My post, Jesus Was a Pluralist raised some discussion. Of course, I don't know what Jesus was. The "Historical Jesus" is difficult to find. The Jesus Seminar spent a great deal of time seeking to separate the layers of memory and fiction applied to the historical person. Early Christian Writings has a nice (if incomplete) list of scholars who have differing views of the historical Jesus.
Not on that list are James Tabor, April DeConick, Amy-Jill Levine, Walter Wink, James Crossley, and others. I continue to find more each day! I was a little tongue-in-cheek by suggesting that Jesus was a pluralist. Obviously, that is a modern term and it applies to our modern context. A key issue in our modern context is how Christianity relates to other faiths.
I think the real key is the purpose of faith at all, including Christianity. We speak of Jesus as savior, but savior of what and from what? I am not saying that neither faith nor Christianity has a purpose, by no means! But what is its purpose in a time in which the basic doctrines are being shaken (ie. the Fall, the existence of a literal heaven and hell, the "location" of God, and so forth)?
I think that JD Crossan has done a mighty fine job in understanding the scandal of Jesus in his time. The scandal was Jesus against Rome. I am not sure the historical Jesus would have thought in terms as we do about various faiths. I have no doubt that he would not recognize at all the dogma attached to him by the later church. But I do think he acted in a way contrary to the way of Rome and to the oppression of the "normalcy of civilization" to use Crossan's phrase. That is something we can participate in today, if we dare.
I don't think the issue for Jesus or for us is the religoius tradition we happen to be born into and/or decide to accept as a path to the sacred. I think the issue for Jesus (and for us) is whom we will serve (peace through violence, or peace through justice)--Crossan