I'd like to point out that many of the statements with which a participant is presented represent false dichotomies. Take, for example, "There is little or no human element in the Bible, it is a divine book." This statement excludes believing it is both divine and contains human elements (and choosing halfway between "agree" and "disagree" is not a satisfying response!).
To read the passage this way is to read it as a straight forward piece of history. In a sense, reading it forward in time. I find it much more interesting to read it in the opposite direction -- backward in time-- not as history but as metaphor and ask "Why does Luke/Luke's community tell this story in this way about Jesus? What does it say about how they had come to experience him?" For me, it is partly a story about the temptations of power. We are all tempted, I think, in some way by the need for power, even if it is just enough power to keep our lives/families/jobs/belongings secure and safe.
Those who encountered Jesus, it would seem, experienced in him one who did not (and perhaps could not) use coercive power. He did not use coercive power to stop the Romans. He did not use coercive power to end poverty or hunger or to make the Jews suddenly the "bosses." Instead, they experienced in him humility, servanthood, compassion, and love -- all characteristics that we do not associate with POWER.
And so they tell this story to explain their experience of one who relies not on his own power or on worldly powers, but on the power of a God who works in the world through humility, servanthood, compassion, and love.