You assert that the love and allegiance Jesus demands, the exclusivity of his claims and the promises of life to those who put their trust in him could only be made by him if he was God.

These are limitations which you place on the role of Jesus. I’m not so sure that the Bible does. Instead, as the ‘shaliach’ of the Father he has plenipotentiary power. To deal with God’s agent is to deal with God.

Surely this functional way of interpreting Jesus’ role is far more consistent with the sum of scripture than the ontological one, since it violates neither the oneness of God nor the complete humanity of Jesus.

What do you reckon to Revelation 22:3?

Good question. The verse mentions both God and the lamb. Yet only one is worshipped (latreusousin auto). I would suggest that, in harmony with its consistent use in every other place, it applies to God in this case as well.

 I don’t see how this view is compatible with the fact that the Holy Spirit listens to God the Father (John 16:13) and talks to God the Father (Romans 8:27). Spirit, word and wisdom were all subject to personification in Jewish literature. In Proverbs 8 ‘Lady Wisdom’ stands, cries out, has a mouth and lips, etc. She even seems to share a flat with someone called Prudence (Proverbs 8:12). 

Jesus has left behind the paraclete to continue his work while he is ‘away’, so it makes sense to employ personal language in describing the spirit by which he continues the work he did whilst personally present.

 If not, how would you account for the vast majority of cases in which the spirit is referred to impersonally?