The next point on Dan’s list is:
2) Jesus must have been more than merely a man.
His problems with this point are as follows:
As to whether Jesus was more than merely a man? The gospels are ambiguous on that point. Luke and John hold that he was divine from birth, Mark does not (indeed, Mark holds him a sinner in need of baptism before he can be adopted by Yahweh and anointed as a prophet), and Matthew sees him as a sacred king in the tradition of David and Solomon. The most honest verdict one can render on this question, when reading the gospels without the lenses of faith, is “If the gospels are historically accurate, then their authors disagreed about who and what Jesus was.” Thus, link 2 in the doctrinal train is, if not broken, than seriously weakened.
As he says, Luke and John say that he was divine. Mark says that he is baptized by John the Baptist, though he does no say why. If he were a sinner and this a baptism for repentance then a) why did Jesus not repent of any sins and b) why would John have said about him “After me One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to stoop down and untie the thong of His sandals.” And why would God be pleased with him if he were a sinner? So you’re assuming the reason for the baptism and you’re assuming that Christ was adopted by God as opposed to being begotten.
I think that each Gospel writer had their own unique audience and as a result speak with different voices and intents, I don’t expect them to be identical for this reason. I think he can be divine, human, and a sacred king and priest. These things are no necessarily mutually exclusive.