I understand. I agree he was a wise person, and I agree that it is reasonable to view him as merely being a wise person if we evaluate his person on the basis of some of the things he is alleged to have said.

I do not believe that the truth of Jesus can be correctly evaluated merely on the basis of the wise things he is supposed to have said. Rather, I believe the truth of Jesus is only evidenced correctly by a broader range of factors: his having allegedly fulfilled much Old Testament prophecy, for example, and his having convinced a non-trivial subset of ancient Jews that he had indeed fulfilled these prophecies as their expected Christ. His having allegedly raised from the dead, for example, and his having convinced a non-trivial subset of ancient Jews of the significance of his person with the claim of his resurrection as a primary basis of their persuasion. And not least of all, his having allegedly described himself all throughout his ministry to have explicitly been sent by God and be representing the agency of God: something I can only imagine would be extremely difficult for an observer to reconcile had Jesus not also substantiated his claims; indeed, something I imagine would even be difficult to reconcile with his otherwise being renowned as wise. These factors, I believe, demand scrutiny: they demand an explanation that is far more robust than Jesus merely having been a wise teacher; otherwise they demand the circumstances be interpreted selectively and some factors ignored.

my own explanation is that Jesus is truly the Christ of God, and it is very important to me that I find the truth. But I know we each evaluate differently, and I know your explanation is your own.

thanks for your response.