mindmelda, You said: I don't understand the classic Trinity teaching too well either.
If I may be so bold as to suggest that if you are interested in knowing this teaching why not give the classic Trinity teachers a chance to explain themselves? I will say though that even without having the WT negative teachings pounded into my brain, grasping and understanding the Trinity from a Biblical standpoint was labor intensive for me. And there is more to the story than just the concept of 3 persons in 1 Godhead.
Regardless, I don't think it is necessary to accept the Trinity to see that the NWT is wrong about Jesus. Just take the English NWT rendering of John 1:1 and diagram the sentence using the normal rules of English grammar. The use of an indefinate article before an impersonal pronoun (a god) seems to indicate that the verse is teaching that the Word (Logos) is one of many. There are three (3) articles in English grammar- a, an & the. Two (2) of them are called indefinate articles (a & an) and one (1) is called a definate article (the). The indefinate refers to, as I said one of many or no one in particular. The definate article (the) is specific.
For example, suppose we are at a car dealer, I might say to you: "Steve, go pick out a car". In normal understanding, because I use the indefinate article before the subject (a car) I would be communicating the message to you to pick any car on the lot, your choice. But, if I say: "Steve, go pick out one of the chevy's out there"-- because I have used the definate article (the chevy's) I'm being more specific, I have defined the total number of cars in the discussion (only chevy's not ford or honda). Further, If I say: "Steve, pick out the blue chevy S-10 with the cap and vin 12345XX2145145" now we are talking about only one possible vehicle.
Since the Bible and the WT both agree that there is only one (1) true God, the rendering in John 1:1 in English is not in agreement with the rest of the Bible. Now, just how the translators of the NWT could deny Jesus diety without adding even more unauthorized words in the English rendering is a hard question to answer. That however is not my problem. Regardless of your stance on the inspiration of the Bible, it is hard in my opinion to deny that the Bible doesn't teach that Jesus is God. I realize that the WT agrues that Jesus is a mighty god, not God Almighty, but to accept that reasoning you must accept the WT teaching on the matter which is outside of the clear teaching of the Bible. Hence, the WT would be your teacher, not the Bible, Holy Spirit, common sense and or the rules of grammar.
To further labor that point, the NWT preface states that the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament was used as the underlying greek for the translation. B.F. Westcott, in his commentary of The Gospel of John is very clear that the correct translation from Greek to English of John 1:1 in the King James Version is correct. Westcott goes into much detail using the Greek to make his claims. Note also that the WT used the KJV from the 1880s until 1950--70 years of insisting that Jesus is a god when the Bible they (the JWs) had opened infront of them stated clearly that Jesus was God.
I plan on writing a paper on John 1:1 in the English at a point in the near future. I have not touched on the use of "god" vs. "God" in the sentence, is it a pronoun or noun--proper or improper? In the meantime, feel free to advise me of your critical comments on my use of English Grammar rules if you find that you disagree.
Tom