That's better. Now we are addressing some of the real issues.

The gospels do have some things in common. I'll be writing this mainly from memory, so may need to ask you for some references in order to clarify.

On the question of divine origin, is that true of Mark? There is no virgin birth there. Nor is this mentioned in John which is considered the gospel where Jesus is at his most divine. You would have thought this would have been mentioned if John believed it. Paul says that Jesus was descended from King David, and insists “according to the flesh”. What do you make of that?

Two of the Gospels give his genealogy, but they are different, so presumably at least one is inaccurate.

The Quran may say that Jesus was born of a virgin, but Islam is nevertheless insistent that he was merely a prophet, not the son of God, as Christianity claims.

You say that Jesus did what no other human being has ever done before or since. That may be true of some of your examples (if they indeed happened), but not casting out demons, since exorcism is still performed by priests in modern times, as indeed is faith healing, which is apparently what Jesus was capable of.

You quote the gospel of John, as if it is historically accurate. This of course raises the problem of what scholars call the Synoptic question. Why is John so different from the other three? Can we rely upon it?

Being 'holy' does not automatically mean that he was the son of God. There have been all sorts of holy men down the ages, the saints of the Church, and various gurus, most notably in the Hindu tradition. It is not necessary to be the son of God in order to understand difficult doctrines.