What slimboy seems resistant to is the idea that the second power theology, to use as a shorthand label, included concepts like "Glory" and "presence/ Shekinah of God. There is no actual second person intended but a word/title served as agency in human and earthly affairs. It/he/she was a stand-in for God.
Some terms were used as a way of speaking of the activity of God himself. This is true of the holy spirit, for example. The point is that when Wisdom, or God’s glory, or the Logos did become a person in the tradition, then in Judaism and in early Christianity that person is consistently distinct and subordinate to God - as God’s first creation, the archangel, the principal angel, Michael, servant, and so on. This is the case in gospel of John where the Logos becomes flesh, (1.14) and that person is the servant of God who does God’s will, not his own, describing his Father as “the only true God”. (John 17.3) Only in the fourth century was the ‘second god’ put on a level with God himself by Christians who moved beyond the early teaching about Jesus, thus overturning the earlier teaching. When Jesus was defending his own divine sonship, in John chapter 10, the justification he pointed to was a text in the Psalms which shows that beings other than God can be described as divine. James McGrath has this to say about the context and implications of the argument in that passage:
Thus far in this book, I have compared the Gospel of John with other non-Christian Jewish texts from around the same time. It would perhaps be instructive to compare that Gospel to later Jewish–Christian texts as well. Many sources bear witness to the continued existence of groups such as the Ebionites, which retained their Jewish identity and were largely regarded as heretical by the now predominantly Gentle church. One reason they were able to retain their identity as Jewish Christians was precisely because their Christology remained subordinationist. How do these later Jewish-Christian texts compare to John's depiction of Jesus? First, under the present heading, we note the explanation that one such source, the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions (2:42), gives regarding the wider use of the title "God": "Therefore the name God is applied in three ways: either because he to whom it is given is truly God, or because he is the servant of him who is truly; and for the honor of the sender, that his authority may be full, he that is sent is called by the name of him who sends." In John 10, when Jesus is depicted as defending himself against the accusation of making himself God, it is to the wider use of the designation "gods" that appeal is made. This argument in John must surely be allowed to inform our interpretation of what "God" means in reference to Christ in 20:28. Like later Jewish Christians, the author as the Fourth Gospel can call Jesus “God” and yet still refer to the Father as "the only true God" (17:3). In many respects, the language of these later Jewish-Christian writings resembles that of the Gospel of John more closely than that of any other New Testament writing. To quote Recognitions 2:48, these later Jewish Christians believed that "the Son... has been with the Father from the beginning, through all generations." The group that produced this literature remained alienated from mainstream Judaism because of their belief that Jesus was the Messiah, but their allegiance to only one God was not questioned as far as can be ascertained. They were regarded as heretical by other Christians, however, because of their attempt to preserve their own Jewish identity and because they remained emphatically subordinationist and monotheistic in their Christology rather than assenting to the doctrine of the Trinity as defined by the Council of Nicaea. Within a Jewish-Christian context even in later centuries, then, it was possible to maintain one's allegiance to the one true God and at the same time use language very similar to that found in the Gospel of John. The evidence surveyed in this chapter suggests that this may have been equally true, if not indeed more so, in the time when this Gospel was written.
James McGrath, The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in Its Jewish Context (2009), pages67 and 68.