In none of your many quotes did Jesus claim to be God Himself.
Kevmo: "The concept of Jesus as divine existed within at least 10 to 20 years of his crucifixion, and therefore likely to have been asserted by Jesus himself."
There has been no debate here about Jesus divinity or deity.
The question is whether Jesus claimed to be God Himself, or some "person" in a Triune Godhead.
The clear and obvious answer is: no, never.
Kevmo: "The claims of Jesus to be God make sense of his trial and crucifixion i.e. blasphemy."
First, "blasphemy" did not require Jesus to claim he was God Himself.
Second, from all the texts, it's not obvious what Jesus said, or how the Sanhedrin interpreted his words.
Third, what is obvious from all contexts is that it didn't matter what Jesus actually said, because they were "out to get him."
Kevmo: "The early enemies of Christ would have declared that Jesus never made such claim."
In fact, Arians considered themselves to be loyal Christians, not "enemies of Christ", and they did not believe Jesus ever made such a claim.
Kevmo: "A parallel movement, that claimed Jesus as merely a good teacher, would have emerged alongside Christianity."
At lest three certainly did: Adoptionism, Apollinarism and Arianism.
Included were certainly all the early Jewish followers of Christ.
All these movements were ruthlessly murdered & exterminated under the Roman Empire's new state religion: orthodox Christianity.
Kevmo: "Additional claims to be God:"
Every one of those proof-texts can be, and have been, interpreted in ways that do not justify the full Trinitarian orthodoxy.
I'm not even saying that one interpretation is necessarily wrong or right.
I am saying that those who accepted a "non-orthodox" interpretation deserved better treatment than they received under the Roman Empire's new state religion: Orthodox Christianity.
Most important point here: that's why our Founding Fathers' first clause of their First Amendment says:
Oh really??? Tell that to the Sanhedrin: They were really worried about this guy....
He was an existential threat to their own power and authority, which was increasingly dubious under the Roman occupation in the first place.
In the end, they persuaded Pontius Pilate to accept a "mutually-beneficial" political accommodation, wherein the rabble would be coached to free the thief Barrabas instead of Jesus. Thus both the Sanhedrin and Rome could "save face."
The clear and obvious answer is: no, never.
***Here you are flat wrong, and so flatly wrong that your responses qualify as heresy. T4BTT