Posts by fjtoth

218

The Duality -- The Father and The Son

by UnDisfellowshipped in

do jehovah's witnesses believe in two gods or one god?

do they believe in a "duality"?

do jehovah's witnesses and/or the angels worship jesus christ?.

fjtoth

Undisf'd,

Please excuse my typo up above where I wrote "Disf'd" instead of "Undisf'd."

You wrote:

. . . you are assuming that I believe such and such (or using a "strawman argument"), and you are arguing against it, but in actuality, I believe differently.
No, I didn’t set up a “strawman argument.” You speak English and I speak English. Each of us should have a basic understanding of the language. Sadly, this is where Trinitarians seem to fall short.

You wrote:

I did not mean to make it sound like I was saying you HAD to read what I posted before. I simply was trying to say that if you want to better understand what I believe so that you can make better arguments against the Trinity (as I believe it to be), then you can do so with those links I provided.

Still, you admit you “over-reacted” because I decided not to look up the threads you linked. And in over-reacting, isn't it true that you suggested I was failing to follow the apostle Paul’s example? Pretty serious comparison, I tend to think.

You wrote:

You claimed that Trinitarians and myself teach that there are three Lords, and then you argued against that teaching. Well, I argue against that teaching as well. That would be polytheism.

The Athanasian Creed says "The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord." Now, Undisfellowshiped, let’s speak man-to-man in plain English. To insist that there are not three Lords within the Trinity is worse than being ambiguous! Anyone knows what I mean if I say “Mr. Smith is Governor, Mr. Jones is Governor, and Mr. Doe is Governor.” I’m speaking of three Governors. It’s that simple. Thus three Lords mentioned by name in the creed cannot in plain English mean one Lord.

But believers in the Athanasian Creed don’t want to be accused of polytheism. So they employ doublespeak. Their creed supplies the following sentence that contradicts the one above: “And yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord only." Can’t you see how nonsensical that is? And can’t you see why the framers of the Athanasian Creed felt compelled to add that sentence? Obviously they felt too ashamed and embarrassed to allow their polytheism to be seen so conspicuosly. Three EQUAL persons addressed as "Lord" and "God" makes a plurality of EQUAL Lords and Gods, no matter how you slice it. Trying to obliterate that fact by using mumbo-jumbo is an insult to human intelligence. I really believe such mischievous distortion of Christian teaching had to be invented by a crafty devil..

Trinitarians have told me that God is like a triangle. A triangle, they say, illustrates how three Lords can equal one Lord. A triangle has three corners. At each corner I'm supposed to see a member of the Trinity. But I’m also to see that the whole triangle is the whole Trinity. In other words, there is a Lord at each corner, but together the Trinity is one Lord. Does that make any sense to you? To anyone? It should be embarrassing to bring up such a phony illustration. Common sense tells us that in such an illustration each Lord is only a partial Lord, not a complete Lord in his own right. I believe it dishonors God to use such an illustration that graphically defines God as only a third of a Lord. It also dishonors him to teach, as the Athanasian Creed does, that God the Father has equals who also are Lords in the same sense that he is the Lord.

Thus the Athanasian Creed is just plain silly. It offers absolutely nothing of intelligence or value to a sincere student of the Bible. It is a vain attempt to prove that Trinitarians do not believe in three Lords when in actually they most certainly do.

There was a period in my life when I was inclined to believe in the Trinity. But there were just too many absurdities and contradictions. That's when I determined to put all the creeds aside and stick with the Bible only. I can’t thank God enough for leading me to read a significant portion of the Bible each day. Reading the Bible in an orderly fashion soon snuffs out any possibility that the Trinity theory is from God.

