To what extent can Jesus be regarded as no more than a teacher of wisdom?

When discussing the person of Jesus one can consider three interpretations: Jesus as the son of God,(regarding his divine nature, his knowledge of it and how it impacted other aspects of his personality), Jesus asa social liberator or revolutionary (regarding how his actions reflected those of a revolutionary against bothsociety and Rome) and Jesus as a teacher of wisdom (regarding his role as a teacher of moral wisdom). It is myopinion that Jesus should be regarded as a mixture of all three.
John Hick suggests that without the incarnation Jesus is just another moral teacher amongst many.The incarnation refers to the death and resurrection of Jesus, and so Hick is suggesting that if the resurrectiondid not occur, then Jesus was no more than a teacher of wisdom, because it is the incarnation that showed hisdivinity (therefore without it he is not divine). One can plausibly remove the incarnation from the theory of theperson of Jesus due to its lack of scientific backing. Hick argues that we live in a modern world of science andtherefore to believe in supernatural occurrences such as the death and resurrection of an individual is foolish.However it is not foolish to believe that there was a Jewish moral teacher teaching around 3-5 BCE, thereforeit is plausible to believe that Jesus existed and was no more than a teacher of wisdom. In response to theargument that Jesus can be separated from his divinity CS Lewis argues that this cannot be done, and criticisesthose who believed that it can be. Lewis says that Jesus taught that he was divine; if he taught this at the sametime as his other teachings, one has to accept all of them, you cannot pick and choose. Jesus also thoughthimself that he was divine; we can either accept him as he is, therefore accepting his teachings and his identity(which are one in the same, meaning that if he taught that he was divine, he was in fact divine) or reject him asa mad man. Another effective way to argue this point is through Paul, who stated: ‘we have testified aboutGod that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised’ (1Corinthians 15:15). For Paul, if Jesus was not resurrected then all preaching was and is in vain as sins would nothave been cleansed, meaning that everyone would perish in death, not being able to obtain eternal life.Therefore a Christian faith without resurrection is impossible for Paul. This poses problems for the identity ofJesus; according to Paul Christianity cannot exist if Jesus was not resurrected, and the Christian faith is basedentirely around the belief that he was, hence Jesus must have a divine aspect to his personality. HoweverPaul’s argument is flawed; the basis of it, that a Christian faith without the resurrection is impossible for some,is plausible, however it is unreasonable to say that it is impossible for all. Without the resurrection and divinityof Jesus the possibility of eternal life is made void, however Christianity is not based entirely on the belief ofeternal life, it is based mainly on the teachings of Jesus: forgiveness of sins, loving of thy neighbour and puremotives to name a few. If one follows Jesus’ teachings they can still live the Christian faith, implying that Jesusdoes not need to be divine in order to be a moral teacher, and that his predominate role is one of a moralteacher. On the other hand some could argue that this practice would be closer to the Jewish faith, as Jesuswas a Jewish moral teacher.