Talk:List of Jewish messiah claimants

Split from Messiah article

Except for the intro and the paragraph about Jesus, all the material was in the Messiah article in a section titled Other historically significant Jewish Messiah claimants. It reached the point where it constituted most of the article and people basically stopped contributing.

These are intended as overviews and not detailed descriptions. If you want to add information about a particular person included, please add to the related article and not here.

REMEMBER NPOV! This is not the place to get into religious debates about whether Jesus is the Messiah!

The source article did not contain references for the information.

RickReinckens 08:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a fundamental problem here. There is no preexisting definition of what a messiah is or does or what makes them a messiah in anyone's eyes.

This is a quote from The Long Return, Usually the term is applied to people who show an ability to foresee (prophet) and have taken a role as a normally polite yet outspoken (unelected and often rejected) visionary community leader who has the ability to promote spirituality often as a teacher or scholar and heals people in some definable way.

So if these are the accepted keys to being defined as a messiah, then the Promised Messiah is only one of a small number of qualified people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.55.138 (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography

I have added a general reference bibliography on the subject of Jewish messianism. At the moment, I have also added specific bibliographies for Jacob Frank, Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson,Isaac Luria and Sabbatai Zevi, which are located within their specific entries. These are not intended to be comprehensive, and I would welcome any additions if other users are aware of them. Unfortunately, I can't read Hebrew, so I've been largely restricted to English language literature...

User Calibanu 17:09, 31 May 2006

When did the Arizal hakodesh claim he was the Moshiach??

BS"D

When did The Arizal Hakodesh or his talmid R' Chaim Vital claim to be the Moshiach??? I have never heard that and don't belive it to be true. Could somebody please clarify that for me?

Thanks, Shaul avrom 18:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone read this talk page any more???? Its been a month since I posted my question.--Shaul avrom 22:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to be the only one who looks at this talk page and knows Jewish History. R' Chaim Vital was a talmid of a talmid of the Arizal HaKodesh. --Shaul avrom 15:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Shaul avrom: I have the same question/s as you. IZAK 09:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should remove the Arizal from the list temporarily unless someone can show that the arizal declared himself as the moshiach. The wikipedia page on the ari has no mention of this and I have not seen such a teaching in various jewish textbooks. If someone finds a source to the contrary than they can put his name back in.Sagtkd 07:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

One other thing I noticed in the deleted portion was that there was no claim of him declaring himself as the actual moshiach but rather the forerunner to the moshiach. Another innacuricy is that the section said that the arizal claimed to have the soul of the Moshiach ben Yosef. It is known that the Arizal was from the house of Dovid and therefore would not have claimed to have been otherwise. Sagtkd 07:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It gives R' Chaim Vital as having said to have been Moshiach ben Yosef. Not the Arizal. --Shaul avrom 13:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What is said originally was: "Isaac Luria (b. 1534 in Jerusalem; d. 1572 in Safed, Israel) taught in his mystic system the transmigration and superfetation of souls, and believed himself to possess the soul of the messiah of the house of Joseph" Sagtkd 04:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove. The source given for the Ari Z"L and R' Chaim Vital is very questionable. A {verification needed} tag was added. If there's no complaint, I would suggest removing the names entirely unless another source can be found.Yserbius (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources:

"he himself pretended to be Messiah ben Joseph" http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10192-luria#anchor6

Both are also included in this article http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12416-pseudo-messiahs.

"Some say he believed himself to be the Messiah, the son of Joseph." http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/isaac-ben-solomon-luria Yaakovaryeh (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent move

Care to explain the logic on this one? A Jewish messianic claimant could be someone Jewish filing a claim in court in the manner of a Messiah (whatever that would imply). "People who have claimed to be a Messiah in Judaism" would be perhaps the most precise title, but it's also long and unwieldly. The original title seems the best option, to me. SnowFire 17:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Seeing no response, I'm moving it back. I don't know; maybe the page should be at Jewish messianic claimants, but without a reason to go on... SnowFire 05:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Asher Kay

Removed the following from the section on Asher Kay:

Not much is know about his Reincarnation, but most believe he was reborn in Columbus, Ohio in 1988.

no cites, no references, and a highly speculative and dubious claim - have removed. (forgot to log in before making the edit tho - apologies) --Black Butterfly 18:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Jesus...

