Jesus is not God in the Gospel of Mark

I am proposing that Jesus is not God in the Gospel of Mark. Of course, Jesus is viewed as the Messiah, or Christ, and in that sense sent by God, but he is not viewed as himself Divine, though he can perform magic and miracles just as other prophets of God were able to do throughout the Tanakh. Moses could part the Sea of Reeds, but he was not God. Just to clarify once again, I am saying that the author of Mark does not think Jesus and God are one in the same.REBUTTALYou say the fact that "Mark wanted to emphasise other things other than Christ's birth" tells us "nothing about Christ's divinity," but that it most certainly does. The miraculous birth of Jesus has everything to do with the divinity of Jesus. The fact of Mark not including it is evidence that Mark did not think that Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit, and hence that Jesus is God. I should have been more clear about instances of the use of the title "Son of God" in the gospel. There are more than two instances of its use, but only two in which the words are spoken by God. The other instances are spoken by the impure spirits, demons, and the centurion. Again, the title "Son of God" is a general expression used of individuals beloved of God. So, you cite 3:11, 5:6, 15:39. These do not imply that Jesus is divine. Mark 1:1 I've already demonstrated not to be original. Jesus is called "Christ," meaning Messiah, which I do not dispute, in 1:11 and 8:27-30. The Messiah was not equal to God.Next, you cite Mark 2:28: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." Bart Ehrman has pointed out that, in Aramaic, Jesus used the same word, barnash, for "man" and "Son of Man," so the passage is merely saying that the sabbath is for man, not man for the sabbath, so man is the lord of the sabbath.Mark 8:38 does not establish the divinity of Jesus, as God might well be ashamed of the person who is ashamed of his Messiah.The conversation with the High Priest in Mark 14 demonstrates only Jesus' divine favour, not his co-regency with God. The Messiah might easily come on the clouds of Heaven, without actually being God himself. Next, Jesus could forgive sins in the name of God, and the Messiah, as I have said, might be able to perform miracles but not himself be part of the Godhead.The singular title son of God is used in Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:12. The fact that this title is used throughout the Old Testament demonstrates its ubiquity. It has no theological overtones in the sense that it does not imply the divinity of the person or persons called son or sons of God. This would be anathema to Jews, including Jesus. The title "Son of God" does not mean equivalent to God. I don't need to provide references for this as it is universally acknowledged by all scholars, including the conservative Catholic Church. The title "signifies an adoptive sonship that establishes a relationship of particular intimacy between God and his creature," according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (http://www.vatican.va...).Lastly, the metaphorical term "Father" is used by Jews to refer to God without peculiar connotations of their being one substance with the Lord of Creation. It is used, for example, in Isaiah 63:16. So, the titles used of Jesus in Mark do not signify his divinity, nor does his being recognised as the Jewish Messiah, nor does his use of magic and miracles, and finally, nor does his intimate relationship with God.