Jesus does not refer to Daniel 7, so it cannot be said to “appeal” to him.
I find this extraordinary. There seems to me to be virtually universal agreement among commentators that Jesus’s response to Caiaphas is an intentional allusion to Daniel 7:13. Craig Evans, for example, commenting on Mark 14:62:
Caiaphas and company will see τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου … ἐρχόμενον μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, “‘the son of man’ … ‘coming with the clouds of heaven.’” This is an unmistakable allusion to Dan 7:13. Some of Jesus’ previous self-references as “the son of man” clearly alluded to the Danielic figure. The claim in 2:10 that “the son of man” has “authority on earth” to forgive sins implies that Jesus, as “the son of man” who in Dan 7:13–14 has been given authority in heaven, may now forgive sins “on earth.” The claim in 2:28 that “the son of man” is “lord even of the sabbath” probably reflects the same concept. The forecasts in 8:38 and 13:26 of the coming of “the son of man … with the holy angels” and “in clouds with great power and glory” clearly allude to Dan 7:13–14. Even the passion sayings and related sayings in which reference to “the son of man” routinely appears (e.g., 8:31; 9:9, 12, 31; 10:33 [esp. 45, which qualifies Dan 7:14]; 14:21, 41) probably allude to the struggle depicted in Dan 7:15–27. The high priest and his priestly colleagues at the moment sit in judgment on Jesus, but the day will come when they will see him coming with the clouds as “the son of man.”
Evans is a particularly sympathetic interpreter, but this is by no means an exceptional point of view.
…the fact remains that in the context of Daniel, and also the majority context of the OT scriptures, not the targums, pelach has deities or deity as the direct object…
Phil has done a good job of explaining my argument about your #3. All I would add is that you have not addressed the basic points I made about how the meaning of a word is determined, the relevance of context (kingdom not the worship of gods), and clear examples in the Targums that support the argument that when people serve someone who has “kingdom”, that someone is not a god but a king (dominion is taken from the Greeks and given to the Jews). Also, the phrase “the majority context of the OT scriptures” is meaningless in this case. The majority context is Hebrew, not Aramaic.
It would really help you would stay focused on the details of the exegesis and stop waving these generalisations about Jesus and kingdom in my face. They’re irrelevant.