Talk:List of messiah claimants

Linking?

I had an existential crisis, trying to decide—should I backlink this to list of people by belief or list of people by occupation

(the next time some officious technocrat asks me for my occupation, I might just fill in messiah. If nothing else, it'll be good for a discount on my car insurance) Martin

Naming?

Would List of claimed messiahs be better than List of messiah claimants? The article says that it also includes people whose followers asserted that they were messiahs. -- Oliver P. 01:18 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

Claimant also has a secondary meaning of one who has claim on something and would thus encompass those who followers assert has a claim to being a messiah. The primary meaning is true for most if not all on the list. SCCarlson 06:02 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

Jesus

I think that asserting that "Jesus did not claim to be the Messiah" is unnecessarily tendentious. Some people claim he did; some people claim he didn't, and we don't have to decide the question in order to place him on this list. I also don't see much need for "His followers formed Christianity" which is true but seems tangential. YMMD. -- Someone else 06:50 22 May 2003 (UTC)

So did no one claim before Jesus? lysdexia 15:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was looking for information about Messiah claimants at around the time of Jesus. I thought, perhaps wrongly, that there were certain Jewish groups who anticipated the imminent arrival of a Messiah. Perhaps John the baptist was one of them?. I though, again perhaps wrongly, that a number of such Messiah claimants were killed by the Romans and/or Jewish authorities in and around that time? Yet there is no mention of them in this Wiki. Michael Cole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.148.244 (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

It is misleading to mention Muslims as believers in Jesus just after referring to Jesus as a crucified leader, because the Quran states very explicitly that "Isa" (claimed to be Jesus) was not crucified, and that some other guy was on the cross. - Chris Schmidt 21:20 14 September 2017 (UTC)

"Believers in Jesus" is so vague that it is meaningless. And you have extracted one small aspect of Islam's view of Jesus. Read Jesus in Islam for more details. Sundayclose (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The section defines Jesus as "leader of a Jewish sect who was crucified", which is unfortunately not vague in a way that avoids the conflict with the Islamic idea of Jesus. See Jesus in Islam for confirmation that Jesus was not crucified according to Islam. - Chris Schmidt (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Saying Jesus was crucified for "alleged sedition" is not quite an accurate claim, as the primary source of details of his crucifixion is the Bible, which states that the Roman authorities were pressured by Jews to execute him, because Jewish people thought Jesus claimed to be God, a blasphemy punishable by death. The source for it being "alleged sedition" is Bart Ehrman, who represents one point of view among many. He has been against Christianity for some time and could be considered a biased source. If he is cited, I think there needs to be additional citations, such as the Bible (Luke chapter 23 in particular), to let readers examine different viewpoints out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.36.34.178 (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Categories

I broke this list down into 3 manageable bites, Jewish, Christian, and Other messiahs. Ignus 03:56, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merging

There is a lot of duplication between this article and Messiah. I propose to merge. ≈ jossi ≈ 04:17, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

I would perfer not to merge... i've been working toward the goal of having "Messiah" be about the concept, and each of the claimaints listed on the messiah page being given their own page, which would be referenced from the list page. However, i'm pretty new at all of this.

Ignus 04:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The concept of Messiah is already discussed in that article. It makes no sense to have two lists that share 90% of their names in it. ≈ jossi ≈ 22:27, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Moved Baha'u'llah

I moved Baha'u'llah as he wasn't a Christian messiah claimant in any normal meaning of the term. He wasn't really a Mahdi claimant either, but it's closer--T. Anthony 04:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

uh, what else can I say: yes he was? Baha'u'llah claimed to fulfill the return of Christ and claims his religion will unite the world and reign for one thousand years, as prophesied in Revelation. He also claims to be the 5th Buddha, the Kalki Avatar, the Shah Bahram, the Islamic prophesy of Jesus, the culmination of a universal religious cycle begun by Adam, and the first of a new cycle which will last 500,000 years. Cuñado - Talk 07:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Then I guess we could double-dip and put him both places. Or we could contact the three Bahai Wikipedians I find:

1. Brettz9-I asked him/her, but then found out s/he's deemed "missing."
2. Cyprus2k1
3. Exir Kamalabadi A Chinese Baha'i, also asked him/her but felt a bit guilty so hedged on it.--T. Anthony 10:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I think my difficulty listing him as Christian is he was born and raised Muslim, but was never at any point a Christian. So he is in least a Muslim who reportedly became a Messiah claimant. Anyway I have him in both places for now and contacted Brettz9 about it.--T. Anthony 07:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Which would also make him the only thoroughly non-Christian Christian messiah claimant. Hong Xiuquan was influenced by Protestant Liang Fa and took instructions from Issachar Jacox Roberts.--T. Anthony 14:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, he could go in either/both categories. I think Islam has a connection to Christianity, just like Christianity has to Judaism, so it's hard to define things like this. In my opinion he represents more the return of Jesus than any other category, but I'm not interested in arguing cause it really doesn't matter, as long as he's on the page somewhere. Cuñado - Talk 18:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

oh, and I'm a Baha'i, I guess I didn't mention that. Cuñado - Talk

I realized that later and felt a bit embarrassed. He's a bit of an odd case in that many, maybe even the majority, of the Bahai were/are from Christian countries and he did communicate with Christians. Yet to many Christians, like me, his own life story seems more tied in to the history of Iran and the Ottoman Empire. Hence more the story of a Muslim who began/discovered(whatever the right term is here) his own religion. Also before you told me this I thought Bahai viewed Jesus as basically the same as Zoroaster, Muhammed, or the Buddha.--T. Anthony 21:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay Brettz9 actually responded and agreed either or both is acceptable. I'd thought s/he was missing, but anyway if you want to revert it to the original that's fine too.--T. Anthony 09:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

tr:Sözde peygamberler

People needing more details

Can people who are more know more than me add more details for these people:

Jewish section:

Simon (c. 4 BCE) - The link is to the name 'Simon' and I could not tell who this refered to.--Zabdiel 11:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Cyrus the Great

This article is incomplete without mention of Cyrus the Great, whom the prophet Isaiah called the messiah. Isaiah 45:1

The original meaning of the word "Messiah" is merely one who is appointed by God to perform some task. - E.g. a king. It was after Jesus that the word became exclusively linked to the concept of a savior. Isaiah did not call Cyrus the savior. He referred to him as a king under God. - Chris Schmidt (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Shifts, and standards for being on this page.

