Fascinating discussion!

Theocrat wrote:
In John 17:3, Jesus clearly sets himself in contrast to ‘the only one who is truly God’, the Father.

I agree that grammatically Jesus differentiates himself here from ‘the only one who is truly God’. But looking at the overall implications of Jesus’ statement, I see it as a startling claim that no created being could properly make. I can’t imagine the archangel Gabriel saying: “Eternal life consists of knowing me and knowing God.”

Jesus expected his followers to love him so intensely that their love for self and others would seem like hatred in comparison (Luke 14:26). Would the one true God tolerate being eclipsed in honour by his created Son?

Jesus did not merely show people how to live (which is what a prophet would do) but he called people to devote themselves to him and to give him their ultimate allegiance (Matthew 10:39).

Jesus claimed to be the only means whereby a man can find God. A mere prophet may claim to be a signpost to God but never to be the only way (John 14:6).

Jesus claimed to be the only thing which will truly satisfy a man’s soul (John 6:35). No true prophet would make such blasphemous claims.

Jesus invited people to depend on him for peace, rest, joy, strength, and everything else needed to cope with life (Matthew 11:28, John 14:1). Could a mere creature fulfil that role?

The message of the prophets such as Moses, Elijah, and Isaiah was: “Come to God. Follow God. Obey God.” But Jesus’ message was thoroughly egocentric: “Come to me. Follow me. Obey me.”

Jesus spoke of himself and God together as “we” and “our” (John 14:23). Which creature would ever dare to that?

Theocrat wrote:
The only word translated ‘worship’ as applied to Jesus is, in the original Greek, proskuneo … Yet this is not the worship given to God alone. For that, the word lautreo is reserved. This is never used of Jesus.

What about Revelation 22:3?

Theocrat wrote:
Strictly speaking, the spirit of God would appear to be his operational presence, as opposed to another person in the godhead …
Furthermore, it would seem to connote the ‘inner life’ of God, often being used synonymously with his thought and by extension, his expressed word. Of course, the same could be said of our human spirits. They too can be vexed, grieved etc. without being another person ‘subsisting’ within our ‘essence’. It may even be that ‘spirit’ is not an ontological category at all but instead, a metaphor.

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).