For a long time Trinitarians have impressed me as trying to pull a fast one. They staunchly deny that their doctrine is tritheism, but the longer they talk the more insincere their arguments become. And the more obvious it is that they really do worship a multiplicity of Gods just as the ancient pagans did! When they paint themselves into a corner, their ultimate line is that the Trinity is a mystery. They say God is a paradox that our finite human minds cannot fully comprehend. Haven’t you yourself admitted the same? It is no wonder that the average Christian cannot explain the Trinity. Most of the laity and many of the clergy accept it only because their denomination says it’s in the Bible, whereas it actually is not. And insult of all insults, many denominations parrot the Athanasian Creed’s pontification that no person can be saved who denies the Trinity. In fact, if we conclude after wrestling with it that this teaching is just plain incomprehensible, we are deserving of everlasting fire.

You wrote:

I agree that it is POSSIBLE Psalm 45:6 was directed originally to a human king, though I would say very unlikely, based upon the inspired interpretation of this verse from Hebrews 1:8. I'm going to go with The Holy Spirit over any other interpretation on this particular point.

Are you claiming that you have more of the Holy Spirit than noted Bible scholars? Bible scholars agree with Jewish tradition as well as the NIV footnote that the Psalm was originally a wedding hymn addressed to a Jewish king and his bride. To deny that this was its original purpose is tantamount to saying the Holy Spirit misled the sons of Korah. They were inspired to compose this Psalm for use at royal weddings. And that is how it was used for about 400 years by the Levitical temple choir. Do you also disagree with scholars who tell us that some passages in the Bible have more than one application or fulfillment? Are you really "going . . . with The Holy Spirit" or are you simply showing a preference for your own private interpretation?

You asked concerning Psalm 45:17:

God said that this king's name would be remembered throughout ALL generations. If this was a human king, we do not even KNOW what his name was!!! How do you explain this?

The explanation is simple. First of all, God is not the speaker in verse 17 or anywhere else in this Psalm. The speaker is a human who pledges his support by means of this song to perpetuate the king’s memory throughout the generations and awaken the praise of the nations. Secondly, many believe the hymn was composed specifically for Solomon whose name and fame have reached down to our own day. A similar hymn in praise of Solomon says this: “May his name endure forever; may his name increase as long as the sun shines; and let men bless themselves by him; let all nations call him blessed.” (Ps. 72:17)

You wrote:

It's interesting that you accuse me (and all other Trinitarians) of only using Scriptures that fit in with our "agenda," but yet it is you who has refused to believe the INSPIRED interpretation of Psalm 45:6 found in Hebrews 1:8.

Where is the evidence that I’ve claimed Psalm 45:6 does NOT apply to Jesus? And as for an agenda, my only purpose is to defend the Scriptures, not some man-made creed that was written centuries after the Scriptures were completed. Can you say the same? Where in the Scriptures can you find the contradictory and confusing statement “The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord. And yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord only."?

You asked:

Would you care to explain HOW Psalm 45:6 proves that Jesus is superior to the angels, if it is not calling Jesus "God" in a unique way that angels are NOT called "god"?

Trinitarians fail to read the Scriptures carefully. The twist you are giving the text by your question is that the contrast is between Christ as God and angels as not God. But that is not the contrast that the writer intends. In verse 7 the angels are said to be ministers or servants, but in verse 8 the Son is seated upon an everlasting throne with a scepter in his hand. The writer is not stating that Christ is God and the angels are not. He is showing the obvious distinction between Christ as king and the angels as servants.

Please note that the angels are not ruled out as gods. The Psalm from which verse 6 is quoted specifies that they are indeed “gods” or, according to a footnote in the NASB, “supernatural powers.” The original Hebrew word means “gods,” but the Septuagint, quoted by the writer of Hebrews, has the Greek word for “angels.” Now, up above you stated your preference for the Holy Spirit’s interpretation. If you really mean that, and if you compare Hebrews 1:6 with it’s source, you will notice that the Holy Spirit has identified the holy angels as “gods” -- good gods and not bad ones. In this early part of the epistle, the contrast is also shown between Christ and Moses. Moses also bore the title of “God”. (Ex. 4:16; 7:1) The superiority of Christ over Moses had nothing to do with the title of “God” borne by each of them. Note how the writer of Hebrews highlights why Christ is greater than the angels and Moses:

