It depends on what is your understanding of who Jesus is. In Gen 17:1 the preincarnate Jesus appears before Abram to tell him "I am the Almighty God."
Also, throughout scripture are many references to God as the Alpha and the Omega. Jesus describes himself as the Alpha and the Omega.
He also makes many, many references during his time on earth as the son of God, and praying and speaking of God as his father.
He also refers to himself as the "I Am," a reference that all Jews recognized as the historical name of God.
There were 800 prophecies in the Old Testament of the coming Messiah. He excoriates the pharisees for not recognizing that it is he they should have recognized as fulfilling that prophecy.
The divinity of Christ is not at all hard to illustrate.
Gen 17 obviously doesn't say it is Jesus, and seeing as how Jesus lived several hundred years after Gen was written I don't find those types of arguments convincing. For me you have to shoehorn those beliefs into the text as I don't think the text nor the culture surrounding the text in any way implies it.
I use the "historical" Jesus to distinguish between the Jesus of the modern Bible and the physical man running around first century Galilee that the Bible is based on. I fully agree that if we take the modern Bible and read it at face value (understanding the cultural context etc.) we can walk away saying Jesus preached that he was God as seen in the Gospel of John; the Gospel of John makes it very clear time and time again that Jesus is God - "I Am", "the Father and I are One", "those who have seen Me have seen the Father", and so on. But, I don't think the historical Jesus ever said any of those things.
The earliest gospel we have is Mark. I haven't read through the gospels in years, but what I hear from NT scholars is that Jesus never claims to be God in Mark. And that that is true of Matthew and Luke. Only when you get to the last gospel to be written, which is John somewhere between 90 to 110 AD (some 60+ years after the crucifixion), do we get these explicit words from Jesus claiming to be God. I find it hard to believe that if Jesus actually went around saying "I am God" everywhere that the gospels would omit that part with the exception of the last and most poetic of the gospels. Each of the four gospels were written by different people without the idea that their writings would be merged into the same book, and I think it is a mistake to read one gospel and implant what it says into another gospel eventually combining all the gospels into one huge historical documentary of Jesus' life.
To back up a little bit the writings of Paul predate any of the gospels. And while Paul certainly saw Jesus as God, I have found Philippians 2:5-11 most intriguing. According to Paul before Jesus came to Earth as a human he was "in the form of God, but did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of [man]..... [and died on the cross]. For this reason, God highly exalted him, and bestowed on him the name which is above every name..... every knee will bow".
What's interesting is that it appears Paul's view of Jesus is that Jesus was an angel in Heaven (in the form of God but not God; an angel), and after dying on the cross God exalted him to God, with "every knee will bow" an allusion to Isaiah where such a name is only given to God Yahweh. It doesn't make any sense for God to exalt himself to God; God is already God so there is no where left for God to be exalted to, and exalting yourself to the same position you already hold is nonsensical, and as we know Paul was highly intelligent and highly educated. So it would seem that according to Paul when Jesus walked on Earth (before the crucifixion) he was not God Yahweh incarnate. I would think if Jesus went around saying "I am God" Paul would be aware of this and not entertain this exaltation idea of Jesus to God post-crucifixion. After all Paul talked with Jesus' top disciple Peter, and Jesus' brother James.
Back to the gospels. Mark does not have a birth story for Jesus as Mark starts out with John the Baptist baptizing Jesus, and we don't see any mention of a virgin birth from Paul's writings. My understanding is that Matthew and Luke, being written after Mark, wanted to emphasize Jesus' divinity and so made up the virgin birth story. I think the virgin birth story is easily refuted from a historical perspective; there is simply no record whatsoever of Rome having some sort of tax or census which required people to travel to their ancestral home from a thousand years ago. Plus the whole idea is nonsensical; if you want to do some tax or census you want to know what your current demographics are, not some weird combination of today and a thousand years ago. In addition there are clear parallels between Jesus' birth story and Moses which Jewish people of the day would recognize. For example when Jesus is born the king issues a command to kill all the babies, just like Moses. Moses was in Egypt, and Jesus fled to Egypt as a baby, but only in Matthew which is odd if this is supposed to be a historical account. According to Luke Jesus doesn't go to Egypt and after his birth goes to Nazareth. Matthew, being the most Jewish of the gospels, is clearly trying to say that Jesus is the new Moses, and I think it is obvious that he made up stories and details to that end. I find this significant because it means the gospel writers were willing and did create stories to push their own agenda. The point I am trying to make about the virgin birth story as it relates to the divinity of Jesus, is that the writers of Matthew and Luke were pushing back when Jesus was divine to the point of Jesus' birth or conception.
Then we get to the gospel of John, and John proclaims that Jesus was not only divine post-crucifixion, or at birth via virginity, but that Jesus was always God since the beginning. So I think there is a clear progression in the Bible, if we look at the writings by the date they were written, of in what sense Jesus was divine. The earliest being Paul seems to think Jesus was God only after the crucifixion. In a sense Mark seems to say Jesus became divine at his baptism. Then we get to the gospels of Matthew and Luke where they come up with the story that God Yahweh impregnated a virgin to give us Jesus, which implies that Jesus is God at birth. Finally in John, again written 60+ years after the crucifixion, we get the idea that Jesus was always God Yahweh.
In the gospel of Mark there is a very different tone to the crucifixion than in the other gospels. In Luke for example Jesus tells one of the criminals on the cross "today you will be with me in paradise." In Luke Jesus is fully aware of what is going on, and even tells people mourning him to "not weep for me", and the iconic "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." In John Jesus proclaims "it is finished", then he dies. But in Mark, Jesus doesn't say much of anything, and finally cries out before his death "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" In the earliest gospel Jesus does not appear to understand that he is being crucified for the sins of the world, or that this is all part of his/God's plan, or that he will be in paradise when it is over. I'd also like to point out that the phrase "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" is translated from a phrase that appears to be in Aramaic, and not Greek or Hebrew. This is significant because Jesus is thought to have spoken Aramaic, yet the gospels are written in Greek. So I'd think that if a phrase is in Aramaic that increases the likelihood that the historical Jesus actually said it or something like it.
I apologize for the long post, and I'm not sure how much of that made sense, but what I'm trying to say is that the older the writing the less divine Jesus becomes. And I think when you get to the earliest writings a picture emerges which paints the historical Jesus as never claiming to be God. I think I've spent too much time over the years listening to people like Bishop Spong and Bart Ehrman, lol, but I do find this stuff fascinating.