1- The bible was written to frighten or control men by men who wanted that control. The whole thing is made up stories to aid a monumental control of the people in a time when no other sources of information were available.
Actually my people wrote "the Bible" around the time of the Babylonian exile. We had been taken from our land, had no king, and our Temple was destroyed. In order to preserve our cultural identity, our ancestral stories of being a people who were once slaves in Egypt and freed to enter the "Promised Land" took on a special meaning as captives in Babylonia. What one reads in the Hebrew Scriptures, especially in Torah, has this particular slant of a Jew of the Diaspora.
We never expected that Gentiles would be reading this book, and in particular making their own interpretations of it. While it has been used to control people, that began once Christianity became the state religion in Rome. Jews already had a functioning religion and many writings before they began to assemble what would become the Tanakh or Old Testament. The writings were designed to be used for public proclamation, for the synagogue liturgical reading schedule that would annually retell these stories as our holy days approached each year.
While the narratives have some basis in the history of my people, what you read in the Scriptures is indeed a legendary take on it all. Much "poetic license" has been taken in order to reshape the stories to preserve our culture and teach religious lessons. It is neither a history or science textbook, though some Christians often attempt to use it as one or both.
Being a product of the Diaspora, there was also much information available all around the world as we are talking about the years 586-583 B.C.E., and civilizations were quite advanced by that time in history. Therefore one can't merely say it was written "in a time when no other sources of information were available."
Or 2- Jesus did exist. A man who either wanted power over people or had some sort of psychosis or other mental health problem that lead him to believe he was the son of the creator of all things. In a time when no one knew any better, people believed him, loved or feared him. Maybe even a hereditary condition passed on from his mother as she believed he was the son of God.
Jews recognize Jesus of Nazareth not only as a historical figure but as one of our very own sages. In fact, Maimonides was one of the first Jews to speak of Jesus in this manner. He was real, only not recognized as an authentic messianic figure by the Jews in general.
Those that did follow him as Messiah are the ones responsible for what is attributed to him in the New Testament writings. The sayings of Jesus are not merely made up of what his followers remembered. They also contain their own personal take on what the early Christians believed Jesus meant.
Just one of thousands of examples of this can be found in the NABRE, the official Roman Catholic translation of the Bible in the United States. In a footnote to the Sermon on the Mount at Matthew chapter 5, we read:
Although modified by Matthew, the first, second, fourth, and ninth beatitudes have Lucan parallels (Mt 5:3 // Lk 6:20; Mt 5:4 // Lk 6:21b; Mt 5:6 // Lk 6:21a; Mt 5:11–12 // Lk 5:22–23). The others were added by the evangelist and are probably his own composition.--Italics added.
All mainstream Christianity now admits that what Christians read in the New Testament are not purely the words of Jesus. They are the early church's interpretation of Jesus. This goes for Jesus' actions, his miracles, and how the first Christians interpreted his death (which explains why none of the Gospel accounts match on the subject of the Resurrection). Therefore it cannot be said that Jesus literally stated he was the direct offspring of God. This is merely how Christians composed his words much later after Jesus' death.