man.  Wherefore also on the fourth day the lights were made.

* Clement of Alexandria (ca 193 a.d.)
   [The Stromata, or Miscellanies, Bk 5, Chap. 14: On Greek Plagiarism from the Hebrews]

For I pass over Plato; he plainly, in the Epistle to Erastus and Coriscus, is seen to exhibit the Father and Son somehow or other from the Hebrew Scriptures, exhorting in these words:

      "In invoking by oath...God the author of all, and invoking Him by oath as the
       Lord, the Father of the Leader, and author; whom if you study with a truly
       philosophical spirit, you shall know."

And the address in the Timaeus calls the creator, Father, speaking thus:

      "You gods of gods, of whom I am Father; and the Creator of your works."

So that when he says,

      "Around the king of all, all things are, and because of Him are all things;
       and he [or that] is the cause of all good things; and around the second are
       the things second in order; and around the third, the third,"

I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father.

* Tertullian [ca 190 a.d.]

This LOGOS, we have learned, was produced [PROLATUM] from God, and was generated by being produced, and is therefore called the Son of God, and God, from unity of substance with God.  For God too is spirit.  ...So from spirit comes spirit, and God from God, as light is kindled from light.  This ray of God...is born as man mixed with God.  [Apology 21]

The devil...champions the unity of God...only to make out of that unity a heresy.  He says that the Father himself descended into the virgin, was himself born of her, himself suffered; in fact that he himself was Jesus Christ.  It was Praxeas who first brought this kind of perversity from Asia to Rome...he put the Paraclete to flight and crucified the Father.     [Against Praxeas]

* Dionysius  [Bishop of Rome 259-268 a.d.]
   [letter to Dionysius of Alexandria]

I...attack those who...detroy that most revered doctrine of the Church of God, the Monarchy [Kingship], reducing it to three powers and separated substances [UPOSTASES] and three deities.  For...there are some...who promote this opinion, who are...diametrically opposed to the views of Sabellius (who blasphemously says that the Son is the Father and the Father the Son), while they...preach three Gods.
They divide the sacred Monad into three substances foreign to each other and utterly separate.  For the Divine Word must of necessity be united to the God of the Universe, and the Holy Spirit must have his habitation and abode in God.  Thus, it is absolutely necessary that the Divine Triad be summed up and gathered into a unity...that Unity...the all sovereign God of the Universe.   Equally to be censured are they who hold that the Son is a work, and think that the Lord [Jesus] came into being [i.e. was created by the Father], whereas the Prophets testify to a begetting...but not to any fashioning or making.

...Pope Alexander...drives us from city to city as atheists because we do not agree with him when he publicly preaches, "God always, the Son always; at the same time the Father, at the same time the Son; the Son co-exists with God, unbegotten; he is ever-begotten, he is not born-by-begetting; neither by thought nor by any moment of time does God [the Father] precede the Son; God always, Son always;"
    Eusebius, your brother (Bishop of Caesarea), Theodotus, Paulinus, Athanasius, Gregory, Aetius, and all the other bishops of the East, have been condemned for saying that God existed, without beginning, before the Son  [=> though they didn't maintain:  before the Word].  Philogonius, Hellanicus and Macarius, who are heretics...say that the Son is an effluence [=> to flow out from], others a projection, others that his is co-unbegotten.  But we say and think...that the Son is not unbegotten, nor part of the unbegotten in any way, nor is he derived from any substance; but that by his own will and counsel he existed before times and ages fully God, only-begotten, unchangeable.
    And before he was begotten or created or appointed or established, he did not exist, for he was not unbegotten.  We are persecuted for saying that the Son has a beginning, but God is without beginning ...and because we say that he is from what-is-not.  And this we say because he is neither part of God nor derived from any substance.                [letter to Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia]

If the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence.  Hence it is clear that there was [a time] when the Son was not.  It follow then of necessity that he had his existence from the non-existent.      [public responce to a sermon on the Trinity by Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria]

Because a large number of believers on both sides of the issue disliked the wording of the initial Nicaean Creed, a substitute was offered by ninety bishops at Antioch for the dedication of Constantine's "Golden Church".  [A later, shorter version became the basis of the confession of belief of Arian believers in the East.]  Some of its statements follow:

In accordance with the Gospel tradition and of the Apostles, we believe in one God, Father all sovereign ...from whom all things come into being.  And in one Lord Jesus Christ, God only-begotten, through whom are all things, who was begotten from the Father before all the ages, God from God, whole from whole, sole from sole, complete from complete, king from king, lord from lord...unchangeable and immutable, invariable image of the diety...who was in the beginning with God, God the Word, according to the the Gospel statement, "And the Word was God"...  and a Holy Spirit who is truly Holy Spirit, the titles...accurately describing the particular personality [HYPOSTASIS] and rank and glory of each that is so named, so that they are three in personality but one in agreement.      If anyone teaches...contrary to Scriptures...that there was a time or season or age before the begetting of the Son of God, let him be anathema. If anyone says that the Son is a creature [i.e. has been created or made] as one of the creatures, or an offspring as one of the offspring, a work as one of the works...let him be anathema.

Conclusion

As a historical note, at the Nicaean Councils, convened chiefly to deal with the Arian & Trinitarian controversy, Athanasius and his associates demonstrated the wisdom of Tertullian's earlier repudiation of philosophy--by failing to follow such wisdom!  Instead of merely claiming priority of position and asserting that the Apostles and New Testament writings claimed Jesus to be God (with appropriate scriptural quotations), they followed Arius' example and resorted to philosophical and linguistic arguments to try and show how such a thing could be.  In the first round of debates, this lost them their case!  In the following round, by inventing entirely new words to describe their ideas, they succeeded, but from then until now, people have never been able to grasp or explain "The Trinity".  (Jesus' quoting of Psalm 82:1-6 in John 10:35ff doesn't help either!)

It must also be affirmed that, while the "Trinitarian" viewpoint had many supporters who held equally unscriptural and erroneous views (cf Arius' quotation of Alexander's doctrine), and while it was not (and has not been) worked out clearly in every detail, yet it reflects what was the original position of the Church.  Both sides tended to confuse the existence of Jesus as the Logos and Jesus as the incarnated Son.  Both sides used both philosophical and scriptural arguments.  Both sides quoted from earlier writings.  But the weight of evidence for originality comes down against Arius...and the Watchtower Society of Jehovah's Witnesses.  The teaching that Jesus is God, and that God is Triune occurred much earlier.

Of the doctrine that, before the Logos was incarnate as Jesus, he was Michael the Archangel no trace at all can be found in either Trinitarian or Arian, Western or Eastern, statements or creeds.

What then is the reasonable thing to do with this "new gospel" or doctrine?