Before I put it in I was wondering if there was a logical reason that Jesus isn't on the list. Eno-Etile 05:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I was sure this had been discussed but evidently I'm wrong (either that or the discussion was on another article.) I'd be in favour of putting it in tho with a "Main article: Judaism's view of Jesus", due to this article focusing on the Messiah from a Jewish perspective rather than looking at the more general concept (see Messiah). --Black Butterfly 08:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, well I'm just going to put the name on the list, since Jesus meets the list's criteria. Someone else can make it a link since I'm not sure what would be most appropriate. Eno-Etile 08:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have made it link to Jesus. --Black Butterfly 09:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither Jesus nor the LR

ever claimed to be the messiah. Their followers believed it and made the claim, but they did not endorse it. They both refused to rule out the possibility that they might be the messiah - how could they? - but I don't see how that makes them "claimants". I'm not sure either should be in this article. -- Zsero 20:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

So you were there? Or did you find their journals? I don't who "LR" is. But since a religion was founded on the idea that Jesus claimed to be the messiah, the son of God, and God himself it seems a bit presumptuous and insulting for you state that he never claimed to be the messiah. Especially since there is no Jesus journal in which he stated that he wasn't the messiah and since there are records kept by his closest followers that say that he made these claims. Eno-Etile 01:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't leave out the most famous of all of the people who claimed to be the Messiah. Including Jesus on the list shouldn't offend Christian sensibilities (It doesn't offend mine.). The list doesn't make any comment on the veracity of Jesus' claim, it just says Jesus claimed to be the Jewish Messiah. And by all accounts, Jesus did. Jsc1973 (talk) 05:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Listing Jesus as "Yeshua" is revisionist, as he is never called by a Hebrew or Aramaic name anywhere in the Greek writings about him known as the "NT". Furthermore, the closest actual Hebrew word to "Yeshua" is y'shu'ah, which is feminine. The male name which is a Babylonian-era shortening of the name Y'hoshu'a is Yeishu'a. And while Menachem Mendel Schneerson may have things claimed in his name he surely never made the claim himself. He shouldn't be on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.17.146.166 (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeshua was a common Hebrew name in the late 2nd Temple period. And no, Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah. If you think he did, please cite your source. -- Zsero (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Jesus claimed to be the Messiah according to John 4:25-26 - "The woman said, 'I know that Messiah' (called Christ) 'is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.' Then Jesus declared, 'I, the one speaking to you—I am he.'" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.67.6 (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Can we remove the Lubavitcher Rebbe Please?

If this is a list of 'Claimants' and he was never a claimant I don't see the validity if including him and I have taken him off the list. --IDTboy 11:13, 5 September 2008

See above. Nor did Jesus ever claim it for himself. -- Zsero (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Claimants" is not well defined

There is of course an elementary problem with asserting that "the Messiah" need necessarily equate with the "Jewish Messiah." Jesus, for example, claimed to be "The Messiah" and not particularly the "Jewish Messiah." Yes, there were some coincidences: Judaic scripture, religion, culture, society, and identity being among them.

But putting that aside for now, the title "Jewish Messiah claimants" is nevertheless a little bit ambiguous, as it can mean a few different things:

1. One who claims to be the "Jewish Messiah"
2. One whom others claim to be the "Jewish Messiah"
3. One who claims to be the "Messiah of Judaism" ("Jewish Messiah")
4. One whom others claim to be the "Messiah of Judaism" ("Jewish Messiah")
5. One who claims to be the Messiah as foretold in Judaic or Judaic-associated scripture
6. One whom others claim to be the Messiah as foretold in Judaic or Judaic-associated scripture
7. One whom G-d claims (appoints/anoints) to be the Messiah, according to Judaic or Judaic-associated scripture, within the concepts of Judaism
8. One whom God claims (appoints/anoints) to be the Messiah, according to Judaic or Judaic-associated scripture, regardless of whether he fits into Judaism's concepts or not

