A likely story.
Very likely.
Believable, in fact.
I know I lost interest in a lot of things not wife related when I got married.
Can we move on without him, please?
Is he absolutely necessary to the thread(s)?

All of the foregoing being accepted (and I feel your pain re: having to confront two opposing views), we'll move on.

All of these messiah claimants who were nonetheless 'all wrong.'  How do you explain them?

They cropped up, and passed away. What's to worry about? There another spate of messianic fervor around the turn of the century from 999 to 1000 (or so I am told), and I well remember the one for 1999 and the anticipation surrounding the Y2K Bug. Nothing much came of it, just like every time before. The tales for what MIGHT be coming down the road seem plausible, but never pan out. So either they die out, or the date gets pushed back, as we see now with 2012.

It obviously can't be written off as just a spate of kooks because of course the entire Jewish nation appeared to gravitate towards them.  

Sure it can. The Y2K thing involved more than "just Christians" or "just Jews."

So, if "it's a fact they were all wrong"  where did they make their mistake?

By trying to calculate out the date. That was their mistake.

On YOUR view, why was there such messianic fervor among the Jews at just this particular moment in history?

It wasn

No, that year was, according to my calculations of the Jewish calendar, 5760.
The fact that the calendar is dated from the supposed birth of Jesus is not that impressive to Shmuel Golding. I quote from one of his lectures, a piece called, "Yes, The Prophets Spoke Of Jesus"
Quote Rabbi Golding:

Daniel speaks about the religion created by Jesus' followers, and says that one of them would seek to change the calendar. Daniel 7:25 "And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the holy ones of the most High, and think to change times and laws." Allow me at this point to read a few short extracts from a little gospel tract published by a Jewish missionary organization, that is an organization that seeks to deceive the Jewish people and win them over to the Christian faith . This one is from Sar Shalom publications and the name of the tract is "BC/AD: Why Was the Calendar Changed?" And from the context of this tract, we gather that the writers of it firmly believe that the person who changed the times and the season was not a bad guy at all, as one would gather from a reading of Daniel chapter 7, but that it was Jesus and his church that changed the calendar. And I'll quote now from this tract.

The riddle of the calendar
 
No one stops to ask for an explanation of what is perhaps one of the most
extraordinary fact in the world. The fact that all civilized time is dated from the
birth of Jesus Christ. Civilized time is dated from his birth. Every morning, all
the newspapers of the civilized world, although some of them have in their columns
attacks in one form or another on Jesus Christ, adjust their date to his birth.
Almanacs, acts of Congress and Parliaments, business and politics, literature, and the
very dates on our letters and checks, all unconsciously bear testimony to the birth of this
Jew so long ago. From the dawn of history there have been many great men whose
contributions have left indelibly marks on history, culture and civilization. The Dialogues
of Socrates, the philosophy of Plato, the plays of Shakespeare are studied in every college
in the world. These great figures have profoundly changed the direction of science, and
some of the things they taught or discoveries they made have reached into and changed
dramatically our everyday lives. But none of them have left their mark on time itself.
Time is dated as from the birth of Jesus. If we accept the theory of those who reject
Christ and try to explain him away, the very calendar of modern times becomes
inexplicable to them, and an absurdity. All civilized time is baptized into the name of Jesus
Christ. History records many attempts to establish a different calendar. When the State
of Israel came into existence in 1948, it was decided to abolish the Christian calendar and
all official communications were dated from the Creation of the World. Within a very short
time, this was found to be impractical, and now both dates are to be found on all official
correspondence. Yes, try as they may, men cannot take Christ out of the calendar; he still
dominates time.

And so, we see from that little tract that the one who came along and changed the times and seasons, as recorded by Daniel, the Hebrew Prophet, was Jesus! He is the evil person who is mentioned in Daniel chapter 7 and the last few verses thereof. He is the one who changed the times and the seasons.
Isaiah also foresaw this when he said, (1:14) "Your new moons and Sabbaths and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them." He's not speaking of the new moons and Sabbaths which G-d has ordained, but the feasts and Sabbaths which Jews would come to keep in the Exile namely, the Christian feasts. "YOUR feasts, YOUR Sabbaths, YOUR new moons, YOUR high holy days. Not Mine, not the ones I have ordained - Christmas, Easter, Sunday, etc.," For Xians have changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, the festivals have likewise been changed. Shavuoth became Pentecost, Passover was supplanted by Easter, Xmas has replaced Chanukah. The years are counted as according to the supposed date of birth of the false god. So, he is the reason the calendar was changed.

end quote.

