The historical accounts seem to support the idea that the story is a combination of multiple people. But the guy who got nailed to a cross was an actual historical event and became the focal point for the amalgam.
Which "historical accounts" support this idea? I've never such those among what we know...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbatai_Zevi
Nor would violating mainstream religious views be a terribly unique event when a new movement is picking up followers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Frank
It is also not as "bizarre" as you might think. Judaism two thousand years ago was highly fragmented, with many different movements all competing for followers and converts; there was no single body of "Jewish thought" at the time. There were different interpretations of the prophecies, and the earliest Christians followed one tradition of interpretations (this is clearly reflected in the gospels -- e.g. Matthew follows the Greco-Jewish tradition and the Septuagint).
i doubt stealing would be as severe a crime as treason, so this would indicate that it was a common form of punishment
Meanwhile, bible scholars acknowledge that the books weren't written by people who had personally met Jesus, and don't even know precisely who the authors were—they are in fact anonymous—the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are just traditional.
There's little doubt among scholars that there was a specific person at the start of this (and not some BS "Dan Brown"-like conspiracy).
Yes, but to play... eh, Messiah's advocate... this doesn't discount the possibility of Jesus having been one of those claimants leading one of those movements, he just wouldn't have been the only one.
It doesn't lend credence to anything either, but it's not impossible that Jesus happened to lead the cult that won out, thanks eventually to Rome and the British Empire.
The British Empire? How so?
Rome obviously was instrumental for the success of Christianity, spreading along the roads of the Roman Empire, having a large population with the same language so you could reach lots of people with one translation Although Christianity wasn't alone in using these advantages. It eventually won out but Mithraism was a similar positioned religion.
After the rise of the Islam reduced the area of Christianity, European colonialism spread it over the whole world. If I had to single out one European nation with the most influence, I would have said it was the Spanish Empire and not the British.
For one, the burden of proof would be on proving it was "multiple" people.
Second, we have a couple of references to a single person (Josephus, Tacitus).
Third, we know many other cases of a single founder, from Mohamed to Joseph Smith, Jr.
>there were plenty of messianic claimants at the time and plenty of Jewish religious movements competing for followers.
How is that relevant. There were many, but one of them got off the ground. Why should there be 2 or 6 of them getting popular simultaneously?
Tacitus makes a vague reference to a "cristus" that could have referred to any messianic claimant (as "christ" is just a Greek word for "messiah"), and Josephus makes a similarly vague reference to people with very common Jewish names (Joshua i.e. Jesus, Jacob i.e. James). In both cases there are reasons to doubt that the references refer to the specific Jesus in the biblical or quranic accounts (the latter unquestionably having been written centuries after Jesus supposedly lived). In both cases the claims are not based on the authors' first-hand knowledge and the authors based their writings on what the earliest Christians had told them, something that may have already been merely a legend.
Again, it is possible that Jesus was really a person who led a religious movement two thousand years ago. I am only saying that other explanations cannot be ruled out because there is almost no evidence at all. At best all we can say is that the earliest Christians lived about two thousand years ago and by that point believed some version of the Jesus narrative. Beyond that I am not seeing the evidence for a historical Jesus.
Sure, no reason to rule it out, just many reasons to rule it improbable.
These references have been largely debunked.
1. Josephus: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7437
"The evidence that the Testimonium Flavianum (or TF) is entirely a late Christian forgery is now as overwhelming as such evidence could ever get."
2. Tacitus: https://www.quora.com/Was-Tacitus-a-Christian
"With ultra-violet examination of the Second Medicean manuscript 'the alteration was conclusively shown', even though it wasn't possible to say 'who altered the letter e into an i'. The examination was made by Dr. Ida Giovanna Rao of the Laurentian library in Florence, in 2008. The alteration is also visible in an ultra-violet photograph."