I do believe that it is very possible that there was in fact at one point in time a man whom walked the earth known as Jesus, but does that make him truly the Son of God? He could very well have been an historical figure but most the alleged evidence of his divinity suggests that he may just very well have been a powerful magician of the day.
I have made a brief mention of this before, but I am going to go into it in a bit more detail now. All the alleged miracles that are said to be proof of his divine heritage are in fact common tasks that any magician living at that time was believed to have the ability to perform.
I will start with perhaps one of the biggest, and what might seem at first one of the hardest pieces of evidence to get around, and that is the concept around his miraculous birth. There is in fact a chance, that his so called miraculous birth might have been the result of a misinterpretation. We all know that the Bible was changed, altered and edited through the years while it was passed down from hand to hand.
Now I know I have heard this on the History channel once, but it was a long time ago, and I will be honest and say I do not clearly recall all the exact details, but I do know that it was one of these two things:
The original words for virgin in Hebrew, back in that time period did not have the same meaning as the word does for us today, and as it came to be understood in later years. But in fact the Hebrew word for virgin as it was written in the original Bible before all the translations and changes which were made, was simply another word for maiden.
That is to say, it did not originally, specially mean a woman whom had not had sex, but merely referred to a young woman.
It was either that, or many different languages often use the same words to mean two different things, or will have the same spelling of two different words, and it is how the word is said, and where the emphasis is placed that make the difference, so it could be that the word for virgin, and the word for maiden in Hebrew appeared to be the same word and so one could easily misinterpret or mistranslate. So it might if only meant to say that Mary was a young woman, but because of the similarity of the words, it was implied to mean that she was a woman whom had not engaged in a sexual act.
As well within the Bible it does not actually specify that Mary had never engaged in sex. It states she had not made sins of the flesh. Though they may sound the same, the difference is that Marry was a married woman, and so if she had engaged in the act of sex with her husband, it would not have been looked on as a sin, but as her wifely duty.
Now for the actual acts the Jesus had committed, and once more I am sorry for repeating myself a little bit here but sense many of my topics overlap, it is sometimes necessary to restate things. All of the so called miracles: Healing the sick, making wine of water, walking on water. Were all in fact to be abilities that magicians whom lived in that time period were said to be able to perform. Indeed there have been others whom were said to have accomplished the very same feats that Jesus has been said to commit.
Also any references Jesus made of himself as the Son of God would not be uncommon for the magicians of the day. They often thought of themselves as being a part of the divine and most of their initiation rites included rituals which made them one with a chosen deity. So in a symbolic way, the magicians of the old could easily view themselves as being the sons of the God whom they pledged themselves to.
Now last but not least is the claim of the resurrection of Jesus. Even this could in a way be justified and explained. There was a known ritual of magicians in which they would perform a reenactment of being dead, and then reborn again by the grace of the God they serve.