Good point, Cimics.

I'd add also that millennial expectations was also drawn heavily from Christian texts... and these obviously weren't in existence at the time of Jesus, either.  It wasn't just the number 1,000 that held significance, but 1,000 in relation to the book of Revelation, etc.  In the year 2,000 was there millennial expectancy in regions dominated by Hindus and Buddhists?  I don't know, but I don't think so.

"They cropped up, and passed away."

Ah, but one didn't.  All but one passed away, and that one does not exist today as some obscure backwater religion but rather as a mainstream, billion strong, global worldview.  Oh, and its origin was not some random pagan community known for its tolerance of new ideas.  Its origins were the fiercely monotheistic Jews of the 1st century who are well documented for their zealousness.  Almost literally the last group on the planet to have conceived and tolerated such an idea, let alone been the wellspring of the entire movement.

A modern equivalent would be if the Muslims suddenly believed that God had become incarnate in their midst.  I could be beheaded just for putting it out there as a hypothetical.

"By trying to calculate out the date. That was their mistake."

So you concede that there was some Tanakh basis for their belief that the messiah was imminent?  In your research, which passages from the Tanakh were used by the 1st century Jews to justify their expectations?  I ask this because you seem to be rejecting that Daniel 9 was one such set of passages.  So what other passages formed the basis for their calculations?

I also think that you aren't being honest with the statistics that I have provided.  The 'spate' of Messiah-wannabees in the 1st century was off the chart, and the historical record (eg, Josephus- NOT a Christian) is clear that there were many more than even those that were documented by name.

ah, well in that case, I contend that it made all the difference in the world, since the messiah did come. 

Contend he didn't come all you want to, but explain why he succeeded.

It is self-evident that a person who rises from the dead as he said he would succeeded.    You are merely engaging in question begging, beginning with the presumption that Jesus isn't the Messiah because he did not 'succeed' in the sense you demand is required by the Old Testament prophecies.  But what is under discussion is whether or not you are right, so assuming that you are right and merely re-stating that you are right isn't going to fly here.

You've got to show and demonstrate that you are correct, and you must also account for the historical facts.  The huge number of Messianic claimants during the time is just one component.  The elephant in the room is the sudden birth of an entirely new religion- positing not merely that a man rose from the dead, but that a man was God- emerged from a fiercely monotheistic society.  Fine, troubled people produce messiah claimants- how many of them claimed to be God and inspired thousands, tens of thousands, and millions to accept the claim?  And how many of these emerged from a population who was keen on stoning people who claimed to be God?

"it is suggested that when times get tough, people start looking for some reason to believe they will get better. Life in Judea under Roman occupation was VERY difficult, and that may explain why there were so many false messiahs. It may also explain why messianic fervor is high right now."

Yes, it is suggested, but the thesis can be tested.   For example, was there any time in history when the Jews had it tougher than in the period leading up to the Holocaust and then the Holocaust itself?  Yet by your own information (which I incorporated here) there were only two claimants in the 20th century:

6. Moses Guibbory (1899-1985)
7. Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902-1994)

I dunno, it just might be me, but the rounding up in boxcars of millions of Jews for literal annihilation wildly surpasses the troubles endured by the Jews under the Romans.

Moreover, if your thesis is true, then messiah claims should exist throughout all cultures and religions and not be confined mainly to just one (and now two, if you count the billions of Christians who count Judaism as their inheritance).

Such claims exist occasionally in Islam, I am aware of- and once again, the Muslims theoretically count Judaism as their inheritance.  What about the Buddhists, the Hindus, etc?

And again, within Judaism, there should be such behavior throughout the history of the Jewish people.  My chart shows conclusively that it simply isn't the case. 

RG,

I would really like you to expound on this statement:

"By trying to calculate out the date. That was their mistake."

It sure sounds like you're admitting that the OT allows for some calculations and that the 1st century Jews were engaged in them.  I think you should defend this statement.

I am not ignoring your previous post, but need to do some research on the matter before I reply. This one I think I can wave off, I mean suggest you give a listen to a few audio recordings on the subject of Daniel's 70 sevens. One was by Rabbi Tovia Singer, and is available for free from his site.
http://www.outreachjudaism.org/biblical.html
Another is also free, and is available from Rabbi Michael Skobac.
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=295&Itemid=58
One of those Rabbis mentioned that Daniel was permitted something nobody else was: to be able to calculate the date that the messiah may appear. I just can't recall which Rabbi it was.  Sorry.  