I'm doing some fairly major revamping of the List of Messiah claimants. I tried to get rid of suspect additions that got in there as pranks or simply as poorly researched; unfortunately a lot of the Jewish messiahs aren't well known, so it's not easy to find stuff. I also tried to keep the summaries quick and to the point, while still letting people know what basically happened.

Note that I don't think this page should be used for people who simply randomly said that they were Jesus once while drunk; there were a few entertainers on the list who may have been added for that reason, but their wiki-articles and Google didn't turn up much. You should have gotten at least some small following to be here, or be notable for other religious reasons.

Jeff3K, Bahá'u'lláh was previously listed twice in both the Christianity and Islam sections, and frankly should have been listed in the other section as well. Since he claimed to be the successor to all religions (not just Christianity and Islam), and to not pigeon-holing him in just Islam or Christianity, he seems best to be put in the "Other" section. It reduces repetition and is more accurate, in my opinion. SnowFire 02:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

In the Baha'i tradition, Baha'u'llah clearly is the return of Jesus Christ. He has written, when writing to Pope Pius IX:

"O Pope! Rend the veils asunder. He Who is the Lord of Lords is come overshadowed with clouds, and the decree hath been fulfilled by God, the Almighty, the Unrestrained." [1].

This claim is understood by Baha'is to fulfill the return of Christ in both Christian and Islamic senses (Islam also states that Jesus will return after the coming of the Mahdi). In that Baha'i belief states that Baha'u'llah is also the expected "messiah" (for lack of a better word) of other religions does not take away from the first claim, because in Baha'i belief all those expected people are one and the same: the spiritual return of a Manifestation of God:

"These Manifestations of God have each a twofold station. One is the station of pure abstraction and essential unity. In this respect, if thou callest them all by one name, and dost ascribe to them the same attribute, thou hast not erred from the truth. Even as He hath revealed: “No distinction do We make between any of His Messengers!” For they one and all summon the people of the earth to acknowledge the Unity of God, and herald unto them the Kawthar of an infinite grace and bounty. They are all invested with the robe of Prophethood, and honoured with the mantle of glory. Thus hath Muhammad, the Point of the Qur’án, revealed: “I am all the Prophets.” Likewise, He saith: “I am the first Adam, Noah, Moses, and Jesus.” Similar statements have been made by ‘Alí. Sayings such as this, which indicate the essential unity of those Exponents of Oneness, have also emanated from the Channels of God’s immortal utterance, and the Treasuries of the gems of divine knowledge, and have been recorded in the scriptures." [2] -- Jeff3000 02:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Nonono. I understand all that, and I'm not saying that because the Baha'i believe him to fulfill all religions that somehow means he isn't the return of Jesus as well. I just think that the only reasonable categorization is either in both Christianity and Islam, or in the "Other/Combined" section. SnowFire 20:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the combined section is appropriate because it does not make clear what claim they are making, by seperating it out. Someone who is looking for Chrisitan Messiah claimants will miss those that are in the combined section. An other section may be appropriate. -- Jeff3000 20:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Li Hongzhi

would Li Hongzhi, founder of Falun Gong, make this list?? Chensiyuan 12:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say yes. In most of his online lectures he posits himself as the source of an upcoming "rectification" of the universe. I'd probably use the word "saviour" over "messiah". Li does compare himself (favourably) to Jesus, however. --Fire Star 火星 19:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Overlapping categories

High-five to the editors of this article! It's a great model for how the various self-claimed deity categories ought to be organized. I'm hoping someone less busy than me will undertake the task of organzing the overlap. --TheEditrix2 15:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you have a non-Jewish/Christian messiah?

An interesting article, but it's threatening to grow exponentially. I wonder if it should be limited to the Judeo-Christian tradition, partly in order to make it manageable, and partly to avoid confusing those who claim, or are claimed, to be the 'anointed king' based in the Biblical tradition with those who are merely somewhat similar but based in a different tradition? For example, the 18th century Burmese king Bodawpaya viewed himself as the world-ruler promised at the end of time in Buddhist tradition, and consequently embarked on a series of wars against his neighbours. In the very broadest sense he could certainly be said to have viewed himself in terms similar to those in which the Jewish Messiah was sometimes viewed, but when you look at the details the similarities fall away. I'd even leave the Islamic tradition of the Mahdi out - like the Buddhist tradition, it's a view which centres on a millenarian figure, but it's not connected with the Jewish Messiah described in Kings. (Is there an article about millenarianism? perhaps that's the place for these figures to be discussed). PiCo 05:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Earlier this morning I edited this section, adding Michael Jackson, along with two sentences of explanation. As of 1 pm CST I see it is been deleted, and there is no trace of either change in the history. I have looked at many of the wikipedia guide pages. Can the history page attached to a topic be edited to remove items? Because of the effect of the American media coverage of Michael Jackson in the past 15 years or so, I feel this entry may need some 'protection.' Any advise from more experienced users? Thanks, Stephen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.147.130 (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Mohammad

