If you sincerely mistake Scriptural phrases like “Daughter Zion” or “Lady Ecclesia” as demigoddess titles -— that is, if you’re not just snarking -— I have to wonder how much of the OT and NT is truly Terra Incognita to you.
(I’m not saying this to belittle you. I’m sure you know a great deal. There’s so much depth in Scripture, and I’d be the first to admit my limitations before so vast a horizon.)
The problem with your reasoning is the Roman Catholic begins to "read into" the text things that aren't there.
The emphasis on Mary in Roman Catholicism has turned her into a demi-goddess....complete with idols and prayers and exalted titles as I've demonstrated previously.
That’s what the non- messianic Jews say about Christian OT exegesis: in every instance, they say we’re reading into the Tanakh text “things that aren’t there.”
They say this because they don’t believe that Jesus Christ is the Incarnate Son of God, the Messiah of Israel, the Redeemer of the World. Thus everything in our Scripture scholarship strikes them as flagrant Christian eisegesis. I think you must have run into this if you have had dialogs with religiously observant Jews.
Just as “a certain sort of Jew” is utterly uninterested in, or skeptical of, any Christological content in the Tanakh, so “a certain kind of Protestant” has exactly the same attitude toward the Marian content of the OT.
I think it shows a thinness in understanding of the Incarnation. This is true of all if us, of course — Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant -— because the implications of the Incarnation are so vast. I feel I’ve swum in and grabbed into a bit of coastal rock and just realized it was the edge of a continent.
I would invite you to take a break from your skepticism for a bit, and actually look into it.
To me, it is a source of joy in God my Savior.