Sntjohnny,
Since the move to this site, I can't seem to find the other version of this thread, but that may not matter if this is the one you wanted to use.
Were you ever able to do the math to work out the 70 sevens?

ok ok, sorry SJ, i know it's been ages.  Whether or not you wish to pick this up again, i thought i owed you a response.

Your contention is that there was a disproportionate number of messiah claimants in 1st Century Judea, and that this means something.  In the light of the Daniel prophecy - which to the best of our knowledge was widely available in 1st Century Judea - i struggle to find this either surprising or significant.  Given that it was also a time of persecution and oppression for the Jews, in conjunction with an ambiguous prophecy suggesting a messiah (expected to free them from oppression), i would be astonished if there hadn't been lots of candidates for the job.

You go on to make the point that only one of these men had a religion spring up around him.  Again, i dont rate this observation especially highly, since the paradigm of a messiah was fixed firmly within the Jewish tradition.  We would not expect each of these wannabe messiahs to spawn a new religion, since they were all Jews!  In most of our closest source material, Jesus appears as nothing but a Jew - he does not seem to be trying to start a new religion.  That came later, in the interpretation by his followers of the meaning of his death.  The first three gospels have Jesus never claiming to be God.  Maybe the "Son of God", but although we act these days like that's an exclusive term, i expect you are aware that various figures in the OT held that title without any implication that they themselves were divine.

The Jesus Cult (if i can get away with the term) was a synthesis of the oral traditions of Jesus' ministry, the messianic expectations of his biographers, and the explanatory inventions of Paul.  That makes it necessarily unique, but not necessarily in a way which implies divinity.

Do you really think that Jesus and Paul had no areas of disagreement?

As RG says, from the Jewish perspective, the messiah never showed up.  The OT clearly anticipates a military leader, who still hasn't appeared (and i'd question whether the Jews really need one anymore).  It takes some twisted thinking to make Jesus fit those prophecies.

I know that there are various instances in history that have believed the world was about to end.  On the other hand, the founder you speak of specifically and explicitly said "No man knows the the hour except the Father in heaven."  Also, that the end would come like a thief in the night.  It is a bit hard to believe that the end would come unexpectedly when you expect it?

Think about that.  How do people who accept that the founder said the end would come unexpectedly nonetheless expect it?  Something doesn't add up.  Part of it is that there have been people throughout history who haven't listened to what Jesus himself said here.

Can i be permitted a "Lol"?  Jesus himself said - in the earliest quotes of his spoken word - that some of the disciples would not taste death before the final judgement came.  Who's not listening now?  Any Christian literalist has to be pretty good at closing his eyes and ears to things that dont fit his particular brand of literalism, because the Bible is not internally consistent.

Also, as i recall Edgar Whisenant (who gave 88 reasons why the world would end in 1988) stated that he was in line with Jesus' words, because although he didn't know the hour or the day, he could pin it down to the month and year.

And part of it is a Liberal myth.

Yeah, that's the problem.   

Remember, if you will, that up until the Reformation the church was almost uniformly amillennialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amillennialism) and even then the folks who really enjoy calculating the times and seasons, the Dispensationalists, didn't really come into large numbers until the 1900s.  While being an amillennialist doesn't preclude end time fascination, the model is entirely different and does not play into the Liberal myth.

Well, without copying out the whole of a scholarly book in my possession - "Longing for the End: A History of Millenialism in Western Civilization" by FJ Baumgartner - there's not much i can do to counter that assertion in the space available here.  Peruse this little list and see what you think - http://www.religioustolerance.org/end_wrl2.htm

As you say, this is a relatively minor 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?

Your first question pre-supposes that Jesus believed that he would be resurrected (and indirectly, that he was), which i do not believe is well-attested.  Obviously the answer to the second question is "none of them", but i might as well ask (in relation to the size and eventual cultural dominance of said groups) "how many of them were adopted as the official religion of the Roman Empire?".  You can hardly claim that this fact is insignificant to the spread of Christianity.  So unless you are ascribing either divine influence or an especially high standard of comparative religious judgement to Constantine (who after all, took up with Christianity because he thought it would help him win battles) then i dont really see how the fact that Christianity endured and flourished implies anything relevant to your case.

As for why a significant group of people ended up believing that this particular messiah-claimant rose from the dead, i can only say that almost any explanation is more likely than "because he did".