I don't know the technicalities behind this... but if Jesus is included shouldn't Mohammad too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.50.233 (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but he didn't claim to be the mahdi (messias). He pointed out, that someone else would come. With jesus it is questioned, if he really did, but its surely not questioned, that noone else is believed to be the messias by so many people as him. There are even some muslims who accept him as the messias but claim to remain muslims. --92.227.151.84 (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Earlier this morning I edited the "Other/combination" section, adding Michael Jackson, along with three sentences of explanation. As of 1 pm CST I see it is been deleted, and there is no trace of either change in the history. I have looked at many of the wikipedia guide pages. Can the history page attached to a topic be edited to remove items? Because of the effect of the American/English media coverage of Michael Jackson in the past 15 years or so, I feel this entry may need some 'protection.' Any advice or comments from more experienced users? Thanks, Stephen. 24.78.147.130 (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Other/combination messiah claimants This list features people who are said, either by themselves or their followers, to be some form of a messiah that do not easily fit into only Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Michael Joseph Jackson (1958-2009) whose followers see as ushering in the Age of Aquarius. One of the most famous humans on Earth, he consistently echoed the teachings of the historical Jesus of Nazareth through his own life and works. His simple, boisterously delivered message continues to be spread through worldwide modern multimedia, which fittingly were also employed in what followers see as his 'crucifixion' in the Western/English zeitgeist.

The problem is that there needs to be reliable sources backing this claim. No one doubts that there are a few people who would think that, but is it a major, notable movement? If it is a major, notable, movement, then CNN should eventually publish a story along the lines of "Jackson: Was he the Messiah?" Then we can link to the story as a reference. (Note that this has to be a major, notable source too, not just a personal webpage.) SnowFire (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Other musical celebrities

There was a BBC television documentary (part of the Everyman series sometime around the mid 1990's) about a group of people who believe that a certain Elvis Aaron Presley was the second coming ! Seemingly much of this was based on the first reported sightings of Elvis following his death being three days subsequent ! Takes all sorts I guess. 213.40.114.98 (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

---

A muslim person

the islam has no mention of any messiah or mahi after prophet mohammed (Sala ALLAH alih wa salam) neither in the QURAAN nor in prophit Mohamed's speaches so please stick to your own religous and since you don't know anyhing about the islam then please don't try to make up anything or in other words, please read the QURAAN before claiming anything to be silamic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.194.186 (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Why ...?

Why is not Jesus listed in the Christian list? He claimed to be Jesus, for sure. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent revert

Stevertigo: Here's why I made this revert.

• Hatnote redirect notices only matter when there's some better link to go to. Maybe false Messiah shouldn't link here - I certainly don't think it should - but if it does, there's no need to declare so loudly on top of the page unless there was a "For the album, see False Messiah (album) type disambiguation hatnote.
• This is a page for all messiah claimants, whatever messiah means, *not* solely Jewish messiah claimants. The phrasing was bad anyway - "as foretold?" That implies the that true prophecy is going on here and is in general too high-falutin'. No need to say both Old Testament / Jewish scriptures as well.
• "mobile" is used for phones. I'd be fine with taking out "wandering" altogether but calling Jesus "mobile" is bizarre, as immobile would imply he couldn't walk. The idea is more that he wasn't a temple rabbi who stayed in one synagogue, but rather lived as a traveler among the people.
• Schneerson is always added and removed and it's extraordinarily annoying. Wikipedia isn't about passing judgment about the veracity of the "Schneerson is the Messiah!" types, but it is undeniably true that they *existed* and in fact still do exist. That's all that matters. SnowFire (talk) 05:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

SnowFire, I saw your comments and decided they were worth taking my time to answer:

• Hatnotes: Points appreciated, but the term "false messiah" does redirect here, and that has semantic/polemic aspects. Its also POV, after all its only according to the Jewish view that "any" and all claimants are false. Hence its unusual. Hence its one of those rare cases in which a hatnote might be noteworthy, and even if the hatnote is just an intermediate step onto creating a "false messiah" disambiguation page, with proper caveat notation, then so be it. Note also that "False Messiah (album)" type disambiguation hatnotes are trivial hatnotes (according to the definition I wrote myself).
• Conceptualization: "This is a page for all messiah claimants, whatever messiah means" - Its understandable that this would be a good compromise, but again, with the "false messiah" concept linking here, its all to easy to insert POV. Again, its clearly been a key POV issue that "false messiah" redirects here where Jesus, in particular, is listed, and where Jewish messianism is consistently noted as the original, hence key concept.
• "Mobility:" I changed "wandering" to "mobile" because the former is clearly a pejorative to allege that Jesus was somehow not well-directed or divinely oriented. Note that "temple rabbis" didn't make good missionaries, and so it seems valid to note that Jesus had legs, hence "mobility" works to convey the meaning that "wandering" could not.
• Im not clear how your fourth point relates to any changes I made. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 20:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo, I was on vacation. Sorry about the slow response.

