Why the Pillars didn't have followers after their death

[Bernard Muller]

I would modify what DCH wrote as follows: But the Romans responded to Jesus as thought by them to be a human royal claimant, not some eschatological threat.
That, I would agree with.

I also think that the followers of John the Baptist, and later the non-Galilean followers of Jesus, while the two were still free & alive, were more thinking about peaceful mass demonstrations as described in Josephus' Wars II, IX, 2-3 & Antiquities XVIII, III, 1 (where the Jew accomplished what they wanted, including a retreat of the Roman army from Jerusalem) in order to have the Romans out of Israel, http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html
Then after, according to some sayings that I think are authentically from Jesus (http://historical-jesus.info/86.html), God would provide the basic necessity of life for free (without work), giving, for the poor still alive, a good life, with a longer life span, because of little work, good food & drink, etc.
As in Isaiah 65:19-20 "... Never again will there be in it [the "New Jerusalem"] an infant who lives but a few days or an old man who does not live out his years; he who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere youth; he who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed."
As in Psalm132:13-15 "For the Lord [God] has chosen Zion ... here I will sit enthroned, for I have desired it-- I will bless her with abundant provisions; her poor will I satisfy with food."
See http://historical-jesus.info/hjes2x.html

Cordially, Bernard