Late first century theologians and second century theologians would not be eye-witnesses to the life of Yeshuah the Rabbi. Your simple assertion that this is true does not make it true.
In no place at no time anywhere in this thread did I say anyone who wrote scriptures were eye witnesses to the life of Yeshuah the Rabbi (aka Jesus for those not afraid to use his more familiar name.) You may apologize at any time.
There is no fear in my refusal to use the made-up name "Jesus." You wrote: "Still if you go back to the ancient Jewish and Roman manuscripts as well as the oldest available Christian manuscripts, the writings of those late first and second century theologians who were eye witnesses to accounts or personally knew people who were eye witnesses to accounts even though their writings didn't make it into the book, and mix in some knowledge of the history and culture of the time, we can come up with a pretty good idea of the original intent I think."
I have nothing for which to apologize.
I'm not even going to argue with you about your contempt for my take on it as I know from experience it would be futile and only eventually invite further insults. And, as you know, I prefer to discuss things without the insults. I will put you down as another who won't want an autographed copy of the published work when it's out.
It is not insult to say that you have lied, when in fact you have lied. I put no words in your mouth, and my quotes of what you have written demonstrate that. As for your fondness for making "enemies lists," this is the second time in a few days you have offered to put me on such a list. As you know nothing of me, do not know my name, my residence, my appearance--this is just silliness. I am, of course, a fond devoté of silliness; therefore, you needn't describe that as an insult.