• Entirely disagree on hatnote comment, that example isn't trivial at all and I see your change was reverted to the hatnote page. How else would someone find "Love (band)" without such a link on the page "Love"? Where else would they look? There's no shame in that kind of hatnote, though obviously once there are three or more options a disambig page gets created instead. Anyway, now that false messiah doesn't redirect here, we definitely don't need such a hatnote. However, I once again point out that despite what your current False Messiah page says - thanks for going ahead and creating it, though - the idea that all claimed messiahs are false in Judaism is plainly untrue. That would imply that there IS no Messiah in Judaism. What modern "mainstream" Judaism actually says is that none of the currently known claimed messiahs are real. However, nothing prevents the Messiah from living right now in the context of Judaism, and there are Jewish branches that strongly have believed in a specific Messiah being for real.
• I don't really understand what you're getting at, but "mobile" just plain reads wrong in English. Let's just remove the descriptor entirely if you think that "wandering" is a problem.
• The fourth point is because you were removing Schneerson. SnowFire (talk) 05:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I coined the word "hatnote" precisely for the purpose of polite reference to "[Concept] (band)" type "disambiguations." Sometimes I just call these "spam."
• I'm glad that you agree with creating the "false messiah" page as disambiguation, and appreciate your effort toward improving it. I will work with you on crafting language that is better - I understand that you think writing it is 'tricky' (I'm certain it isn't).
• Your comment - "the idea that all claimed messiahs are false in Judaism is plainly untrue.. That would imply that there IS no Messiah in Judaism. What modern "mainstream" Judaism actually says is that none of the currently known claimed messiahs are real" - is self contradictory. What difference is there between saying '[Judaism regards] none of the known claimants as real' and '[Judaism regards] all of the known claimants as false?' Keep in mind that False messiah was nothing but a redirect to this page for years.
• You wrote: "I don't really understand what you're getting at, but "mobile" just plain reads wrong in English. Let's just remove the descriptor entirely if you think that "wandering" is a problem." - I don't see how you can state clearly that 'something reads wrong' (in whatever language) and then also state that you don't actually understand what my point was.
• OK. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 00:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Uh, the term hatnote has been around for some length of time. I guess you disagree with Wikipedia policy here, so this is a bit off-topic, but in defense of said policy... do you see any way around such notes? If the article is non-notable it should be deleted, of course, but if it is "notable", then it has to be accessible in some reasonable way. Wikipedia has chosen the hatnote to do so, because it's easy to ignore if the default article was correct, and easy to find if this wasn't the article you were looking for. It's not spam to be able to find the "Proto Indo-European language" by typing in "pie" into the browser and then clicking hatnote links to a disambig page.
• Okay, fine. I *disagree* with your point that wandering is pejorative; I think in this context it's clear what the meaning is. However, you don't, and if wandering is a problem, it's not key to quickly describing Jesus. Regardless of the merits of "wandering," I was clear before and remain sure now - "mobile" has an *entirely* wrong connotation.
• Do you have anything more constructive to add on the Judaism / false messiah note? I'm not *entirely* opposed to there being some kind of proviso here, but as written, it's false, for the reasons I've stated above. I don't normally revert quite so immediately but that sentence just doesn't work. SnowFire (talk) 03:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• wikien-l 2005
• The connotations of "mobile" are true, but they are not essential. What is essential is that Jesus had an extroverted outlook on life and this made him extremely unpopular.
• I will work with you on the false messiah page, but you will have to be clear about why the unnecessary language. Keep in mind, disambiguation notes are usually quite terse. At least disambiguation is the proper way to handle it. Its a travesty that it ever was a simple redirect. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 22:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Criteria?

It's not clear to me what determines inclusion on this list. To take three examples I noticed:

• David Icke (b. 1952), of Great Britain, has described himself as "the son of God", and a "channel for the Christ spirit".

It's true that both Jesus and Icke claimed to be the son of God, but it does not follow (does it?) that Icke claims to be a messiah. And being a channel for someone that is called a messiah does not mean that you consider yourself a messiah.

• David Icke (b. 1952) I agree with you. Here is the truth about what David Icke really said, See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WhbP3JHqJw. His name should be removed from this list and he should be the one to remove it!174.1.37.231 (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• David Koresh (Vernon Wayne Howell) (1959–1993), leader of the Branch Davidians.

In the article for Koresh, it mentions that he claimed to be the last prophet. That's similar to a messiah, I suppose, but did he claim to be a messiah? (I'm not saying he didn't so claim — I don't know.)

• Hong Xiuquan of China (1812–1864), claimed to be the younger brother of Jesus.

Younger brother of Jesus? In fairness, the article on Hong also says he described himself as "Heavenly King", which might mean messiah.

I think that we need some clear criteria before including someone on this page. We need a citation for each entry that clearly states the person or his followers claimed he was a messiah. Currently, we have dozens of entries on this page and only 15 references!

Regarding Icke, by the way, I found the following:

The announcement coincided with a turbulent time in Icke’s private life. He has since retracted the contention, referring now to being the son of a godhead. [3]

If this is accurate (and if we do indeed think he claimed to be a messiah), then the retraction should surely be mentioned, no? (I am not claiming that ukskeptics is a WP:RS, mind you — we would need a reliable source in order to mention the retraction.)

Thoughts? Phiwum (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hasan Mezarcı

Hasan Mezarcı. Turksih politician. He was elected to the Turkish grand assembly.

Turkish messiah claims his lordship: http://www.amiga.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-20193.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.145.2.11 (talk) 03:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Objections over the inclusion of Menachem Mendel Schneerson, moved from articlespace

• • • Menachem Mendel Schneerson should not be included in this list. The author himself states: '...though he himself never said this and actually scoffed at such claims which were made during his lifetime.' He should be removed.. need consensus.Bzmeltzer (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I've moved this from the article. As I've said before, this list includes people who did not claim to be the Messiah, but who were claimed to be by their followers. Why do you not object to the inclusion of Vespasian, André Matsoua, or Haile Selassie I, when we have no direct record of them making any such claims themselves? Again, this list includes people who did not claim to be the Messiah (or even denied being the Messiah), but who are or were claimed to be by a notable portion of their followers. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Ian. I was surprised to not find the Rebbe included in the article, since there is so much online information about his followers and their belief in him as a messiah. And I wouldn't say he scoffed at the idea. There seems to be evidence that he was ok with people thinking it about him.70.81.160.101 (talk) 07:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

