I agree with you that the Jews believed that a representative sent by someone should be honored like (but NOT necessarily to the same degree) you would treat the person who sent the representative. Jesus Christ Himself taught this:
Reply: You wrote a lot, much of which I do not care to read thru (sorry too much work:>)), but your point is understood. Just a couple observation from me:
1.) "Like", "Just as" I think you are making an issue here that does not exist. It is the authority we are to "honor" (not worship) like the Father "to the same degree", it is not a nature discussion in John ch. 5. "Worship" does not exist here, at least from the context of this verse. I truly believe if you read this outside of Trinitarian a priori assumption you will see this. I Your point becomes increasingly strained when we realize there are varying degress of "proskyneo" (greek for worship) that can be rightfully applied to God's agents. (1 Chron. 29:20)
2.)I have no problem seeing "equality" in John 5:18-9 (if that is the correct understanding, it is debate-able and I leave room for both possibilities) but the equality would clearly be in a legal sense given the context, not an ontological one. Read Jesus' response in vs 19:
Then answered Jesus, and said to them, Verily, verily, I say to you, The Son can do nothing by himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for whatever things he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
If we take this as having anything other than legality (ie not nature) in view you have an inconsistent exegesis of this chapter, in which you must switch between the supposed divine and human natures of Jesus. For instance, vs. 18 would apply to his divine, vs 19 to his human, 23- divine, 26-human etc..etc..
Agents, even of God, are legally equivalent to God . The angel in Exodus 23:20-21 even had YHWHs name within him, so for legal purpses he was YHWH..