1:2, 4, 5 – Christ is God’s unique Son, the appointed heir. But he was not always better than the angels. He “became as much better than the angels, as he inherited a more excellent name than they.” He was begotten as God’s Son at a point in time called “Today.”
1:3 -- Christ was not always an exalted being. It was at his ascension as the exact representation of his Father’s very nature that “he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.”
1:6 – Christ is the Firstborn to whom even angels would bow down (Young’s Literal Translation).
1:7 – Compared with the Son, angels are but servants.
1:8 – It can be said of him and not of angels that he sits upon an everlasting throne in his kingdom.
1:11 – Christ’s permanence surpasses that of heaven and earth.
1:13 – Christ is greater than the angels because he has been elevated to sit at God’s right hand, an invitation no angel has ever received.
2:2-4 – Angels conveyed a Law that brought punishment, but Christ conveys God’s more extraordinary message of salvation.
2:5-9 – Though lower than the angels as a man, Christ – not the angels -- was afterward exalted above them and granted dominion over the world to come.
3:4-6 – Moses was an attendant in God’s house, but Christ as God’s Son is over the entire house.

Nowhere in Hebrews is it stated that Christ is God but the angels and Moses were not. Still, in the final analysis, Jesus Christ is not the Most High God. Jesus and the angels are mentioned again, in Hebrews 12. The writer speaks of “myriads of angels” and “Jesus the mediator.” But he also mentions separately “God the Judge of all.” Jesus and the angels are not “God the Judge of all.” In this way God the Father is distinguished from them.

So the contrast is not between someone called “God,” and others who are not called “God”. The contrast is between, on one hand, an anointed king upon David’s eternal throne and, on the other hand, angels and Moses who are servants.

Hebrews does not disprove that Jesus is “God” in the same sense that the angels, Moses and the Davidic kings were “God”. He is God in precisely the way indicated in Exodus 4:16 and 7:1, and Psalms 45:6 and 97:7.

It should also be noted that scholars are not unanimous on how Psalm 45:6 and Hebrews 1:8 should be translated. Note some examples that differ with the KJV and others:

“The kingdom that God has given you will last.” -- Ps. 45:6, Good News Bible
"Thy throne, given of God’ – Ps. 45:6, The Holy Bible by Isaac Leeser
“Your divine throne endures.” – Ps. 45:6, Revised Standard Version
"Your throne is God's throne." -- Ps. 45:6, The Message
"Your throne is the throne of God” – Ps. 45:6, New English Bible
"God is thy throne." – Heb. 1:8, Moffat’s Translation
"God is thy throne." – Heb. 1:8, The Twentieth Century New Testament
"God is your throne.’" – Heb. 1:8, An American Translation
"God is your throne." – Heb. 1:8, The Bible in Living English

Just as David and others sat upon "the very throne of the Lord," also known as "the throne of David," so does Jesus. (1 Chr. 28:5, 7; Lu. 1:32) And just as David was not Almighty God, neither is Jesus.

None of what I have written here is meant to be cynical or demeaning. All I want by engaging in this thread is to stir up some good old-fashioned Scripture-mindedness, deep thinking and reasonableness. This is what you wrote to me a little over a week ago in another thread:

I agree with you that it is a shame when people just try to argue, but never listen to what the other side is saying. I try to always understand and listen to what the other side is saying. I try to remain open to new understandings of Scripture. I test everything like Paul said, and like the Noble-Minded Bereans did. I try to never be dogmatic or harsh or judgmental.