First of all, who is Rebbe? "There seems to be evidence that he was ok with people thinking it about him"; Please give us reliable sources. Sundayclose (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Did we ever get consensus about Schneerson's absence from this article? The Lede says the article is about "people who have been said to be a messiah, either by themselves or by their followers", so by that criteria it should not be necessary to document whether Schneerson himself made that claim. (I do wonder whether the word "claimant" in the title is appropriate, since this article includes people for whom the claim was documented only as having been made by followers, often posthumously.) Peter Chastain ^[¡hablá!] 04:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Ahn Sahng-hong

I edited about Ahn Sahng-hong since the ref cite web did not match with the information, and the website was a blog instead of an official website. There were no reliable sources mentioning about the New Covenant Passover Church of God. Thanks!--Nancyinthehouse (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Claimant's of Davidic Descent

It is my reading that in a biblical sense anyone eligible to claim to be Emmanuel has to be of David's line and to have taken part in a trial where not a bone was broken and where their enemies were below their feet. This happened with Jesus when he was crucified, and Muhammad on his visit to Tair, but because the Jews would not accept them as King neither were eligible to be Emmanuel, in a biblical sense. I would like other scholars with more knowledge than me to state on this article which of the claimant's were of Davidic descent and therefore eligible to be a Messiah by virtue of being a Son. Concurring with those above, I think the article needs to be renamed to include those people, like Muhammad, who did not claim to be Messiah but whom scholars, including myself, and religious groups, like Muslims, believe met the biblical criteria to be Messiah, even if in my case do not think he was biblically a King. Many Muslims say Muhammad made a mistake not calling himself Messiah, because he mistakenly thought Messiah and Desire of Nations (i.e. Emmanuel) were the same thing. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

User Yahzitere Yahmarabhi

Yahzitere Yahmarabhi (talk · contribs) has repeatedly added people to the list who do not have a Wikipedia article or otherwise have not been documented to be notable. There are thousands of messiah claimants through the years, most of whom the vast majority of the world has never heard of, and we can't have every one of them in this list. Yahzitere Yahmarabhi, please write the Wikipedia articles for the claimants you wish to add. Sundayclose (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion to merged the article False messiah in to this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Closed: page merged here. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Hi, I want to suggest to merge the article False messiah into this article for number of reasons: (1) Both articles deal with the same subject and it would be much simpler and better to have everything under one article, also so that it would make it easier for the reader. (2) It is possible to add to this article the references from the article "the false messiah" with regard to each religion as an introduction to this article chapters.--Setareh1990 (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

(Add copy of discussion relevant to merge proposal from Talk:False messiah#Article status. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC))
@Editor2020:, @Setareh1990:: Since there's been a merge tag on this article for awhile... and it was originally started as now-banned user Stevertigo's bizarre ramblings... is there anything actually *worthwhile* to stick in this article? I don't think there's any useful general concept of false messiahs to be had that isn't a dictionary definition. In other words, Jewish Messiah claimants, Antichrist, and Masih ad-Dajjal are all worthy articles, but there isn't anything ACTUALLY connecting them. No article can sensibly be written on their similarities. For example, look at the likes of Thunder god, which just redirects to List of thunder gods so that people can see more about Thor, Zeus, etc. There isn't any article to be written on "thunder gods in general" that assume Thor & Zeus are somehow related. SnowFire (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it provides a useful cross-religious comparison of false messiahs, but I won't be heart broken if it is decided to merge. I just wanted to make sure it was discussed first. Editor2020, Talk 19:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

(End of copy)

---

I've closed this; it was proposed in June and has not been objected to: It was also discussed obliquely at the other talk page, and good reasons given for that page's demise. I would also note the other page lacks a neutral point of view as it stands, and have therefore merged whatever is useful and not already been said (ie not much!) and blanked the rest, and redirected the page to here. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of messiah claimants

Please explain your revert. See the corresponding articles if in doubt. Or do you need RS?Zezen (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I did explain in my edit summary, but if you need more detail here it is. One point to understand: I am not challenging whether these individuals have claimed to be the Messiah. The issue is notability. There are literally thousands of people throughout history who have claimed to be the Messiah. Wikipedia can't include all of them and must draw the line on notability. Read WP:WTAF. Many non-notable claimants have been added and removed based on notability. The established procedure on this article is to either write well sourced articles on these two people, or get consensus on the talk page to include them. Sundayclose (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

In addition to WP:WTAF for lists, WP:LISTPEOPLE is valid. Those without articles can have entries, but it has to meet a very high notability standard and have proper sourcing. An article lowers the restrictive high bar for inclusion on lists.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

With regards to sourcing, the founder of the Khlysts has a citation (The Rasputin File by Edvard Radzinsky) but I don't know exactly what is says about him claiming to be the Messiah. There's a statement about the one of the founders of the Skoptsy in that article (Selivanov escaped from Siberia and proclaimed himself the Son of God incarnate in the person of the late Peter III of Russia), but it's not accompanied by a citation. clpo13_(talk) 23:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand your concers. Here are but few of the many Google hits for "Mr Selivanov's messiah claims: 1 2 3 4 5...

Ditto for Filippovich, the other one: 1 and even in another "deities" wiki list here.

