It's not a matter of "giving up".
The problem is more fundamental than that.
You've given a bunch of quotes from the Bible, and you will no doubt give more. You truly, sincerely believe that these quotes build, one upon the other, to prove the argument you are making. I know them too, and I think they are saying something that is quite different. Now, I could take them, one at a time, and tell you what I think they are saying. It is not what you think they mean.
I have hesitated to do this for two reasons.
The one is that I don't like to bicker, and whoever is in second position in any such discussion appears to be bickering. The one who first advances an idea in a discussion presumptively occupies that ground unless he is removed from it by superior logic. All else being equal, the way the human mind works says that a draw goes to the first to occupy the field. In this case, because you have given the quotes first, and since I am morally certain that you will not change your views a jot or a tittle no matter what I write, what will end up happening is that you will have presented your faith robustly in quotes, and I will to all appearances be picking at your faith rather than frankly discussing my own. My own faith does not repose primarily on the Bible. Rather, were I the first mover in the conversation, I would state my faith and then show how the Bible corroborates it. That is a different thing than what you do. I don't want to bicker, so I am very hesitant to do a line-by-line response to the passages you have cited.
The second reason I hesitate is that, although I think that some of your beliefs are in error, those errors are not fatal to the overall good of believing as you do. You are a faithful Christian, whom (I presume) for the most part practices what he preaches. That is the important thing. The individual details of what you think about this passage or that of the Bible or similar traditions doesn't matter much in the overall scheme of things. What matters is the core of the faith and what you do with it. You've got that. So what I would be doing would, again, be bickering with you about details of how you believe what it is you believe. How does this help you on your spiritual quest? There is a danger, too. Your faith is so heavily rooted in the Bible, that if I push too hard, I might cause some cognitive dissonance in you as different parts of the Bible are shown to conflict. This doesn't bother me in the slightest because, as I've said, the Bible is merely an adjunct to my faith but not the source of it. The Bible is the source of your faith. For me to answer you line by line would be to subtly chop at the Bible. What would that serve? If I fail to convince you -which I am almost certain to do, we will have striven and become divided, to no good purpose. Christians have been fighting Christians over this sort of trivialities for centuries, and it has never done Christians any good. Were I to succeed, I doubt that you would come to see things from my own perspective. Rather, I would have just put cracks in the foundation of the basis of your Christianity. And that would simply be a bad thing, with no concomitant benefit.
Finally, there is a degree of laziness here. I know how much work it will take to go through the fully analysis of the passages you've written. I already know that the outcome won't convince you of anything. You are not going to become a Catholic, I am not going to become a Baptist. It seems like a great effort at strife to no good purpose.
Of course I am TEMPTED to respond, line for line, tack for tack, and to take each line and tell you PRECISELY what it means (and what it DOESN'T mean), to pitch over your applecart, tear up your arguments by the roots and leave the to dry out in the sun while I dance a victory dance.
I recognize this temptation for what it is: the sin of vainglory, the subtle temptation of the Devil to pick a public fight with a fellow Christian in order to exult in the WIN. I don't like to give the Devil an easy win.
So, I am at a loss as to what to do.
Perhaps I will take one line you cited, the first, from Romans: "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse"
What Paul is saying here is obvious: by looking straight at nature itself - the things that are made by God directly - that there is a divine law is self-evidently obvious, and that nature itself, without anything else, proves God. Therefore, given the obviousness of God, nobody has any excuse to deny God. This, I think, is true. Any natural scientist who thinks at all about the grander scope of what he sees becomes a theist. Indeed, he has to erect barriers of denial and obfuscation in order to avoid it.
However, what IS NOT "clearly seen" is the specific truth of the Christian story: that a man once lived who was God incarnate, who walked the earth, spoke the Truth about God, was killed, resurrected and saves souls unto Heaven, where he reposes. Jesus is not seen. The Resurrection is not seen. Heaven and Hell are not seen, except by a very few, and everyone else has to take THEIR word for it, including those accounts written down in the Bible. Most people don't have private revelations in order to be able to verify these unseen things for themselves.
