I get the distinct impression we are going in circles. But, again, it's that you consistently disregard information pertinent to this debate that viewpoints besides your own would bring us. Two give one example from each of the two topics, you've never acknowledged: A. The wide gulf between the treatment and description of angels, and that of God. It's pretty huge, and much broader than that typically (or arguably, at all) seen between two gods in a pantheon. Which tends to suggest that monotheists may have a different conception of what constitutes a "god" than whatever definition you're using. Or, in the other case B. The way Jesus fits much more neatly into the long Jewish tradition of exceptional birth circumstances for important figures. Whereas there really isn't much in the way of parallels to demigod traditions. Since the rest of the points are in thread, repeatedly, you can go back and read them. The only way these sort of points would be irrelevant is if you had judged that, for instance, a Jewish definition of what constitutes a god is not meaningful, and that we are instead only obligated to assess the question using your preferred definition. It's an assertion that your cultural understanding is superior to others.