My prayer is that you sincerely mean that, Undisfellowshiped. I wish you could see Trinitarianism as I now see it. I can no longer accept it because I have found, by letting the Bible speak for itself, God's message about himself and his only-begotten Son is so much easier to understand than the mysticism and incomprehensible and pompous jargon of the so-called orthodox creeds. As much as some Trinitarians I've met seem to resent it, the saying is true that 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, not 1.

To be continued.

Frank

15

"Publisher Cards"..

by young hearts, be free.. in

well it's been a while since i posted here, hope you're all well !!

i've been wondering for a while, you know those "publisher record cards" that the jw's hold which detail each "publisher", well i remember reading that they are not for the person to view, they are strictly for the elders use..if that's the case, (that bugged me even when when i was a jw) would that not be a breach of the privacy act ??

man that secret squirrel shit pissed me off !!

fjtoth

In a JW forum where concern was expressed about finding a suitable marriage partner, I found the following entry dated May 4, 2006:

In my old congregation, it was considered a sign of maturity to ask to see an intended spouse's publisher record card before making a proposal of marriage.

I wonder how many secretaries would be that cooperative.

Publisher's Record Cards are filed according to 8 categories: Regular, Irregular, Inactive, Disfellowshipped, Disassociated, Moved Out, Deceased and Deleted. (Deleted refers to those who were unbaptized publishers but, for the moment, are not permitted to participate in organized field service activity.)

A computer program called Congregation Publisher File (CPF) is used by secretaries to keep tabs on congregation activity. The User's Guide is supplied by the program's developers, not by the Society. Here is a section that tells of the program's benefits and uses:

Perhaps the most powerful aspect of CPF is its ability to generate a wide range of custom-made summaries at a variety of levels. Would you like to know exactly what the congregation and each book study group did last month? Or over the last 6 months? Would you like to know what the elders and ministerial servants did over the last 6 months? Or how each pioneer is doing so far for the service year? CPF can provide answers to these and many other questions.
Summaries can also be filtered to focus in on a specific age group, gender or baptismal status. Would you like to know what the teenagers did last month? Or over the last 6 months? As they become young adults, do they have an increased or decreased share in the ministry? As publishers become older, what changes in field service activity occur? CPF can provide you with the answers to these and similar questions in seconds.
Since its inception in 1990, CPF has proven to be a valuable diagnostic tool in helping brothers quickly pinpoint areas within a congregation that may need special attention. CPF’s goal has always been to help those in a position of oversight carry out their responsibilities more efficiently, thereby benefiting the congregation more fully. (Acts 20:28)
In order to help you benefit fully from CPF, much help has been provided. As you use CPF, help is only a keystroke away. Pressing the F1 key at any point in the program will provide you with detailed information specific to the screen you are currently looking at. Additionally, this User’s Guide was designed to help you understand the basic concepts behind CPF and to help resolve any problems you might encounter during the setup and use of the program. But before we continue, it would be good to review a few important points.
As members of Jehovah’s theocratic organization, all of us can appreciate the need to follow established procedures. (1 Corinthians 14:40) In accordance with the Society’s arrangements, it must be kept in mind that ALL of the Society’s original paperwork MUST be maintained and kept up to date. CPF was NOT designed to circumvent this arrangement but rather to compliment it, replacing the worksheets most congregation secretaries create to help compile reports sent to the Society.
Additionally, this program and its documentation are to be used only by those who are duly authorized to have access to the publisher file. Please keep in mind that publisher information is CONFIDENTIAL and that a trust exists between publishers and those who have access to the file. All efforts must be made to ensure that trust. (See w71 4/1 Questions from Readers.)

15

"Publisher Cards"..

by young hearts, be free.. in

well it's been a while since i posted here, hope you're all well !!

i've been wondering for a while, you know those "publisher record cards" that the jw's hold which detail each "publisher", well i remember reading that they are not for the person to view, they are strictly for the elders use..if that's the case, (that bugged me even when when i was a jw) would that not be a breach of the privacy act ??

man that secret squirrel shit pissed me off !!

fjtoth

I imagine it's still true that a card or two is on file and nobody knows the whereabouts of the person or persons. When I became secretary in one congregation or another over the years, I discovered that there was a card or more on file for a person none of the elders remembered. In some cases, most or all of the elders became such after the name on a card was no longer in anyone's memory.

