I think I would advocate a more radical approach here and question whether ‘timeless teacher’ is at all an appropriate category for Jesus (cf. this page). It’s a very ‘modern’ assumption to make - what Jesus said must have universal significance, must be more true than what other religious teachers have said, and so on. It is this sort of assumption that forced a lot of misreadings of the Gospels and probably of Paul to some extent. Perhaps we can only really make sense of Jesus - at least, the historical Jesus - within the context of Israel’s story. He made no claim to be giving timeless, universal truth. He was Israel’s teach, Israel’s prophet, Israel’s saviour, Israel’s king. Take him out of that context and we make it very difficult to explain any global or cosmic significance. The biblical argument is not simply that the cross is the decisive event in world history. It is something more like: the cross is the decisive event in the salvation and renewal of the community through which God has chosen to embody his presence and bless the world. This doesn’t entirely avoid the charge of religious imperialism - except that perhaps we put the emphasis not on Christianity as being the religion that has the best religious teacher/saviour but on a community that bears the impression of its Lord. This is not to say, of course, that his teaching does not have universal significance - the point is that this is not the basis for his relevance.