That should be all of them, and though we may for some time dwell in 'the pleasant fact that there are only eight of them,' and certainly some cross-cancellation can be done in some cases, I think these distinctions need to be dealt with in terms of distinguishing one particular "claimant" from another. -Stevertigo 04:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Jesus never claimed to be the messiah at all, but had he done so he would have claimed he was the Jewish messiah. There was no other kind of messiah he could ever have thought of being. "Messiah" is a Hebrew word and a Jewish concept, and Xianity with its own notion of a messiah didn't exist yet. -- Zsero (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to get sidetracked with Jesus, because that wasn't the point of my post. Though you did say some things that were highly inaccurate, please forgive me anyway for just ignoring them. Again, the point is that the usage here of two subjective terms "claimant" and "Jewish" makes the "Jewish Messiah claimant" concept ambiguous in four(x2) dimensions. To deal with the inherent ambiguity in this concept, each case must state in succinct notation why its included here in accord with the points I've listed. Regards, -Stevertigo 06:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo is creating a mess where there is none. Our policy is simple: we provide all significant views from notable and reliable sources. What defines a "climant to be Jewish messiah?" Simple: that there is a significant view from a notable anr reliable source. That's all. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

But if the concept itself is conceptually problematic, how do we handle it in a categorical, encyclopedic way? Yes, I understand that I may be "creating a mess" here, according to a particular point of view. But terms change all the time, and the two relevant terms "Jewish" and "claimants" are subjective, as I've stated.

Keep in mind I'm not even raising the oxymoronic issues relevant to any "[exclusive ethnic culture's] [savior to the world]." Rather I'm just saying that there needs to be more of an introduction here that explains the variance. Its not a categorical list. Each case is different. -Stevertigo 05:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Besides, some don’t fit the bill because they allegedly were prophets or forerunners, not the Messiah. Of course I know the return of prophecy is expected for the time when the Messiah will come, but still, these are two things. Either shorten the list or widen the definition to include these men. --81.92.17.129 (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Cyrus and Alexander

I removed these two because they belong in a separate category. They are not messiah claimants in the way Jesus of Jacob Frank were. They were actual kings - in their cases, "messiah" means only that they were annointed. But they were actual kings, not eschatological claimants. If we include Cyrus, we may as well include David, Solomon, etc. and all the high priests. They were all annointed too. My point is, this article should be about people who claimed that they should be annointed king. Not people who actually were annointed king and actually reigned as king. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Lede

SnowFire reverted my additions to form a basic lede intro, claiming "Eh, that Judaism / Christianity list opens up a giant can of worms. There ARE - or at least have been - Jews who believed the Messiah came (and wasn't Jesus). And Christian view is out of place here." While I believe eir to be acting in good faith, I disagree with the view that a nonce intro should supercede even a rudimentary intro such as the one I propose. On eir points, the first point is well made. The second point "And Christian view is out of place here" appears to be overstated. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 06:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, considering that this is an issue in which people are touchy on, I'd rather have nothing than content that is definitely going to raise hackles. I agree that the intro should be expanded, but the plain fact is that coming up with one true definition of what the Jewish Messiah is doesn't work. Every movement to call someone the Messiah has been subtly different and interpreted what the Messiah means differently. Ultimately Wikipedia has to fall back on a very general definition of what the Messiah is and then offer some examples.

I suppose the Christian view should be represented, but I'm wary of it appearing overly important here. By number of adherents, Jesus is obviously the most "successful" Messiah, but from the mainstream Jewish view that the Messiah hasn't come yet, Jesus is just another claimant. Let me try a different phrasing. SnowFire (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization

Why is "messiah" capitalized here, when it is uncapitalized elsewhere? Is this due to some qualitative distinction between the Jewish concept and any other?-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 01:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Usage in WP:RS varies a little but does tend to capital M with "the", but yes "a messiah" wouldn't be. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Moses Guibbory copyvio

Almost the entire section for this figure is a copy and paste from this. That site claims copyright, so I don't think it's been released, but I might be wrong. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed. Thanks for pointing it out. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is it not explaind that Jesus was killed by romans ?

