@godrulz
wrong to reduce Jesus to Michael or mere man
Here's something I have never been able to understand: How is saying Jesus is Michael an insult to Jesus? The theory the Society has about Jesus being Michael is actually one of their more sound theories. It's no slam dunk and I believe it to be wrong to preach it as a fact, but at least there are some scriptures that appear to indicate this. The Word, before becoming Jesus, was a unique being. Michael the Archangel (which means he's above the angels) is a unique being. Jesus is the "only-begotten" in relation to the Father. Michael is the "archangel" in relation to the angels. Why can't they be the same? Just as someone can be an employee, a father, a brother, etc. to different people, Jesus is different things to different personages. To us, he's a savior, but not to God or angels.
As far as reducing Jesus to "mere man", you'll have to talk to the apostle Paul about that, since "man" is a word he uses repeatedly to describe the Christ on earth. In Heaven, Jesus had (and has) a very different existence than he did 2000 years ago. As the "last Adam", he would need to be human unless Adam was something other than a man.
It sounds like you need to read the Athanasian Creed, because you repeatedly deny the definition of the Trinity. It may be that you recognize the Trinity to be a ridiculous belief, so you've tweaked it a bit to sound less preposterous, but that's dishonest and it's not the Trinity when you start changing things. You can't invoke the name for a belief then deny you believe what that name describes. I might as well say I believe in the Trinity, then go on to say that means the Father has always existed, at one time created the Son, using his power called Holy Spirit. Boom, my personal definition of Trinity, so now I'm a Trinitarian.