All of that is well argued, but looking at most of them, you have to take a less obvious interpretation to come to your conclusions.

You didn't address the clearest claim and the explicit accusation and interpretation made by His opponents.

John 10:32-38 "Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.”

In this passage the Jewish leaders clearly interpret Jesus's claims as claiming He is God.  Jesus does not deny this accusation.  He makes additional claims of being the Son of God, the Father in Me, and I in the Father.  If He was not claiming to be God, He would've denied the accusation instead of making other claims that sound like a claim to God (even if you could argue in some way that He could mean something else).  In this context, it would make zero sense to make these statements when He is accused of blasphemy and claiming to be God.  If He is not God, He should immediately make that clear, otherwise He is misleading the Jewish leaders which He would not do.