What you need to demonstrate Andrew is that this is how the apostles read the OT. It is not enough to show that this is Judaism read it. By the way, you have not actually demonstrated that latter now that I think about it.
You use the term quite a lot, but you have yet to provide some canons or rules around its use. What I am looking for is a clear definition of the method, its rules, and some examples of use from the Scriptures. In addition, I would like you to demonstrate the application of these rules to a text that has been understood by orthodoxy to affirm Christ’s divinity and show how your method reasonably arrives at the opposite conclusion.
Until you can provide more clarity around what you are doing with the text, we will continue to talk past one another. The question is not this text or that text. The heartbeat of the issue is your method and its legitimacy. Will it stand up under the scrutiny of reason and evidence? Is it consistent? What happens if we apply it to other historical documents?
I am sure you are quite familiar with the grammatico-historical method of reading the text. It demands we let the text speak for itself. It recognizes the many different genres of the text. It affirms that communication between God and man is possible. I am also quite sure you are familiar with rules of exegesis. Textual critical issues, translating the passage (must know the langauges of course), setting the limits of the text in question, genre, literary devices, etc, etc. What I am asking for from you Andrew is the setting forth of your method with profound clarity and then a reasoned apologetic for why we should adopt it as our predominant interpretive paradigm.