Can Jesus really be Divine?

Almost everyone can agree that Jesus said many wise and moral things and was a good person. The problem most non-Christians have with Jesus is denying that He is God and more simply that he has supernatural powers. Thomas Jefferson even wrote his own version of the New Testament (Jefferson Bible), which removed any supernatural occurances, events such as the resurrection. While most secularist would not feel it necessary to rewrite the bible, I believe many hold Jesus was just a man that was made into far more after His death, or Jesus was crazy in thinking He was God, but he still said some good things.

As i see it any Christians that deny the divinity of Christ deny Christ and deny salvation. This is because what defines Christianity as different from Judaism and all other moral codes is the salvation through Christ freeing us of sin, which can only happen if he is in fact divine. For only if He is divine is the Resurrection possible. The liberal Christians that believe the bible to be alterable to fit with "modern" standards (such as rejecting divinity), the obvious question of why not use any and all texts, from other religions and secular thinkers? Why even call oneself a Christian, for really why all the fuss about the apocalyptic Jew? Denying Christ as divine and denying the supernatural as possible, even now, means saying the bible is a helpful tool in growing one's own personal, unique philosophy and morality rather than abiding by the dictates of an almighty and ever-living God and His eternal plan for us.

What people will often say about Jesus is that he was a man made into God by his believers in the decades proceeding His death. However, in my bible study yesterday we were discussing the issue of the Gospel of John and how it portrays a more "mystical" version of Jesus than the synoptic gospels (the other 3 canonical gospels), but how in fact it perhaps goes out of its way to denounce the Gnostic (entirely spiritual and esoteric) view of Christ, with such lines as John 1:14 "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us...". In fact, according to my bible study teacher (who I would call a trustworthy source on the topic), what distinguishes the four canonical gospels from the slew of apocryphal (doubtful authenticity) gospels is the fact that they portray a much more human Christ, one who is undoubtedly God, but is also fully manifested into human flesh, or else how could he save us from the flesh? Ancient apocryphal gospels tend to make Jesus a purely spiritual entity according to my teacher, or at least downplay his humanity.

Certainly the early church could have accepted the other gospels if they had wanted people to believe in a purely spiritual entity, since it makes much more intuitive sense for Jesus to have been one or the other, and not of two states simultaneously. As well, considering authorship of Matthew is associated with the apostle Matthew and Mark is associated at least partially with the teaching of Peter (See Here), and John with the apostle John, the likelihood is that first hand knowledge of Jesus would be trustworthy, certainty more so than the largely unsubstantiated speculations of "causal" philosophers who cannot reconcile their worldview with a supernatural one. The issue is not whether the laws of nature apply to our lives so much as can God act within and around that framework. In a simpler sense, If Christ is not divine, Christianity is a sham and find a new belief, or if it is valid then the path to salvation has been revealed. Its as simple and complex as that.