15

"Publisher Cards"..

by young hearts, be free.. in

well it's been a while since i posted here, hope you're all well !!

i've been wondering for a while, you know those "publisher record cards" that the jw's hold which detail each "publisher", well i remember reading that they are not for the person to view, they are strictly for the elders use..if that's the case, (that bugged me even when when i was a jw) would that not be a breach of the privacy act ??

man that secret squirrel shit pissed me off !!

fjtoth

You may see your own card, but it's viewed as the property of the congregation [ahem, the elders]. The circuit overseer gets to examine it when he comes around. If you move from one congregation to another, they don't trust you to take the card to the next congregation. The Society wants you to notify the secretaries of BOTH congregations so that your card will get transferred.

You can't take the card with you if you leave the organization. The congregation secretary writes on it "Inactive," and they keep the card until you die (or "forever" if they don't know whether you're dead or alive).

218

The Duality -- The Father and The Son

by UnDisfellowshipped in

do jehovah's witnesses believe in two gods or one god?

do they believe in a "duality"?

do jehovah's witnesses and/or the angels worship jesus christ?.

fjtoth

Dreamer,

Good point.

Mark 13:32 is related to the pictures you gave. It says, "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."

Trinitarians claim that Jesus while on earth subordinated himself to the Father. According to them, Jesus "gave up," "set aside," "chose not to use" and so forth his omniscience for the duration of the "incarnation." They claim that is the reason why Jesus did not know the future day or hour.

But what about the Holy Spirit, the so-called "Third Person of the Trinity"? Jesus very clearly and specifically said that "the Father alone" had this secret knowledge, meaning that the "Third Person of the Trinity" is also less than omniscient or all-knowing.

I haven't met a Trinitarian yet who has shown himself capable of dealing with this issue.

Frank

218

The Duality -- The Father and The Son

by UnDisfellowshipped in

do jehovah's witnesses believe in two gods or one god?

do they believe in a "duality"?

do jehovah's witnesses and/or the angels worship jesus christ?.

fjtoth

Disf'd,

WHOA!!! I never lumped all Trinitarians together. I note by the tone of your latest entry that apparently I somehow said something that offended you. My point was that I've had many, many discussions with Trinitarians over the years. I've heard (and read) all their arguments, including yours. I read the links you posted, not within the past few days, but when you posted them. I see no point in my taking the time to re-read something that I feel is less important than the Bible itself and the discussion at hand.

If I felt it was useful to contribute something to those threads at the time, I would have done so. We are now in a different thread. I'm living under the assumption that THIS is where we are now having a discussion, and this is where I hope we can stay focussed.

As I mentioned on another thread where you and I were engaged in a discussion, I'm a very busy person, working long hours each day. If you feel my writing should have been better polished and more appealing, I apologize. All I can say is that I'll try to do better next time.

Frank

218

The Duality -- The Father and The Son

by UnDisfellowshipped in

do jehovah's witnesses believe in two gods or one god?

do they believe in a "duality"?

do jehovah's witnesses and/or the angels worship jesus christ?.

fjtoth

218

The Duality -- The Father and The Son

by UnDisfellowshipped in

do jehovah's witnesses believe in two gods or one god?

do they believe in a "duality"?

do jehovah's witnesses and/or the angels worship jesus christ?.

fjtoth

218

The Duality -- The Father and The Son

by UnDisfellowshipped in

do jehovah's witnesses believe in two gods or one god?

do they believe in a "duality"?

do jehovah's witnesses and/or the angels worship jesus christ?.

fjtoth

218

The Duality -- The Father and The Son

by UnDisfellowshipped in

do jehovah's witnesses believe in two gods or one god?

do they believe in a "duality"?

do jehovah's witnesses and/or the angels worship jesus christ?.

fjtoth

Undisf'd,

You asked:

But, IF there are Three Persons who share the Divine Essence and Nature of God, then why would it be blasphemous for One of them to voluntarily and willingly serve the other Person in love?