It seems POV to leave out the fact that Jesus was killed like the other Messiah claimants such as Judas of Galilee and it is easy enough to source it is in the bible — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.168.137 (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why this is POV, but feel free to add that he was killed. At least he was Jewish. Debresser (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is the term 'false' used

In using the text 'another false messiah', an opinion of validity is given. Anyone claiming to be a messiah is no different than any other. I would either ask that 'false' be added to all claimants, or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.178.54 (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough. Since the messiah hasn't come yet, all were false. Debresser (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. "False messiah," "pretend messiah," and "pseudo-messiah" are all value judgments and should be eliminated. The claim that "the messiah hasn't come yet" is another value judgment, considering that there are no objective and universally accepted standards for determining messiah status. Adding "false" to every instance would simply multiply the value judgments, since some past messiahs (notably Jesus and Sabbatai Sevi) are still accepted as such by some people, though there are those who do not view such people as still Jewish (note: this too is a value judgment, albeit one that I happen to share). --Potosino (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

What about Haile Selassie I

Haile Selassie is considered by the Rastafarian Catholics to be the Messiah. It is still practiced today, and he is the most recent. He never made such a claim, and never denied it either (kind of like the Jesus character). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.178.54 (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This page is for Jewish Messiah claimants. Debresser (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Should Judas Maccabeus be on the list?

I don't know if Judas Maccabeus ever claimed to be the messiah but a lot of people thought he was. He was the only military leader in Jewish history to successfully lead a revolt against an occupying force (the Seleucid empire of Antiochus IV Epiphanes). Futhermore, some Messianic prophecies from Daniel were fulfilled during his lifetime. Daniel chapter eight contains a prophecy where Daniel has a vision of a ram and a goat. The chapter has two parts: the vision and the explanation of the vision.

Part of the prophecy, contained in verses eleven through fourteen, says "It [the last horn to grow on the ram] set itself up to be as great as the commander of the army of the Lord; it took away the daily sacrifice from the Lord, and his sanctuary was thrown down. Because of rebellion, the Lord’s people and the daily sacrifice were given over to it. It prospered in everything it did, and truth was thrown to the ground. Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him, “How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled—the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, the surrender of the sanctuary and the trampling underfoot of the Lord’s people?” He said to me, “It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated."

The explanation of this part of the vision is given in verses twenty-three through twenty-five: “In the latter part of their reign, when rebels have become completely wicked, a fierce-looking king, a master of intrigue, will arise. He will become very strong, but not by his own power. He will cause astounding devastation and will succeed in whatever he does. He will destroy those who are mighty, the holy people. He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power."

Antiochus sacked the temple, outlawed Judaism, and banned temple sacrifices in 167 BC. Judas Maccabeus led a revolt and defeated Antiochus' general Nicanor in 160 BC, about six and a half years or almost exactly 2300 days later. Considering the amazing parallels of these events to the prophecy in Daniel seven, many people considered Judas Maccabeus to be the "Prince of princes" in verse twenty-five. While Judas Maccabeus was able to secure complete autonomy from the Seleucid empire, the peace he obtained was only temporary and people soon stopped considering him the messiah because he failed to bring in the "everlasting peace" promised by the messianic oracles.

