I wouldn't say it's so much convoluted, rather just long, I didn't sit down and craft it for hours, so apologies if it's not structured in the most comprehensible way. I write quickly and don't bother proof-reading when it's just internet forum stuff.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. I think it's hard to communicate exactly what I mean by 'Jesus', because it's such a complex realm of study. After all, you have those who believe he was real and everything in the gospels is true. Those who believe he was real but only the non-supernatural elements are true. Those who believe he was real but only some or even none of the stories are true, and those who don't believe he existed at all. And then within those there is some overlap. I would place myself somewhere around the third option.
There was probably someone (or several amalgamated people), but we know nothing about them beyond the most vague superficialities (I.e. they were Jewish). I mean, I agree that there were lots of Jewish radicals around at the time, and no doubt the Christ story used one or some of them as a basic template for the kind of person he was, but my argument I suppose is, so what? That's not the Jesus of the gospels any more than William Randolph Hearst is Charles Foster Kane.
As for the PS, I didn't click it twice. I posted once, then added an edit, then noticed that someone else had posted and moved us onto a new page, so I re-posted the edit in a new post, so it wouldn't be missed if you'd perhaps already read the original post prior to the edit.
TL;DR: I don't think we disagree to the degree you may have thought, although we do disagree on Nazareth it would appear, but I am willing to be proven wrong on that if you would like to post more about it.