I'm going to answer, based upon what was said in this response. So please do not get in a twist, if some of the stuff I state below seems 'elementary'... I'm only responding based upon what you stated. I already know Pascal speaks more about what I state below. But I am not yet sure what you are exactly driving at?
In regards to 'Pascal's Wager', one can state 'what if you are wrong' about all other claims in current existence, as well as the ones we yet do not know about. And even if 'Christianity' IS the correct one to be 'right' about', we still have many conflicting doctrines to salvation - under the direct cloke of this one religion alone.
And isn't it also safe to say that many, whom have a specific faith, before going into a world religions class, hardly ever come out at this class believing in a different one? Thus, I don't think stating you studied other religions really says much, does it? I doubt you believe, due to reason. Just like the ones, whom oppose your beliefs and faith(s), in an opposing religion likely believe due primarily to reason and logic alone.
Sorry if I'm needling here. However, I do not feel satisfied with your direct responses, thus far.
I'll ask again, in short. Why Jesus?
Why is it that every time I mention Pascal, people automatically jump to referencing his Wager? Y'all need to get over that. Pascal's Pensees include a lot more than his Wager, and the Wager, if it's to be considered at all, can only be considered as one part of Pascal's Pensees.
As for the other religions, here's what I learned in class in very, very general terms:
Confucianism was never originally a religion. Rather it was a legal reification.
Hinduism, although interesting in some aspects, is a highly diverse, incoherent, a-historical collection of winding philosophical fancy, almost none of which can be placed within the realm of real world relevance (i.e. historical places, times, etc). Don't believe me: just ask Arjuna!
Buddhism relishes what is otherwise a protest by Siddhartha Guatama against the form of Hinduism of his own time----and he, despite his story of the Bo Tree---wasn't considered in any way deified for something like 300 years after the supposed stories of his place in history. So, Buddhism wasn't originally a religion but rather a philosophy of reform.
Taoism wasn't originally a religion either. It began as a nature philosophy from a sage whom we don't know much about. Only much later did it turn into anything of a religious texture.
Other religions of the East which I haven't listed but which I've studied are, by my lights, even less impressive and significant than those I have listed.
Islam ............. well, ever read the Qu'ran? It is practically a-historical, not to mention in direct contravention to the statements of the New Testament.
Judaism. This is a whole other ball of wax and will depend upon the conglomerate studies of various fields of religious study by which to decide if it trumps Christianity.
I can say more, but I'm not here to write a dissertation. The point is that generally speaking, I'm an Existential Skeptic, and from what I can tell a posteriori, it's either Christianity or bust!
If you want sources, I'll list the books and professional journal articles I had to read and be tested over at the university level, along with everything else (of about several hundred sources and books) that I've ever studied in addition to all that I engaged at the university.