I'm going to add him to the list but I'm putting this in the discussion page so that people can see all my reasons for adding him and can debate his inclusion

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.75.24 (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Goel Ratzon

Although he was arrested in Israel and renamed himself as a savior in hebrew there is no indication that he is Jewish. Ratzon is originally from India. --Lfrankbalm (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

There are many Indian Jews, see History of the Jews in India. He lived and was active in Israel. Debresser (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• whatever Ratzon is has to be cited as fact.. saving citation-proof it cannot be included here.Goel Ratzon - Needs a factual basis or citation --Lfrankbalm (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The Goel Ratzon needs a factual basis or citation to support the contention that he "claims to be a Jewish Messiah." A single attribution is all that is required. To include without support is to do so based on an assumption, which is therefore not factual. -Lfrankbalm (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

References

• The words in the source you cite, taken directly from a Jerusalem Post article, are "he learned while traveling in India ... . “He was in India for years.” ", not that he is originally from India. According to the English and Hebrew Wikipedia articles based on a Yediot article he was born in south Tel Aviv to parents from Yemen. Mcljlm (talk) 03:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Original Research Notice Board

I have created an entry on the noticeboard for "Jewish Messiah Claimants" on the basis that this entry may consist of original research as a synthesis of published (or unverifiable) material.

Noticeboard : Wikipedia:NORN

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source."

The conclusion of this entry being a research report of "Jewish Messiah Claimants," reliant on the synthesis of various sources, which are then subject to personal interpretation.

Additionally, as evidenced by talk, the criteria for listing/inclusion within this entry is subjective in nature. --Lfrankbalm (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

-many of the citations in this article (where they exist) are sourced from the website "livius" which may not be a reliable source. Concerns regarding copyright infringement (plagiarism) were voiced in talk above.

-re un-sourced "Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines require all information to be citable to sources. When information is unsourced, and it is doubtful any sources are available for the information, it can be boldly removed." Wikipedia:USI 17th, 18th, 19th and too many un-sourced statements to list.

-fact that this article has existed for some time and is mostly un-sourced or reliant (or copied from) a single source point to original research.

-Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. --Lfrankbalm (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This not my area of expertise but after spending 15 mins looking at the article and sources my impression is that it is based on original research and duplicates material already contained in the individual bios already presenton WP and the List of messiah claimants article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course it will duplicate material contained in the individual articles. See WP:Summary style. That's the way general articles are supposed to be constructed. And of course there will be some duplication with a list for the topic. That's how lists are constructed. It wuld be much more concerning if they material did not overlap. If there is identical wording, it just has to be attributed. DGG ( talk ) 16:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

BC and AD

What happened to using BC and AD. When did BCE and CE over take this. Is this revisionist history.24.112.198.11 (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

In Judaism-related articles BCE and CE is preferred, but see WP:ERA. Debresser (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Schneerson

I edited multiple parts of the article in three distinct edits. User:Debresser decided to nuke all of the edits with the only comment being 1. Addition of material that is not relevant here about the Lubavitcher Rebbe 2. Addition of lots of tags. Neither should be an issue. For one, the original section about the previous Lubavitcher Rebbe ZT"L, seemed to be written by someone sympathetic to the Meshichisters. I fixed it to be more neutral and added a link to Chabad Messianism where the crux of the article lies. I also added in a sentence or two about the controversy surrounding the Chabad Messianic Movement and how many non-Lubavitch Rabbonim consider it heresy. Both are true and both are very relevant to the topic, just as much as the history and aftermath of other messianic claimants. Second, Addition of lots of tags is a lousy reason for an edit undo. Those tags were put there for a good reason, namely there were multiple issues on the page including several unsourced items and one surprising claim about Rabbi Chaim Vital and Rabbi Isaac Luria that is only mentioned on one website of questionable accuracy. If there is a problem with what I added, fix it, don't nuke it. Don't use a cannon to kill a fly. Yserbius (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