Are they RS enough ;)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zezen (talk • contribs)

No. I'm not sure you understand. We are not talking about sourcing the claims by these people that they are the messiah. We are talking about Wikipedia's standards for notability. Google hits is not the standard by which Wikipedia determines notability. As noted above, please read WP:WTAF and WP:LISTPEOPLE. Either write well-sourced articles for these two people, or get a consensus here to include them. Sundayclose (talk) 02:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

As I wrote, the consensus must have been reached for their inclusion in the sister article:

This is a list of notable people who were considered deities by themselves or others... Danila Filippovich 1700 	He believed that he was God and started the Khlysts. (There are various transliterations of his name including Danila Filipov, Danila Filipich, and Daniil Filippovich.) 
Kondraty Selivanov proclaimed himself both as the late Peter III of Russia and Christ himself, and started the Skoptsy.

Will it count or do we need a RfC? Zezen (talk) 03:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Those people do not have their own articles. The names link to the cult/group to which they are associated.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 04:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

So these guys should be removed there, too. Well, I give up, as these lists will be likely merged anyway. Zezen (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

False messiahs

As False messiah and Imposter messiah redirect here it is perfectly possible that people will end up here looking for the articles on Armilus, Antichrist and/or Masih ad-Dajjal so I have added those onto the introduction to the three relevant sections. I hope this is uncontroversial as I have done it as one rather bland sentence tacked onto each of the relevant section introductions, following the content of the introductions of the linked articles as best I can (hence no need for separate references). If anybody thinks that this was not the best way to have done it then I am happy for it to be changed but I do feel that these three things should be linked here somehow if we are to have those redirects. Otherwise, people could wind up here not finding the articles that they are actually looking for. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Daniel, I don't agree. The subject here is false messiah claimants; “False Messiah” and “Imposter Messiah” are different concepts to that of the AntiChrist, etc, the which we have clearly labelled articles on, so there's no particular reason why people should end up here looking for those articles instead. Do you have any evidence that that is happening?

Otherwise it looks like we are trying to establish an equivalence between them, something the sources don't support at all. A false messiah is someone claiming to be the Messiah himself; the anti-messiah is a figure who stands in opposition to the Messiah; an alternative in fact. He won't be claiming to be him.

So they are no more similar than a false prophet, who doesn't claim to be the Messiah either, and which also isn't mentioned here except as a "See also" item: So I've added AntiChrist as a see also; the other two are discussed and linked there, so that should be enough. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:List of messiah claimants/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Haven't seen David Koresh or Jim Jones included, and there are several people running around today calling themsleves Christ, one I bleive in Miami. The article is great just needs to be more current

Last edited at 13:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 22:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2007/05/117_2823.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2008/02/113_19368.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090306201943/http://www.tnsahaj.org/AdiSakthiByThirumoolar.htm to http://www.tnsahaj.org/AdiSakthiByThirumoolar.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101022060215/http://goharshahi.pk/images/ie-about.html to http://goharshahi.pk/images/ie-about.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141102002835/http://www.share-international.org/index.htm to http://share-international.org/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140409071736/http://share-international.org/magazine/old_issues/2009/2009-07.htm to http://www.share-international.org/magazine/old_issues/2009/2009-07.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Jesus again (The bit I just tagged as dubious)

The current text says: "Jesus of Nazareth (c. 5 BCE – 30 CE), leader of a Jewish sect who was crucified by the Romans at the instigation of Jewish leaders". I am not aware of any historical basis for that last part and no reference is given. The Romans were a ruthless occupying power who crucified whoever they wanted to, often in large numbers. It is far less likely that they would crucify people just to appease a grudge alleged to be held by members of the local puppet regime than that they simply wanted him dead themselves. The only sources we have for the claim are gospels complied and edited by the Romans themselves, who are hardly neutral in this. I propose to simply snip out "at the instigation of Jewish leaders". I assume this is uncontroversial, or at least as uncontroversial as any mention of Jesus can be? Right?

Also, I think it incorrect to characterise Muslims as accepting him as the messiah. My understanding is that they accept him as a prophet, which is not the same thing at all. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: Regarding the Islam issue, it depends on the meaning attributed to the term "messiah". Islam clearly doesn't believe Jesus to be divine, so it's not the same as a Christian interpretation of "messiah". Read Jesus in Islam. Sundayclose (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I have replaced the dubious claim with a more factual one. Bart Ehrman noted that in Ancient Christian writings the rhetoric became increasingly anti-Jewish with the passing of time. So, yes, putting the blame on the Jews and reducing the blame on Romans was a way of dealing with becoming a gentile-oriented religion across the Roman Empire. Most Jews considered that "Jesus=Messiah" claim was ridiculous, if not blasphemous, so the few Jews who converted to Christianity were feeling unwelcome in the mainstream Judaism of their time. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of 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/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080606052710/http://www.inricristo.org.br/EnglishSite/SummaryINRICRISTOslife.html to http://www.inricristo.org.br/EnglishSite/SummaryINRICRISTOslife.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of 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/20150501064500/http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/004-qmt.php to http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/004-qmt.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051019143435/http://www.cnrs.fr/Cnrspresse/n400/html/en400foot03.htm to http://www.cnrs.fr/Cnrspresse/n400/html/en400foot03.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090831232250/http://alislam.org/library/books/jesus-in-india/preface.html to http://www.alislam.org/library/books/jesus-in-india/preface.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of 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/20090910042354/http://www.kingdomofjesuschrist.org/2/kd/holyOne.html to http://www.kingdomofjesuschrist.org/2/kd/holyOne.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 11:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Jesus as Messiah

Messiah does not mean being God, it means the king of Israel. Muslims believe that Jesus is the king of Israel, who brought his people in a right relationship with God (at least those willing to listen to him). Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

