Laundry list of "MESSIAH" claimants
There has to be a REASON WHY someone was called "Messiah" -- We have to ask this for each case.
If it was not unusual, why did writers make him into a miracle-worker and identify him as the messiah?
Here is a list of people who claimed to be or were claimed by others to have been a Jewish messiah:
"by others"? you mean by a half-dozen? In general they were NOT claimed by "others" to be Messiah, but rather to be charlatans.
And not just
any "others." In the case of Jesus the "messiah" claim was by educated people at the time, when almost everyone was illiterate -- by 4 (5) educated persons who were serious enough to record it in writing for future generations. At a time when most historical events were not recorded in that many sources. Had it been 1000 years later, it would probably have been written in 50 or 100 sources, or more, and in modern times, in 500 or 1,000 sources, or a lot more.
• Jesus of Nazareth (c. 4 BC – 30/33 AD), leader of a Jewish sect who was crucified by the Romans for sedition and is believed to have been resurrected. Jews who believed him to be the Messiah were originally called Nazarenes and later they were known as Jewish Christians (the first Christians). Muslims and Christians (including Messianic Jews) believe him to be the Messiah.
This is almost the only one listed who was not identified as a fraud in most of the sources we have.
You aren't answering
why they believed he was a miracle-worker and had resurrected, and
why they identified him as the messiah. And the answer is that he actually did do the miracle acts described in the Gospel accounts. If he did not, we have no explanation why he was depicted as a miracle-worker and as the Jewish messiah.
• Simon bar Kokhba (died c. 135), founded a short-lived Jewish state before being defeated in the Second Jewish-Roman War.
The reason he was believed to be the Messiah (for a while) is that he was a charismatic leader who led a Jewish revolt against Rome and won some battles, having gained a large following, before Romans arrived in sufficient force to put down the revolt.
Such charisma and military victory, though short-lived, and such political impact and disruption toward those in power, inspires the followers and gains recognition, explaining the "messiah" title, before his cause was crushed. However, the same explanation does not apply to the case of Jesus in the Gospels, who had no military victories or political influence on events during his life. Why was Jesus acclaimed as "messiah"? There's no answer, unless he did those miracle acts.
• Moses of Crete, who in about 440–470 persuaded the Jews of Crete to walk into the sea, as Moses had done, to return to Israel. The results were disastrous and he soon disappeared.
The only claim that he was the messiah is presumably that of the direct followers/disciples, not anyone reporting the event. None of our sources about it claim that he was any messiah or miracle-worker.
Our question is why Jesus was widely proclaimed and reported in our sources as the messiah and credited with performing the miracle acts, including the Resurrection. How is this answered with a comparison to someone who all the sources say was a fraud?
• Ishak ben Ya'kub Obadiah Abu 'Isa al-Isfahani (684–705), who led a revolt in Persia against the Umayyad Caliph 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan.
There are militant political agitators here and there, like this one who attracted a dozen followers, or maybe 200-300 or so, and inflicted some damage before the caliph sent forces to crush him and his followers. With charisma it's possible for the crusader to win some disciples who declare him a "messiah" and support his rebellion. Though there are hints of a miracle or two, there's no testimony to this from any writers, or from any written record of him. If the revolt is large enough to attract a major military force to put it down, it means the leader had unusual charismatic impact, to attract a following, and among these there are some who call him "messiah."
We can assume that an ability to attract militant followers and lead a military revolt can result in one being labeled a "messiah" by some of those followers, for a short time, until he's killed or the revolt is crushed.
But nothing explains why Jesus, who led no military revolt, was called "messiah," especially after his death. A list of militant political agitators is irrelevant to answer this.
• David Alroy, born in Kurdistan, who around 1160 agitated against the caliph before being assassinated.
For this one perhaps there are miracle claims, in a written account near to the time, but there's only this one source. As we move closer to modern times and the increase in publishing, we begin to encounter miracle claims for which there is more serious evidence, with sources closer to the alleged event. If there were 2 or 3 other serious sources for David Alroy, near to the alleged events in the 12th century, the claims might have credibility.