1. The tags all come down to one issue, a claim which you find surprising. No need to "nuke" the article, as you say, with a multitude of tags. I left one {{Verify source}} tag, and that should be enough.
2. I do not think the section about the Lubavitcher Rebbe (not "he previous Lubavitcher Rebbe ZT"L", because the word "previous" is reserved for Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn) was not balanced. Your addition definitely gave undue weight to a tiny fraction who ascribe(d?) Godlike powers to him.
3. I'd like to remind you about WP:BRD and suggest you establish consensus before you re-revert my undo. Debresser (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The "Elokists" are a well known, documented and well established fringe group within Chabad. Although Chabad often downplays their numbers and influence (along with denying what does and does not constitute "elokistism" see R' Kotlarsky's comments about "his presence is here now and may he grant our requests" or R' Ashkenazi saying רבי, תציל ותגן על כל אחד ואחד and etcetera), I see no reason why they should be ommitted from the article. Never the less, since I do not have sources in front of me, I kept the omission. I reverted most of the rest of the section back to the way I had it. I refer to R' Menchem Mendel Schneerson ZT"L as "The Previous Lubavitcher Rebbe" or "Der Freerdikker" due to the fact that there is no current Rebbe, making him the de facto previous.

1. The phrase "many people hoped that he would be revealed as the Messiah" I changed back to "many people believed that he would be revealed as the Messiah" which is more accurate and in line with the phrasing of the rest of the article.
2. A link to the main article on Chabad messianism was added to the head of the section.
3. The harsh criticism of Chabad messianism from non-Chabad Rabbis was added in. Yserbius (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with the present text, which is now reasonably balanced. As far as accusing me of wanting to edit war: it takes 2 to make a war... Debresser (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Who put this complete crap here? "...this grew in size after his death and by some estimates most of the Chabad movement today has been taken over by the "Messiah Schneerson" movement...." The source is a blog post from 2008. Is that really what is considered a source for a Wikipedia article?? I am not going to research this, but I know many in the Chabad movement and have a close family friend in the "meschichit" movement. The later is in a very small minority at this point. In the time immediately following Schneerson's death, yes, there were large numbers, possibly even majorities, who thought he was the messiah and would return. That ended rather quickly as the Chabad movement's leadership consolidated following the vacuum created by his death. Those who remain in the belief that he was the "moshiach" are a small minority tolerated by some in the movement as misguided and despised by others. Dkelber (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, in the end, lacking high-quality sources, it boils down to he said, she said. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

First Century Claimants

Can anyone show where any of the first century figures are said to be the Messiah? Aside from Jesus and the Emperors, there's no record of anybody at the time claiming to be the Messiah or that that Messicanic prophecies applied to them. Not even the current source says that there is. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Judas of Galilee the source says: "We know that both Jesus and Theudas, together with Judas' (grand)son Menahem, were called Messiahs, and this makes it extremely likely that this title was given to Judas too. An additional argument is that Judas made a bid for national independence, something that was expected from the Messiah." That is only speculation. In the article about him it says "Judas is referred to in Acts of the Apostles, in which a speech by Gamaliel, a member of the Sanhedrin, identifies Theudas and Judas as examples of failed Messianic movements", referring to Acts 5:37.

Regarding Menahem ben Judah the claim is repeated in the article about him, but without a source. I think we should add a {{Citation needed}} tag at both locations.

Regarding the Egyptian (prophet) the source says "like Joshua and Moses, the Egyptian claimed to lead the Jews to a promised land without enemies. This was clearly a messianic claim", which sounds reasonable.

In general, the source is article on Livius written by a Jona Lendering. I am a bit worried about 1. WP:RS 2. it shouldn't turn out that the same person wrote those sources and added the information to Wikipedia. In any case, we should discuss this first and only remove sourced and longstanding statements after a consensus is reached, and if Perfect Orange Sphere will not abide by that, I will ask for sanctions against him. Debresser (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Given all the issues, I don't think that that source passes WP:RS. The first red flag is on its FAQ, where it says "Why are you doing this? Because "real" scholars (those employed by universities) write for their colleagues and often ignore the larger audience". This site is not a scholarly site and does not claim to be affiliated with any official sort of organization or anything that would lend it credibility. Then we run into problems with fact:

The page is contradicting itself when it says "we know...Menahem" was called a Messiah. Their article on him never mentions any source doing such, it just says "There is no need to doubt whether Menahem claimed to be the Messiah. He was a warrior, entered Jerusalem dressed as a king, quarreled with the high priest (who may have entertained some doubts about Menahem's claim), and worshipped God in the Temple". So we "know" that he was called the Messiah because he was a religious, combative person that liked fancy clothes?

