No. You are the liberal here, arguing for an innovation that was never provided for at Sinai based on the tautology "J*sus is the 'son of god' because he said he was, and because he was the 'son of god,' he could not be in error when he claimed to be the 'son of god.'"
G-d had already spoken at Sinai. Every claim of prophecy or of "new revelation" must be measured by the Torah given at Sinai. No one has the authority to just up and say "I'm the fulfillment of such-and-such a prophecy!" The Sinai judges all and is judged by none. The rest of the Hebrew Bible is only there because it does not contradict the Torah. To accept the Torah on the authority of someone who lived a thousand years later instead of on the fact that it is the one and only time in history that the spiritual and unincarnated G-d actually spoke at once to an entire nation is not to accept it at all.
There's an old conservative saying: "If it's new, it ain't true." Try judging the "new testament" by the Torah instead of the other way around some time . . . if you're capable of doing so.
Do some research. First, find out exactly who you are answering before mouthing off about something you know nothing about.