In [[Islam]], [[Jesus in Islam|Jesus]] was a [[Prophets in Islam|Prophet]] and the ''Masîḥ'' (مسيح), the Messiah in Islam, sent to the [[Israelites]], and that he will return to Earth at the [[Islamic eschatology|end of times]], along with the ''[[Mahdi]]'', and defeat ''al-[[Masih ad-Dajjal]]'', the [[Antichrist|false Messiah]].<ref name=MC_1>{{cite web |url=http://muttaqun.com/dajjal.html |title=Muttaqun OnLine - Dajjal (The Anti-Christ): According to Quran and Sunnah |publisher=Muttaqun.com |date= |accessdate=9 November 2012}}</ref>

— Messiah

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Sedition

It is highly unlikely that the Romans would have prosecuted blasphemy against Yahweh. So, most likely, Jesus was executed for sedition, i.e. not against Judaism, but against the Roman Empire. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I.e. knowing what Roman soldiers from ancient Palestine felt about Jewish religion, they would have encouraged him to blaspheme against Yahweh. They would have been there, cheering him and applauding him. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

According to Bart Ehrman, when Judas Iscariot spilled the beans that Jesus called himself the Messiah, that was likely interpreted as sedition, since only the Roman authorities could appoint a king over Jews (Messiah=king of Jews, quite literally). tgeorgescu (talk) 07:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Appointing the king was not a merely theoretical issue, since many Jewish insurrectionists started real military actions by declaring that they are the Messiah. I mean: such claim wasn't false by default, since if he succeeded to defeat the Romans, then that insurrectionist really was the Messiah. Declaring themselves as the Messiah was a way to organize revolutionaries. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

"marginal Jewish apocalyptic cult"

It might amaze you, but there is no other serious historical theory for the origins of Christianity. (Jesus Seminar was fringe by design.) tgeorgescu (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, this phrase comes off as unnecessarily antagonistic and gives the article an air of anti-Christian self superiority, the sort of things you see depressed millennials post on r/atheism. I know you frequently assert your merit as a biblical scholar, but nonetheless, no matter how much historical merit the description of "marginal Jewish apocalyptic cult" has in regards to Christianity, it comes off as biased against Christianity and towards Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah. AcousticHITMAN45 (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The historical Jesus never knew Christianity. All he knew was a "marginal Jewish apocalyptic cult".

Liberal theology does not consider it inimical to Christianity. One the contrary, their priests/pastors have to learn it in divinity schools. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@IP: see the above. You might have theological views which parrot Luke-Acts, with thousands of converts in Jerusalem during a single day, at the very beginnings of Christianity, but those views have hardly anything to do with mainstream history.

If you want to know more, see Luke/Acts Is Fiction, NOT HISTORY! on YouTube with Paula Fredriksen. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@IP writing that The quote from an extremist author indicating early Christians were an apocalyptic cult has been removed. This notion was propagated as "hate speech" in the time of the early Christian church and should not be repeated. It might amaze you, but Christianity began as an apocalyptic cult is the common wisdom in any major US research university and in any non-fundamentalist or non-evangelical US divinity school. Jesus as an apocalypticist is the mainstream view in Bible scholarship. Above Prof. Fredriksen basically agrees with this. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Abd-ru-shin

I have commented out several WP:RS about him, thinking that one source should be enough. Disagree? Then uncomment them all, my personal take is that it is WP:OVERCITE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Addition: David Eden Lane

Self-proclaimed prophet and "666 Man".172.58.43.70 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed text: * David Eden Lane (born 1938 - died 2007), white separatist known for the Fourteen Words, 88 Precepts and the neo-pagan religion of Wotanism, claimed a Bible code was in the King James Bible placed by "Aryan adepts" including Sir Francis Bacon and identified as the "666 Sun Man", an anti-Christian messianic figure that was "incarnated to warn and save the White Aryan race from extinction". 172.58.43.70 (talk)

What has that to do with the Messiah? Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a list of notable people who have been said to be a messiah, either by themselves or by their followers.

A messiah is a saviour or liberator of a group of people. The page doesn't say "The Messiah" but "a messiah", a position indeed held by David Eden Lane who claimed a number of things addressed in the first source listed, not least his own OP sources: http://www.davidlane1488.com/pryamid3.html 172.58.43.70 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

David Eden Lane didn't claim that there even was a person named Jesus Christ and that the name was a numerical code reflecting the number 74 and that in the name pyramids for "JESUS" and "JESUS CHRIST" were the date 1938 which was his birthday with 1938 being the seventh layer of the pyramid and the top four digits. He claimed the prophecy was of himself. Here's an OP quote since some want to really go there considering it bring doughtful they even read the first NON-OP source to begin with. ^{potential WP:COPYVIO from a Nazi website removed Ian.thomson (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)} 172.58.43.70 (talk)

Citing his own site looks really bad.

That said, the material in the article on him does establish him as someone who is claimed (if only by him) as being a messianic figure. José Luis de Jesús likewise claimed to be the Antichrist and is listed.

I notice that we're missing an article on claimed Antichrists, though that's more open to WP:BLP issues, I suppose. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The range that OP is on has some concerning history. If a different user had proposed the addition of Lane, I would not be opposed to its inclusion. With OP's other behavior, though... I rather suspect that the best course of action would be to revert, wait until this has died down, and then for WP regulars to draft new phrasing about Lane. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The following text continues to be removed by "Sundayclose" as "unsourced":

• David Eden Lane (born 1938 - died 2007), white separatist known for the Fourteen Words, 88 Precepts and the neo-pagan religion of Wotanism, claimed a Bible code was in the King James Bible and identified as the "666 Sun Man", an anti-Christian messianic figure that would "embody the warring spirit of Mars, Thor, and King David" and be born on 2 November 1938, claiming "The Man fights to save higher civilization. The Beast fights to destroy the bloodline of civilization's creators."

