Islam critiqued need historical context; Jesus the only messiah?

In answer to the video "The Quran and History: Surah 4:157"

During the years when Jesus was growing up, many people believed that the End Times necessary for the appearance of the warrior king Messiah per the HB had already arrived, and that this liberator would soon organize a revolt against the hated Romans and drive them out of the country. There were many claimants to the role before, and after Jesus.

The Romans were fully aware of this and were constantly on the look out for rebel leaders and their accomplices in a time where uprisings against the state were more frequent in Palestine than any other part of the Empire.

In light of these historical realities, and the fact that the end times messianic figure did not materialize in Jesus, that it appeared to many that he was murdered, those who nevertheless believed him to fit the role could not but paint this aspect of his life in "purposeful" obscurity, as shown above. In addition, his death/failure became his self-predicted success, purposefuly orchestrated, in fulfillment of ancient prophecies retrospectively applied to him, or rather misapplied to anyone familiar with the HB.

The whole NT is a poorly written apology of a new concept of the end times king messiah, as here candidly stated

Jn20:31"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name".

Matt12:15-21 attempts to show that Jesus' appeal to secrecy was in fulfilment of Isa42:1-4, a passage that only relates to what Matthew infers by the most farfetched analogy. He implies that by the vast majority of Israel's being purposefully denied access to the truth, the Gentiles instead will be saved. But for these gentiles to have access to this truth after Jesus' death, there had to be a select few who would understand the secret scheme. The plot was supposedly achieved through obscured parables only his disciples would understand Mk4:11-12,Matt13:13-15 yet we many times read throughout the NT how his closest followers who supposedly were among those select few at least struggled in comprehending him if not completely misunderstood him. In fact towards the end of Jesus' mission people in general and his closest entourage had no clue about his messianship, to the point that when Simon identifies him as the messiah, Jesus tells him that he could only have received that information in a supernatural way Matt16. The simple reason is that the historical Jesus did not go around claiming to fulfil the messianic predictions of the HB. The claim was later made for him. If he did, people would have laughed their lungs off, including the Romans. The Gospel writers, writing at least 50 years after the events knew that what Jesus accomplished had nothing to do with the highly anticipated establishment of the kingdom of God. They were thus left with no option other than painting the whole matter as they did.

 
The Jewish people were thus divinely blinded for that purpose, at least temporarily as stated in

Rom11:11"I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous".

As if God could not provide salvation for both Jew and Gentile without deliberately withholding knowledge so that only some Jews are saved.

When Jesus was apprehended and judged by the Romans, with the complicity of the Jewish leaders who wanted to get rid of him for his denouncing their sins as past prophets did, he did not claim to be the king messiah, neither to the Jews who were seeking a pretext to make him arrested, pressing the question to have him confess Matt26:63-64,Mk14:62,Lk22:70 nor in front of the authorities, who eventually sent him to be crucified. By doing so, and acceding to the request of the Jews, the romans validated the Jewish charge against him of messianic kingship which is punishable by death under state laws.

Now that Jesus and his band became official outlaws wanted by the state, his close apostles are reported to have fled with Peter even denying he knew Jesus 3 times. The Romans, lobbied by their Jewish stooges, deemed the allegation against him enough for him to be crucified. This punishment was most often reserved to those who threatened the political status quo, regardless of their background motives (religious or else). Jesus was a typical person the Romans would go after in those days, a charismatic leader who proclaimed a kingdom "with God" not "with Caesar" at its head was seen as an immediate threat. The person didnt even have to present a violent danger to be inflicted with such punishment, nor tangible evidence, especially a non-Roman citizen or a slave. Simple suspicion, in this case instigated by their Jewish minions, or even non-violent anti-government talk such as the promised rule of God's kingdom, was enough to trigger the authorities.

As to Pontius Pilate washing his hands of the decision to execute a political agitator, a man known for his brutality against his subjects, is obviously a scribal corruption with an agenda. The Greeks were writing the Gospels after the Roman legions had returned to crush the Jewish rebellion of 66CE and did not want to antagonize Roman power and attract their hostility at that point in time. What is insteresting to add is that, contrary to similar cases where accomplices would be tracked down and killed to crush a potential rebellion, the Romans left Jesus' disciples to freely preach their gospel.

This shows that, as said above, Jesus was seen as inconsequential in terms of posing a violent threat, that the savage Roman police would easily be triggered on simple basis of suspicion and that they would readily accomodate their local puppets to safeguard their own dominion in the distant regions of the empire.

As Paul candidly admits,

1Corin15:17"If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins".

In essence, the validity of Christianity stands or falls on this claim. Yet the admittedly crucial nature of that event is contrasted by the scarcity of material related to it within the Gospels. Barely 5 people witnessed the risen Jesus, and when analyzed critically, these testimonies are contradictory and inconsistent. In Mark, Matthew and Luke, Jesus' message is centred not on the resurrection, but on the establishment of God's kingdom on earth, a metonym in those days for God's rule of justice and restauration of JEwish glory among the nations, with the defeat of the Romans. It is only with the development of Christology with John's Gospel and Paul's writings, as well as the Greek Church fathers, their rich Hellenistic background of mythologies and legends of deified leaders, that supplied the fertile ground for the short story of Jesus' resurrection, his interpolated deification.

This Hellenistic perspective however isnt on par with the Jewish background which the writers and early Christian scholars claim provide proof for their beliefs on Jesus. In Jewish understanding, the resurrection of the dead is a common theme that has already occured in the past and that shall happen again in the messianic era, without any divine connotation or connection with atonement for sins.

These men were formulating their ideas, interpreting inherited traditions while still infused with stories of demigods, Achilles, Dionysus or Heracles to name but a few. By the time they expressed their thoughts and the Gospels were put to writing, the Jerusalem Temple had been destroyed in 70CE, and the centers of Christian thought were spread around the Mediterranean. This opened the way for non-Jews and foreigners to Jesus' socio/cultural/religious background to take the reigns of power in the early church.