That sort of speculation is endemic to all of these articles. The most minor whispers of hints someone could have made a Messianic claim are taken as absolute fact that they were Messianic claimants.

Further, Acts 5 says nothing about "Messianic movements". It says Theudas was "claiming to be somebody", says Judas the Galilean "led a band of people in revolt". Absolutely nothing about the Messiah is said.

This is the problem with this section of the article: unscholarly sources and wild speculation based on nonexistent or horribly stretched details are being used to establish these people as Messianic claimants as if they were bedrock facts of history. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 05:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Why do we have Vespasian on the list? --Wiking (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Cyrus and Alexander

The article is misleading, Cyrus and Alexander were not Jewish. --YB ^✍ 15:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Black Israelites

• Suggested edit:

Ben Ammi Ben-Israel, born Ben Carter, October 12, 1939 – December 27, 2014. Ben-Israel was revered as a messianic figure in the community, his picture adorning at least one wall in every apartment. In an interview, Ben Ammi described his status as a prophet and spiritual leader:

"My anointing did not come until after we had arrived in Israel. The Father sent a prophet to anoint me and to let me know the further off or great portion of my mission...At the time he anointed me...I received the name Nasi Hashalom [The Prince of Peace]...Later on this same prophet came again to tell me according to the word of God that at a later date someone would be sent to anoint me to sit on the throne of David in the spirit and to fulfill the prophecies of he that was to sit on the throne of David. The words of a true prophet, they certainly came to pass, and it took place just as he said. Afterwards, from Nasi Hashalom my name was changed to Rabbey and Adoni Rabbey [My Lord and Master].

• Dispute against this addition:

16:20, 19 December 2017‎ Wiking (talk | contribs)‎ . . (32,777 bytes) (-1,182)‎ . . (Black Hebrews are not Jewish (nor consider themselves Jewish)) 

• Counter-argument:

Black Hebrew scholar Andrew Esensten: "more radical Hebrew Israelite groups claim that they are the authentic Jews and that 'white' Jews are nothing more than imposters."

• Conclusion: This is a strong enough link to include the idea of their messianic claims into a page about Jewish messianic claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan925 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  • It is fairly clear that this list is devoted to messianic figures which developed within Judaism and not externally, even if there are external groups claiming to be Jewish and considering conventional Jews to be imposters. Moreover, Ben Ammi Ben-Israel himself did not claim to be Jewish, nor was he considered Jewish by others per any RS referenced in the article. --Wiking (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
    • The issue isn't whether or not the community in question was developed within Judaism, instead the issue at hand is whether the community in question attaches itself to the Jewish community and is a vocal member in the Jewish square of public ideas. And as I mentioned on your talk page: as this community has begun to serve in the IDF and begins to join into the mainstream Israeli culture and into the broader Jewish culture, it is very much necessary for their claims of messianism to be scrutinized within the Jewish sphere of thought. Lastly, you say that Ben Ammi did not himself claim to be this or that, and yet despite Schneerson's constant declarations that he was not a messianic figure, somehow someway his name wound up on this page. Why? Because he was believed to be a Jewish messiah by some of his followers, just as Ben Ammi is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan925 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
      • No, IDF service and participation in Israeli culture are irrelevant as inclusion criteria here. --Wiking (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Schneerson's inclusion is supported by RS. Feel free to open a separate topic for discussion. There is no parallel between Schneerson and Ben Ammi though. --Wiking (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Jewish messiah claimants. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150219223222/http://thebeaconmag.com/2013/04/opinions/on-chabad/ to http://thebeaconmag.com/2013/04/opinions/on-chabad/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Prophets

According to the introduction, this is a list of people ‘of notable people who have been said to be a messiah, either by themselves or by their followers’. This doesn’t include people who have been said to be a prophet (by themselves or by their followers) or a forerunner of the Messiah. --81.92.17.129 (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)