Some (perhaps most) historians tend to believe, I think, that the historical Jesus did not claim to be "the son of God". But I'm not sure that we're talking about the historical Jesus here, so this might be irrelevant.
The historical Jesus did, of course, claim that the world was about to end. (More precisely: it will end while some people "standing here" are still alive.) For various reasons (see the many books that have been written on the subject), the passages in which Jesus describes the imminent end of the world are thought to be fairly accurate quotations, though many parts of the gospels were inserted or invented later or clearly adapted from older literature.
EDIT: Obviously, that Jesus didn't claim to be the son of God in no way implies that he wasn't the son of God. There are Christians who believe that the historical Jesus did not claim to be the son of God. Some Christians would claim, I think, that Jesus could not have truly suffered death on the cross without ignorance of his divinity.
If that is the only characteristic of Jesus that comes to your mind, then you have a lot more to learn about him.
If the state today was based strictly on religion and someone would come in and say "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's.", implying the introduction of the separation of the church and the state, you wouldn't call this man sane and a good influence?
You do understand that at the time that he said it the beliefs of people living at that time functioned differently and that claim was more relatable to people than it would be now? And if you would be talking to the people at that time you would need to use their terms, their language, and operate within their belief systems? (Also considering the question of whether Jesus actually said those words, or if that notion is just the interpretation of some people writing down the records, of what he was saying at the time.)
"the beliefs of people living at that time functioned differently"
What are you suggesting would be a suitable modern day analogue?
If other people are claiming that he's the son of god, rather than he himself, doesn't that also throw the question of hypersanity into question. If you were to claim that I were the son of God, would that not colour everything else you wrote about me? You are at best not a neutral witness.
