Waring's prime number conjecture
Naming. Mostly good. You're making the effort to be descriptive with it, which is awesome. I would change odd_number to odd_numbers since it's a list. Also, prime_number really tells me nothing about what the function is actually doing. Not going to suggest an alternative name, because I'll have more to say about this function later. Warring_Number violates PEP 8. (warring_number instead.)

More, descriptive functions. This can make it easier to get a high-level understanding of what's going on when you're reading it. For example, at the start of warring_number, you could do odd_numbers = get_odd_numbers_in_interval(5, maximum). More importantly though, in your prime_number function, you can just do:

for e in number_list:
    if is_prime(e):
        #etc.


This not only makes it more clear what you're doing. You're also making it so that when you want to speed up checking if a number is prime, you don't have to worry about how that logic will affect anything else. It's all right in one place. 

Speaking of...

Avoid brute force. If you finding yourself iterating over every single possibility, it's usually worth it to see if there's a clever way to speed things up. Checking if a number is prime has been researched a lot, so I would just go to Wikipedia or StackOverflow and use an algorithm that I'm not smart enough to come up with myself. For checking if a number is a sum of three primes, let's think about it.

Right now, your check for, say, 13 looks something like this:

2 + 2 + 2 = 6
2 + 2 + 3 = 7
2 + 2 + 5 = 9
2 + 2 + 7 = 11
2 + 2 + 11 = 15
etc.


Let's do it manually, and apply a bit of thought. 

for i in list_of_primes:
    for j in list_of_primes:


At this point, there is a unique number x such that i + j + x = e. So let's just check that and move on

        if is_prime(e - (i + j)):


More on prime_numbers: I really don't like that it returns 4 values of each prime. It's not an obvious thing to do, and I would prefer to have the calling code manipulate the return value so it looks like it needs to. In any case, you already have a use for the function where you don't want duplicates of every prime. Additionally, it is a rather expensive function, and you call it twice. Instead, you could do:

prime_number_list = prime_number(maximum)
combination_of_prime_number = combinations(prime_number_list, 3)


Style comments: Spaces around operators, please. if e % divisor == 0 is much easier to read than if e%divisor==0.

Instead of 

if boolean:
    return False
else:
    return True


You can just do:

return not boolean


Actually, I believe this is a bug in div_by_two. It should just be

def div_by_two(n):
    if n % 2 == 0:
        return True
    else:
        return False


Which would simplify to 

def div_by_two(n):
    return n % 2 == 0