Here are links to three interesting posts related to New Testament Christology. In each case, the evidence suggests that the New Testament authors in question did not identify Jesus as identical to, part of, or “included in the divine identity” of the one God of Jewish monotheism.
First, Andrew Perriman made the case that Hebrews does not depict Jesus as “the builder of the house” and thus God in Hebrews 3:3-4.
Second, Chris Tilling quoted N. T. Wright on the language in Romans 1:4, which suggests that Jesus was “appointed son of God with power” through the resurrection. Wright makes the case that the word used must indicate a mere revealing of a status Jesus already had. And in one sense, this may be correct. Paul uses the Aramaic word abba, indicating his familiarity with Jesus’ use of the word. And so Paul could not be suggesting that Jesus was appointed as son of God for the first time through the resurrection. But we must also take seriously the language Paul uses elsewhere, indicating that, after the crucifixion, God “super-exalted” Jesus and bestowed upon him the divine name (Philippians 2:6-11). And so it is best to understand Romans 1:4 to be indicating that Jesus, one who had a relationship of obedient sonship to God even earlier, is appointed to an exalted status, much like one might expect in a case of human sonship when the heir comes of age. And so the language in Romans 1:4, whether it is a traditional creedal statement or not, fits the exaltationist Christology that Paul articulates elsewhere.