In ictu oculi
As has been explained, "POVfork" is one of the ritual phrases you incant on this page; because it defies reality, it is an excuse to avoid meaningful discourse, rather than an attempt at achieving it. If you mean something else, which you likely do, then use words that are accurate and express your meaning, rather than obsessively repeating obviously false statements.
As has also been explained, repeating long lists of last names, without any context (e.g. "Voorst, Horbury, Schafer, Berger, Maier, Meier, Theissen, Klausner, Rubenstein, Boyarin, Teppler, Stanton & Stroumsa, Kessler, Sanders, Neusner") are also ritual behaviors that have little semantic content. You have been challenged to produce actual citations, which would include book names, author, year, page number, and relevant quotations. You continually refuse or fail to do so.
When you finally produce a citation that more-or-less complies with WP:CITE (albeit with completely idiosyncratic formatting), you still get it wrong. For example, you just now added what you describe as "Quarles (2008)". In fact, the reference is Bauckham (2008): I know this because I added it myself three weeks ago! Not only that, the material you added was already present in the article, in the very section in which I added the citation! If you do not read the article, then how can you comment on its contents, much less attempt to edit them?
I have kept your Voorst citation, and again, put it where it belongs. For the longest time, the lede had the sentence "There are some modern scholars who understand these passages to be references to Christianity and the Christian figure of Jesus", with the citation Such as Dalman This reference, of course, is one of your infamous "last name only" citations, which completely fail WP:CITE. Rather than replace it with Voorst, who makes the same point, and is a century newer, you oddly repeat the material in a second sentence. There is no rational explanation for doing this that I can see.
We absolutely do have a neutral first sentence in the lede, despite your best attempts to the contrary - that was the clear consensus of the RFC above. You fixation on the claim that Yeshu does not refer to an individual or individuals leaves you in a very difficult spot. It has been your on-going contention that the name "Yeshu" is merely the name used by rabbis for Jesus. However, when you insist that "Yeshu" does not refer to an individual, or demand proof that it does, what you are also demanding is proof that "Jesus" refers to an individual, since it is you that insists "Yeshu"="Jesus". Do you not believe Jesus was and indivudal? Are you promoting, then, the Jesus myth theory?
I am doing my best still to assume good faith here; unfortunately, to do so, I am forced to come to the conclusion that the issue with your edits and comments here is one of competence. I am now very strongly encouraging you to propose changes here, accurately citing the reliable sources you would like to use to support those edits. It is not fair to other editors to force them to continually clean up various policy violations and other messes. (talk)