God is not “Three Persons.” He has only one face, not three. This is clear from passages like Job 1:12 where we are told “Satan departed from the presence of the Lord.” The word for “presence” is paniym. Consult a lexicon and you will find that it means “face” or “person.” Additionally, God said, "You cannot see my face (singular), for no man can see me and live!" (Exodus 33:20) According to the Bible, God is one person with one face, not three persons with a separate face for each person! This is further shown in Exodus 33:11: “The Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend." God has one face and Moses had one face. And if God truly treated Moses as a friend, Moses would have known God as a Trinity, but he did not.
Speaking of God as “Three Persons” is an emotional and traditional concept, not one based upon Scripture, reason or fact. Job understood that God has one soul, not three: “And what his soul [singular] desires, that he does.” (Job 23:13) God himself said, "My righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul [singular] has no pleasure in him." (Heb. 10:38) God has but one soul or nephesh or psyche, not three.
The idea that God bows down to or worships anyone is blasphemous for the simple reason that God is Almighty. It denigrates him to having equals. He has no equals, and he bows to no other person.
If it were faintly possible that you are correct in saying that the Father worships others as a loving servant, we should read somewhere that God the Father is a Servant. Never do we read the slightest suggestion of that. On the other hand, we do read of Jesus being God’s Servant. Jesus performs the will of the Father, and it is never the other way around!
Jesus told a Samaritan woman “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews." (John 4:22) Why do Trinitarians ignore this statement of Jesus? He said plainly that the Jews knew what they worshipped, and yet they did not worship a Trinity! And the same was true of Jesus himself. He knew the God he worshiped, the God who was worshiped by the Jews. Until today, the Jews are opposed to the idea of the Trinity, and they view it as pagan superstition. I am firmly convinced that Jesus the Jew would tell all Trinitarians what he told the Samaritan woman: “You worship what you do not know!”
Jesus told the Samaritan woman that “the Father” is looking for true worshipers. (John 4:23) He said, “for such people the Father seeks to be his worshipers.” He did not say, “for such people the Father and the Holy Spirit and I seek to be our worshipers.”
Jesus said, "Go, Satan! For it is written, `You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'" (Matt. 4:10) Here Jesus said God is to be worshiped and served “only.” He did not direct attention to himself. The word used here for “served” is latreuo, a word used in the NT with reference to the Father and never with reference to Jesus. If Jesus is the Almighty God who is to be given latreuo service, it seems reasonable that he would have said “You shall worship me your Lord God, and serve me only.” But Jesus said nothing of the kind.

You likened the relationship between God and Jesus to the marriage union of a husband and wife. And you added:

(As I said, it is not an exact illustration, because the husband and wife are two different beings, while the Trinity Doctrine teaches that The Father, Son, and Spirit are One Being.)

Then how is the union of a man and a woman in any way similar to the Trinity or a portion thereof? You admit that a man and a woman are each separate “beings,” but the Trinity doctrine unscripturally denies that God and Jesus are individual “beings.” The Trinity is so incomprehensible and unreasonable that there is absolutely nothing that the human mind can compare to it. So why bother trying to use an illustration of any kind?

You wrote:
the Trinity Doctrine teaches that The Father, Son, and Spirit are One Being.

Yes, that is what the Trinity Doctrine teaches, but the Bible does not teach that anywhere.

You wrote:

So, all people and angels should worship and honor them EQUALLY. This belief is called "Functional Subordinationism." I believe this, I DO NOT believe in "Subordinationism," only "FUNCTIONAL Subordinationism."