If it were today, an agitator like this might have a few blogs or web pages, and some tweets would acclaim him as "messiah," so there might be a few sources. But there'd also be a dozen more condemning him as a charlatan. 2000 years ago he probably would have been ignored completely, with nothing recorded, totally forgotten.
• Moses Botarel of Cisneros, active around 1413; claimed to be a sorcerer able to combine the names of God.
For this one the word "miracle" is used, and there are some claims, but there is really no miracle act attributed to him. He claims to communicate to some ancient prophets, or induce "prophetic dreams," but there's no "miracle" other than the words only, i.e., no actual act by him other than just a claim to perform these invisible prophetic communications. If no actual act happens, something seen or heard or felt, demonstrating anything, but only a "dream" or claim of contact with a prophet, then what is the miracle act? Anyone can claim they're communicating to an unseen "prophet" in the ether somewhere. You could claim to communicate to Napoleon or George Washington or other historical figure. Or to Granny Goose.
The Jesus acts were observable events where someone was healed, the blind received their sight, or lepers were cured -- they became healthy, and observers saw it. The dead were resurrected. Something good happened which was witnessed, a cured victim experienced the change. But if all we're told is that the miracle-worker is "communicating with Elijah" and that's all, what is the tangible benefit? or what is the good thing happening that is being witnessed?
He must have had a strong personality to impress people in some way to cause them to accept his claim of having these communications. The disciples of Gautama believed their Teacher achieved his state of Enlightenment, but what actually did he do when he rose to this higher state? If the "miracle" is nothing more than just words, like "Enlightenment" or "prophetic dreams," etc., then it only means that the guru is a good poet, and good speaker, who can mesmerize his listeners with a pleasant voice.
For some gurus perhaps this was their talent. But those who wrote the Gospels were not mesmerized by the voice of Jesus, because they did not hear him directly, or experience his charisma. They had reports about him, not his voice or his personality to influence them. So, why did these educated persons record this for us, in written documents, such as we don't have for anyone else at the time? Why was this one only called "messiah" in so many written accounts, and credited with doing miracle acts, such we have for no other case?
• Asher Lämmlein, a German near Venice who proclaimed himself a forerunner of the Messiah in 1502.
He made prophecies which didn't come true, and his disciples abandoned him. In some cases like this a pundit is believed for a time, because of his charisma, but when he's disproved by events he's recognized as a fraud. For a short time someone thinks he's "the messiah," but when he fails or is proved wrong, it's over. This should have happened to Jesus, when he was killed. But instead, the belief that he was the messiah increased. Why don't we have other cases of a "messiah" who continued to be believed even after being killed, for whom the number of believers greatly increased? He must have done something to cause that belief, and this belief continued even though he was killed. Being killed did not erase whatever it was he did, and did not disprove him or prove him to be a failure or fraud, as in all the other cases.
• David Reubeni (1490–1541?) and Solomon Molcho (1500–1532), messianic adventurers who travelled in Portugal, Italy and Turkey; Molcho, who was a baptised Catholic, was tried by the Inquisition, convicted of apostasy and burned at the stake.
There's little indication that anyone took these two as "messiah" figures. Just because Molcho claimed to be the "messiah" doesn't mean he had followers who believed it. So it's not clear that he should be on a list of persons believed by followers to be "messiah."
Perhaps he won some admiration for his refusal to renounce his claims, to escape his execution. Some "martyrs" like this, offered clemency if they would recant, gain recognition from a few who admire them for their defiance. E.g., Socrates drinking the hemlock.
• Sabbatai Zevi (1626–1676), an Ottoman Jew who claimed to be the Messiah, but then converted to Islam; still has followers today in the Dönmeh.