The passage tells us the truth: God gives us eyes to see for ourselves the functioning of His laws in the majesty of his natural creation. That part is so obvious that nobody has any excuse for not acknowledging that there is some sort of Master Law, which is to say God.
But the identity of Jesus with God is not seen by looking at the stars, the sees and the rest of nature. For that knowledge, we have to rely on private revelation from God to us personally, and to the testimony of others who have seen things and revelations that we have not.
It does not take anything for us to trust our eyes: we all do automatically. And our eyes alone prove the God of Nature.
But for those who have not experienced a direct private revelation, to believe anything about Christ is not seen. That requires us to not trust our eyes, which God gave us and which don't lie, but to trust other people, whom we know (from our eyes) DO sometimes lie, or sometimes are sincere but mistaken.
You used Romans 1:20 as the foundation of an argument that Jesus is obviously God. But actually, what it says literally is that by looking at nature we see that there is some sort of God, we see the Godhead, and so there is no excuse to deny the existence of God. This does not say that looking at nature and knowing there is God makes it inexcusable to doubt the identity of Jesus of Nazareth with God. It doesn't say that, and looking at stars and trees do not actually DO that. You look at the heavens and you know there's God. That's what this passage refers to. But you don't know, from looking at the stars and knowing there's God, that you know that God's name is Jesus. That knowledge comes from elsewhere, and this passage from Romans is not a foundation for building the argument that Muslims go to Hell because they don't believe in Jesus.
Quite the opposite!
Muslims have a crescent moon on their banners. They look at the heavens, and are certain of God, and depict one of God's handiworks on their banners. They are following Romans 1:10 here and doing what Paul said: looking at God's handiwork and, from that alone, knowing that there's God. So, they MEET the standards of Romans 1:10. You would argue they don't, but that is because you are incorrectly reading Jesus into that line. It's not about Jesus, it's about seeing the obviousness of God in nature.
God has used individuals to share the Gospel with other individuals since John the Baptist began announcing Jesus Christ to the world.
Here is an event in my life that speaks volumes about how we are responsible as individuals to seek God's face:
I was chosen as a juror on a trial of Bank Robbery. The defendant was caught on video, had eyewitnesses testify he was the man, was captured with the same windbreaker he wore into the bank, had the marked bills in his trunk and had been prosecuted and convicted of bank robbery in the past. The defense attorney attempted to take each individual piece of evidence and demonstrate how it didn't prove guilt. By separating the data, confusion as to what a threshold of reasonable doubt is became an issue for some on our jury.
One of the jurors felt she could not overcome her understanding of "beyond a reasonable doubt", because she had not actually witnessed the Bank Robbery as it happened. After a couple of fruitless hours of trying to persuade the one dissenter, I presented the evidence one piece after another. We convicted based on the linking together of data which eliminated the doubt which had been placed there by the defense attorney.
God has gone to great lengths to inspire and preserve His Word. He has kept the enemy from perverting the text in a multitude of ways (extremely careful scribal practices, clay jars in dry caves, the faithfulness of devote monks, the invention of the printing press, the desire for those who wished to study the Word in their native tongue...). Through a vision He converted a future Emperor to make it legal to gather and study the Word as the Apostles demonstrated was right to do. He has motivated believers to disseminate Bibles in every language throughout the world. He has given faith to those who would travel to dangerous lands and plant churches amongst pagan witch doctors. He has commissioned us to step up to the cells containing those who are still slaves to sin, and present the pardon that is "beyond a reasonable doubt". Jesus Christ and Him Crucified, fulfilling the righteous requirement as a Kinsman Redeemer, to release His brethren from captivity. Love and Justice exhibited on a Cross in Judea 2,000 years ago!
I pray that your relationship with the Lord continues to grow in dependence on Jesus Christ.
God Bless you.