And why should such theoretical terminology be of any value to a Christian? Can you imagine Jesus or the apostles using such terms? The Bible as I read it is very straightforward and easy to understand. Trinitarians have chosen to spice it up with mysticism and what to my mind resembles witchcraft. Teachers who use terms that would be totally unfamiliar to the apostles and other early Christians strike me as being akin to skilled magicians rather than students led by the Holy Spirit.

You wrote:

Also, if you want a better understanding of what I believe about Jesus, check out this thread where I posted the 12 main things that I believe about Jesus Christ:

Really, Undisf’d, what would be the point of my taking the time to study what comes from your mind instead of what comes from the Scriptures? Nearly all my life I’ve engaged in discussions with Trinitarians and Anti-trinitarians, and I’m quite aware of how Trinitarians think. And I’m disappointed that Trinitarians generally ignore the main thrust of Scripture and conveniently make a big deal out of a passage here or there that seems to fit their agenda.

Thousands of times and for thousands of years, for example, God spoke of himself in terms of “I” and “me” and “myself” and “my” and “mine.” His worshipers spoke of him with the words “he” and “his” and "him" and “himself.” It amazes me that Trinitarians choose to blind themselves to that fact. As I see it, every one of those thousands of times where God says “I” or “me” he is testifying against the Trinity doctrine. Where are the thousands of hints that God is a Trinity?

The Trinity doctrine is forced and unnatural. It is incomprehensible and unexplainable, and yet many of its converts insist we must believe it in order to gain salvation.

But it gets worse. The Trinity doctrine blasphemes Almighty God. The Bible describes God, for example, as all-knowing and all-wise, but Trinitarians say their God-man had to “learn obedience.” How that teaching must cause both God and Jesus to wince every time they hear it! I could give other examples, but this entry is much too long already.

You wrote:

If Jesus taught His disciples that He was a creation of God, or just "a god," and He did not teach them that He was God Almighty, then why would Jesus have ever needed to tell them that "The Father is greater than I am," since that would have been extremely obvious if Jesus was only a man or an angel?

This is the sort of question that long ago caused me to realize that Trinitarians are grasping at straws.

Jesus is not “a god” as Jehovah’s Witnesses claim. God said concerning an angel, "Be on your guard before him and obey his voice; do not be rebellious toward him, for he will not pardon your transgression, since my name is in him." (Ex. 23:21) Then he said to Moses concerning the coming of Jesus into the world, "I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. It shall come about that whoever will not listen to my words which he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him." (Deut. 18:18, 19) And that is why Jesus could say, "I have come in my Father's name, and you do not receive me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him." (John 5:43) The angel was not Almighty God and neither is Jesus. But both spoke in God's name because each was the one person empowered by God to speak and act for God. As God by appointment, Jesus wields all the authority that God has allowed him to have. He did not always have that appointment. There was a time when he became God-by-proxy, just as there was a time when he became Lord-by-proxy: "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ--this Jesus whom you crucified." (Acts 2:36) "He is the one whom God exalted to his right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins." (Acts 5:31)
The context indicates that Jesus said “The Father is greater than I am” because the apostles were troubled and depressed. (John 14:1) Jesus said he was going away, and they imagined themselves being left behind “as orphans.” (verse 18) If the apostles had made more progress in love for their Master, they would not have been so filled with anxious fears. That is why Jesus said, “Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful. You heard that I said to you, `I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. Now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe." (verses 27-29)
The apostles had been concentrating too much on themselves. Had they loved Jesus sufficiently, they would have realized that his going away was a good thing, especially for him. His going away would give the appearance of weakness and submission to his enemies, but that is only if his Father is left out of the picture. Because the Father is greater, Jesus has no fear, and they should not fear either. That is basically what he was driving at when he told them “The Father is greater than I am.”
It is incorrect to suggest as you do that Jesus taught the apostles “that he was God Almighty.” There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus did any such thing.

Frank