Mondo,
One thing to keep in mind is that the basic meaning of "angels" is messengers, so to say that God spoke by various messengers would not exclude the son.
Shouldn't we also keep in mind that Hebrews 1 does "exclude the son"? The Son did not speak "in past times." He spoke "in these last days."
First Peter 1:20 says: "He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you." Christ was not "manifest" to men before "these last times" but during "these last times." Why is there this seeming insistence that the Bible writers may have been wrong about this?
1 Corinthians 10:1-4 seems to indicate that the one that lead them was Jesus.
Verse 4 states: "And all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ." The Israelites drank from a literal rock, so the language of this verse is obviously symbolic or allegorical. There are many passages that show that the Israelites were looking forward to the Messiah. They ate manna, literal food provided from God in heaven, and Jesus said that this anticipated him as "the true bread from heaven." He said concerning himself, "This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever." (John 6:58)
Just as the manna was a sign pointing to Christ, so was the rock that supplied water. The rock and manna were symbolic of supernatural sustenance through Christ, who is the bread of life and the water of life. (John 4:14; 6:30-35) That true manna and true water were not yet present in the days of Moses, and the proof is in the fact that all those partakers eventually died, in addition to the fact that the water and bread in their case were literal.
I think you are mixing up God speaking by the prophets with the means that God used to speak by the prophets.
Then I suppose the writer of Hebrews was also mixing things up. When he said God began speaking in these last days by means of his Son, he should have written more clearly. That is what you seem to be saying. The means in times past were angels, but you and Lilly feel the means was also God's Son. There isn't a verse in the Bible that says that, but that is what it seems you want to believe. By contrast with what you believe, the Scripture plainly says that the means became God's own Son "in these last days," not before.
Frank