I think AR282's argument has always been that if Jesus-the-wise-compassionate-teacher-and-healer had existed as is suggested by Christians then we would know of it from unrelated sources.

I think he is suggesting that the real Jesus was more likely a travelling snakeoil salesman & medicine show, which the Romans picked up on after the event and used for their own political purposes.

What do I think? I think he was probably a small-b buddha who did not make a big splash in his lifetime but deeply touched everyone he met. I think his name (but not his vision) was picked up later and used by Christians and Romans for their own divergent purposes.
Note that I do not say this with any scholarly authority. It's just my opinion. I present it here as though it did have academic clout because that's what you do at Mudcat.