I believe there must be some form of conflict of interest.64.98.18.42 (talk)

References

Separating "Other" from "Combination" claims

I think this article would be improved by splitting the "Other" group from the "Other/Combination" group. The "Combination" claims are generally more substantial (and perhaps deserve to be placed at the top of the article?) whereas the "Other" claims typically seem to have less historical significance or a very limited following. Does anyone have any objections to this change? All of the material will remain unchanged--only the order of presentation would be adjusted.

______________________________________________________________ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetstream423 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC) Jetstream423 (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hearing no objections to the recommendation given above for separating the "Other and Combination" section into two sections, with the first being "Combination" and the second being "Other", I have now made this edit. Jetstream423 (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Muslim Claimant Section is False

The personalities named in the Muslim Claimant section claimed to be 'mehdis' or guides. Mehdi is not Jesus nor Messiah. None of them except Murza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be the Messiah. Peddle your propaganda within your own ignormasuses and get your facts straight. They seek to balance messiah claims by adding names to the Muslim section. False messiahs is a Christian and Jewish problem primarily. Peddle your propagandoys farce within your own circle. 2601:601:8680:7990:E0A6:D6E3:AB35:2380 (talk) 07:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

A mere technicality: Mahdi is (supposed to be) greater than Jesus/Messiah. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

"Marginal apocalyptic cult"

@Wikipek: This page is called "List of messiah claimants", not "List of messiah claimants ranked by how large their cult was." Take it elsewhere. The shorter and more neutral these blurbs are, the better - you're being pointlessly provocative.

I'm not sure why you're citing tons of scripture at me either. Of course Jesus was a "marginal" group in his life, nobody contests this, but why call this out for Jesus and not like 90% of the other entries here? Why use "marginal" rather than say "small"? It is obvious axe-grinding. It's also hilarious you're citing Ehrman who literally wrote a book on how Christianity spread across the Roman Empire ("The Triumph of Christianity") - the Jesus cult didn't stay marginal, obviously. So it's especially weird to call it out for Jesus but not for Shlomo Molcho or the like. SnowFire (talk) 03:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@SnowFire: I quote the New Testament to show that Christianity (following Jesus' words) was indeed initially an apocalyptic sect. I am not quoting Ehrman, because I did not write the content of the article. It is common knowledge about the remaining contenders for the title of messiah that their cult is (was) marginal. Few people know that Christianity was initially a marginal apocalyptic sect. Wikipek (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

That's nice, but again, this is the article "List of messiah claimants". This is not the article Jesus or Historical Jesus or Christianity in the 1st century. If you asked 100 different professors to summarize Jesus in one sentence on specifically whether he claimed to be messiah or not, the word "marginal" will show up in 0 of them. (Meanwhile the word "apocalyptic" will show up in a decent number, I agree myself, but not all of them! Maybe 30/100 summaries?) I'm not here to argue you on the truth of the claim, only its relevance. It's totally bizarre to call out Jesus's group as "marginal" (which it was, briefly) and not the other messiahs (which it also was, and often stayed marginal). SnowFire (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that the word "marginal" will show up in 0 of them. As it is now, can it be? [4] Wikipek (talk) 04:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

It's better but still not as good as the old consensus wording. Again, there is absolutely no reason to call it out for Jesus but not for everyone else, and reads as POV-pushing. The size of any entry's "cult" or sect is not that relevant. We are looking for exactly one sentence on the specific topic of "did XYZ claim to be the messiah or not, and who is interested." There are lots of interesting facts about Jesus that could be included but aren't relevant enough. SnowFire (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:RNPOV: "In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed."

It is common knowledge that all other claimants (apart from Jesus) to the title of messiah did not go beyond the "marginal cult". There is no point in writing about it in front of everyone. In an article about a man, we do not write that he is (was) a man, unless the issue of gender is controversial (e.g. gender change). The current version of the article puts Jesus on a par with the others, in part: he started out just like the others, with the clarification that initially it was a "marginal Jewish apocalyptic cult", i.e. these people expected an imminent apocalypse. Nowadays, still few people know about it. Wikipek (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• We're talking in circles, but the fact that multiple random editors had their eyes perk up at that section is proof enough. We're going back to the stable, consensus version from older revisions which were just fine. This is an encyclopedia article, not "place to hand out facts one Wikipedia editor thinks should be better-known". It simply is wildly inappropriate for a one-sentence summary in this article, and to only mention it for Jesus. If someone edited in "leader of a marginal cult" to 90% of the entries, it would look obviously ridiculous, and you haven't made the case why Jesus is a special exception. If people want to learn about the historical Jesus, they can click on the historical Jesus article. And as someone who, to repeat, agrees with you on apocalypticism, the scholars who push the apocalyptic view are the first ones who will tell you that the matter is contested. Who do you think they're arguing with? In an article totally unrelated to apocalypticism, we should opt for the safe, uncontroversial option of not saying anything. It would be just as problematic to say here that Jesus was not an apocalypticist and use one of the voluminous citations that could be provided for that claim. The matter is contested in scholarly debate. If you truly want to push this, we may need a WP:3O because there is nothing else to say - there is no reason at all to phrase this so aggressively. SnowFire (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, no serious scholar denies that Jesus was a cult leader. That is, objectively seen, what he was. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  • As for your last edit of the article – the cult is assumed to be "marginal." I wouldn't argue about that word. So you are fighting only for this one word characterizing the cult: "apocalyptic". And you absolutely want it not to be in the article. I do not understand why. There is no fundamental disagreement among scholars regarding the apocalypticism of the first Christians. The case is basically settled. Of course, there will always be individuals who will deny this, as with many other fundamental theses. If you need WP:3O, you have it: [5], [6]. Wikipek (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)