It would appear that the difference between your view and the Trinitarian view all hinges on the use of the "person" metaphor. We all agree that Jesus was God in the Flesh and the Holy Spirit is referenced numerous places as the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ.

So nobody is disagreeing on anything here except whether the use of "person" is appropriate when attempting to understand the nature of God. That One God manifests Himself to us in a way where communication seems to take place between "instances?" that can simultaneously act in ways that we would naturally (through a glass darkly) think of as "persons." Consider corporate law where several "persons" can act as one "person" in infinite recursion. "Person" is not so narrow a term as to become heresy when applied to the One God in three ways.

So, we might do well to have a conversation about what is the best working model, metaphor or English words to describe how God interacts with us and Himself as "instances" of Himself that are able to say things like "the Father is greater than I" and "I do what I see my Father doing" and "I have prayed to the Father."

But this does not merit cries of "heretic!" or "damnable infidel!" or "thou fool!". Indeed, Jesus used no such harsh language with His disciples when they were wrestling with understanding Who He Is. I'm reminded of Paul's admonition in Romans 14 not to tear apart Christ's church over "disputable matters". People who attempt to describe God as acting like He is simultaneously three persons might be likened as "weak brothers" while you who may have crafted a slightly better description of this mystery might charitably qualify as a "strong brother". That does not justify bitter name calling.

"Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth . Yea, he shall be holden up : for God is able to make him stand."