Here is a chart that I generated to help illustrate the absolute fact that there was an interesting explosion of messiah claimants in the first century- and not again.  In my estimation, it is an incontrovertible fact that there was such an explosion.  When one considers how rare it is to have multi-source multi-attestation of things in ancient history, the abundance of these claims is even more remarkable.  In the next post I will list the source data.

Another point:  these messiah accounts come from multiple sources.  Here the Livius link I provided is helpful, as it provides the original source material prompting the description of the account.

Sources listed- and sometimes corroborating each other:

Flavius Josephus,
--- Jewish War and
--- Jewish Antiquities
Acts of the apostles
Tacitus, Histories
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Q (if you wish)
Epistles of Paul
Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a-b
Cassius Dio, Roman History,
Suetonius, Life of Vespasian 4
Zonaras, Epitome 11.16.

The Seutonius reference is interesting:

There had spread over all the Orient an old and established belief, that it was fated for men coming from Judaea to rule the world. This prediction, referring to the emperor of Rome -as afterwards appeared from the event- the people of Judaea took to themselves. (Suetonius, Life of Vespasian 4.5)

Evidently, not only was this whole messiah thing not a Christian invention, but was well known by outsiders and believed to be a very 'old and established' belief.

I have limited myself only to the first century claimants here, but as one can see, there were plenty of non-Christian attestations to this phenomena.  Tacitus, Suetonius, and of course Josephus.

Yes, all of these manuscripts were under the care of Christian copyists for all those centuries after the fall of Rome when none but they cared to do the work, but does anyone here insist that these are forgeries and interpolations?  Do we have to explore that thesis or can we accept the data as presented?

Ok, and connecting back to our previous conversation noting that none of the other claimants had a religion spring up around them...

Can we add to the historical conundrum by agreeing that yes, there was a disproportionate number during the 1st Century AD, yes, one might reasonably look for an explanation for this, but also that out of these claimants can we observe only one became the founder of a massive new religion- or a new religion at all- and this too requires explanation?

As you can see by perusing the claimants (Livius with their links to the the original primary source material is the best way) a great deal of these claimants ended up dead, crushed to bits by the Romans, and reported as such by all of the extant sources.  (Ie, no Christian community stomped out the writings or followers of any of the claimants).  For that matter, even Jesus ended up dead at the hands of the Romans.

That he out of all the others that ended up dead at the hands of the Romans was recast as resurrected when none of the others did also requires explanation.

I think after you have perused those sources you will see why I felt the evidence was squarely against any hypothesis of Christian tampering.  In most cases, the dudes just ended up dead and their people scattered.  So say Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and at a distant fourth, Biblical books, who of course we can't grant any additional credence to since we discovered in the course of this study various points that were corroborated by Jewish and Roman historians...

"...that has survived, yes.   Very Happy"

You are so stubborn.  Dannyboy -----> 

"The expectation of a messiah kind of presupposes the expectation of a new religion, wouldn't you say?"

What makes you say that?  I think the evidence is quite plain that at the time, the expectation of a messiah presupposed the expectation of a new Davidic kingdom, and that this kingdom would be global in nature.  This is reflected very well in the Suetonius quote:

"There had spread over all the Orient an old and established belief, that it was fated for men coming from Judaea to rule the world"

There isn't a hint of a new religion in that quote.

I think the opposite was actually true:  the last thing anyone expected for the messiah was the founding of a new religion.  Ask RG.  I think he could actually agree with this.

""That he out of all the others that ended up dead at the hands of the Romans was recast as resurrected when none of the others did also requires explanation.""
"*shrug*  Sure, religion."

I can't let you get away with being so apathetic about the point.  I don't know where you stand but in my conversations with atheists the conspiracy-mongering erupts pretty quickly, asserting that the idea of the messiah being killed and coming back from the dead was a quaint- and common- reaction of an oppressed people.

But in fact, the oppressed people had in mind an idea of a messiah who wouldn't be killed at all, but in fact would usher in a new kingdom.

But more to the point, if you will examine the data, you will see only one of them had this reaction.  Isn't that what you see?

Furthermore, if you evaluate what the Christians themselves believed, in the Gospels though Jesus had himself said that he would have to die and then rise, none of this followers believed him and believed to the last that Jesus was going to be a Davidic ruler.

This is a big deal, because if messiah-resurrection-religion founding is common then we may chalk Christianity up as one among many and by your analysis, merely the one that 'won.'  But if in fact there were no competitors at all, and beyond there being no religion that formed up by any of them none of them showed much inclination to do any such thing, anyway, then this peculiarity requires explanation, and surely the explanation that it actually happened as described deserves to be on the table.

I can see it fine... it's also attached to the post so you could download it.  I show it as being downloaded 7 times.  Can you access it that way?

What browser are you using?  Is it Mozilla?  If so, do you have an addon that blocks images or what not?  I can email it to you if necessary but learning that you can't see the profile images too I think its a browser issue on your end.

Ah, but I like the visual effect of just seeing it.  Seeing is believing, as they say. 

Doesn't the fact that the messiah never showed render the discussion moot?

lol so says a Noachide.

It is a historic reality that a great many Jews came to believe that the Messiah did in fact come.  These Jews founded a 'new' religion that now numbers in the billions.  It is worthy of examination, especially when we see that there were many other 'messiah' claimants at the time, and they came to nothing.

Doesn't the fact that the messiah never showed render the discussion moot?

lol so says a Noachide.

Nope. So says history when compared to what the Bible tells us to expect from the messiah. Specifically, I'm talking about Daniel.

It is a historic reality that a great many Jews came to believe that the Messiah did in fact come.

And it's a fact they were all wrong.
 
These Jews founded a 'new' religion that now numbers in the billions.

Apikorosim don't help prove Jesus was the messiah. It'll take more than that. Like... the messianic era. That would prove the messiah has come.

It is worthy of examination, especially when we see that there were many other 'messiah' claimants at the time, and they came to nothing.

That is true. All of it. All right, I'm listening.

Major point:

"But Jesus did die (i am positive on this point)."

I also am positive on this point.  So now we turn to the other 1st century messiah claimants, most of whom died at the ruthless hands of the Romans.  How many of these believed that they would rise from the dead after their death?  How many of these spawned groups of any size that believed their favorite messiah rose from the dead?

I await your answer on this point.