Well, the four points I mentioned were simply covering the entire gamut of what is usually called Taoism. I did not intend to convey that Jesus, were he a Taoist, would have necessarily exhibited all four traits. My point was in showing that Jesus did not leave us any evidence that he exhibited a single variety of Taoist thought, practice, or influence. Three of the points I mentioned referred to: contemplative Taoism (Lao-Tzu), orthodox Taoism (the tradition of Taoist religion that persists even today), Hsien Taoism (a rather eccentric form that strove for immortality).
My addition of 'shamanic Taoist pantheism' to this list (there are a total of four points mentioned) was simply for the purpose of covering all bases. Taoism is believed by some to have developed from a prehistoric pantheistic/shamanic tradition (as most world ancient/prehistoric traditions did). Now, this is certainly not proven to be true, and I wouldn't necessarily argue that it is true. However, if it is true, then the monotheistic vision expressed by Christ couldn't be much further from the ancient roots of Taoism. I was reaching back as far as we can go with theory to determine if Jesus exhibited anything that could be characteristically called 'taoist'. This particular point is the least important of the four, as it is, indeed, theoretical. The other three are the most important, in this case.
Now, if you are asking if Jesus was certifiably a Taoist...the answer is most certainly NO. At least, that is, in so far as there is no reason to believe he was a Taoist anymore than there is reason to believe he was a Buddhist or a Sufi or what have you. I repeat...there is no reason in particular to believe that he was a Taoist. What about the missing portion of his life? Many spiritual icons of history have portions of their life unaccounted for...it happens...he lived over two-thousand years ago, after all. It is amazing that we know what we do about him...then again, the vast body of theory, conjecture, and debate as to the specifics of his life leads me to wonder how much of what is normally held to be fact about his life was merely hearsay that falls apart under closer scrutiny.
Now, I myself am often skeptical of conclusions based upon a lack of evidence rather than a plentiful array of historical verifications. So, is it POSSIBLE that Jesus could have been a Taoist? I guess...after all, we don't know either way. However, he did not exhibit anything that would lead us to believe that he had experience with any of the major varieties of Taoism that developed in the East. If you believe that Jesus exhibited Taoist traits based on your personal interpretation of Taoism, then I guess nobody can argue with that. After all, it's your viewpoint. There would have to be a whole discussion on 'What is Taoism?' to go any further (and that's not likely to conclude with much coherence). Although Taoism can be talked about in many ways, AND although Tao is certainly something considered ungraspable in many respects, there are USUALLY some symptoms of the Taoist attitude that ARE critically recognizable. Whether it be throwbacks from prehistoric shamanic Taoism, a taste for Lao-Tzu, some of the eccentricities of Hsien, or some orthodox practices from a priesthood of Taoists...Jesus exhibited none of these things.
