Thank you, Theocrat, for your thought-provoking points. But I still have some hurdles to get over before I can accept that Jesus is ontologically in a lower class than God the Father.

You say Jesus is the shaliach of God the Father, and that to deal with God’s agent is to deal with God. But wouldn’t that result in Scripture speaking about either God performing a function through Jesus or Jesus performing a function on behalf of God, but not both performing the same function as equal subjects? For example, see John 14:1; John 17:3; Eph. 1:2; Eph. 5:5; 1 Thess. 3:11; 2 Thess. 2:16-17; Rev. 5:13; Rev. 6:16; et al.

Ephesians 1:2 says: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

If your view of Jesus is correct, I would expect Paul to have said:

“Grace to you and peace from God our Father.”
or
“Grace to you and peace from God our Father through the Lord Jesus Christ.”
or
“Grace to you and peace from the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the channel of God’s grace & peace to the world.”

Regarding Revelation 22:3, you state that only one is worshipped and you quote the Greek latreusousin auto. I don’t know Greek but I assume auto means ‘him’ (singular). Since the Lamb was the last named person, isn’t it grammatically more likely that either auto refers to the Lamb, or alternatively that God and the Lamb are ontologically one?

I accept your point that spirit, word and wisdom were all subject to personification in Jewish literature, which may explain references to the Holy Spirit being grieved or making a decision. But I don’t think that explanation holds water in the case of John 16:13 or Romans 8:27 where the Holy Spirit is distinguished from God the Father. I can understand the concept of a lady called Wisdom standing on a street corner preaching to passers-by, but I can’t understand the concept of a personification of God’s power/energy speaking to God himself as in Romans 8:27, or vice versa as in John 16:13.

There are also several Scriptures in which the Holy Spirit is distinguished from the power of God. But if the Holy Spirit is only a name of God’s influences and energies upon the souls of men, then it would be substantially correct to use the general word ‘power’ to represent the idea of the Holy Spirit. But this would lead to the following farcical conclusions:

And Jesus returned in the power of the power to Galilee. Luke 4:14

God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the power and with power. Acts 10:38

May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the power you may abound in hope. Romans 15:13

… by word and deed, by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the power of God—so that from Jerusalem and all the way around to Illyricum I have fulfilled the ministry of the gospel of Christ. Romans 15:18-19

My speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the power and of power. 1 Corinthians 2:4

I am sorry I was not able to consider your final question about how I would account for the vast majority of cases in which the spirit is referred to impersonally. I am not sure which places you are referring to. Could you give some examples please? Thanks.