The reason a few believed he was the "messiah" is that he was charismatic and was good at practicing fraud, using a forged document, combined with some serious knowledge as a Jewish scholar, so that he succeeded in impressing and duping a few naive messianic believers. But there were far more who condemned him as a fraud than who recognized him as "messiah":
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13480-shabbethai-zebi-b-mordecai
Though only twenty-two years old, he dared (in the ominous year 1648) to reveal himself at Smyrna to a band of followers (whom he had won over through his cabalistic knowledge, his attractive appearance and personality, and his strange actions) as the true Messianic redeemer designated by God to overthrow the governments of the nations and to restore Israel to Jerusalem. His mode of revealing his mission was the pronouncing of the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew, an act which was allowed only to the high priest in the Sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. This was of great significance to those acquainted with rabbinical and especially cabalistic literature. However, Shabbethai's authority at the age of twenty-two did not reach far enough to gain for him many adherents.
So this character was rejected by a large number, while gaining acceptance by only a few.
Our question is why Jesus was recognized as "messiah" in so many written sources during his time, but was not condemned as a charlatan, as the above character was, and was not a successful political or military figure.
There are reasons why some messiah-pretender characters in history were able to win some followers, through talent and trickery, but these same ones are more generally condemned as frauds by the majority of those knowing of them. All our sources about Jesus in the 1st century say he was the "messiah" and performed miracle acts, which is not the case for any other "messiah" examples on this list, so it's not clear what point is served by this list.
• Jacob Querido (?–1690), claimed to be the new incarnation of Sabbatai; later converted to Islam and led the Dönmeh.
He succeeded the previous charlatan, practicing similar frauds of his own in order to win acceptance.
Why a half-dozen or so followers might have called him "messiah" (maybe 2 or 3 dozen idiots -- however many) could be explained by the success of his predecessor, who had many talents, plus the fraud, plus also by the fact that there is a market out there for a Jewish cult with members converting to Islam and becoming a kind of combination of the two -- i.e., Jewish Muslims, or Islamic Jews. If there's a demand, there will be a supply, for virtually anything.
Jesus in the 1st century might also be explained as answering to a demand -- however, what we have in his case is a written record, from the time, attesting to his miracle acts and recognizing him as "messiah" while there is no other source identifying him as a charlatan, as most sources recognize both Querido and Sabbatai Zevi, who deceived a small group of impressionable idiots in search of a cause. Whatever written record there is for these and other messiah-pretenders of this period, it is mostly negative, denouncing them as charlatans, explaining and rejecting their messiah claims as due to fraud.
• Miguel Cardoso (1630–1706), another successor of Sabbatai who claimed to be the "Messiah ben Ephraim".
More of the same fraud and charlatanry, except that in this case the "messiah" seems to have won NO followers who believed he was this "Messiah ben Ephraim."
The question is why Jesus was recognized as "messiah" -- but this particular analogy is a case of a would-be messiah not recognized as "messiah" by anyone other than himself.
This list of would-be messiahs is making less and less sense. What is the point of these meaningless names?
• Löbele Prossnitz (?–1750), attained some following amongst former followers of Sabbatai, calling himself the "Messiah ben Joseph".
Why did some followers recognize him has "messiah"? Perhaps they were just fun-lovers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_Leib_Prossnitz
One night he promised to summon the Shekhina to appear at midnight in a large gathering. Prossnitz stretched across his room a perforated curtain, behind which he had secretly lighted a mixture of alcohol and turpentine. He himself, robed in white, stood behind the curtain, and the light brought out in full relief the gilt letters of the Tetragrammaton, which he had placed on his breast. The spectators were disposed to believe in a miracle, when someone present, (Jacob Emden believes it to be the rabbi), pulled down the curtain and exposed the fraud. Prossnitz was excommunicated by the rabbis of Moravia, among them the "Landrabbiner" David Oppenheim.
Even so, he won some followers. We can assume he had some other good tricks which maybe were more successful.
Again, most of the sources about him report him as a phony fraud, not as "messiah." Examples like these give us no explanation why Jesus was reported in the sources as "messiah" and miracle-worker, while there's no written account indicating otherwise, such as all the other "messiah" cases which are mostly rejected as fraudulent in the available sources.
• Jacob Joseph Frank (1726–1791), who claimed to be the reincarnation of King David and preached a synthesis of Christianity and Judaism.
Similar to the demand for an Islamic-Jewish cult, there was also a demand for a Christian-Jewish cult. These are obviously fringe cases. But Jesus in 30 AD was not the product of a fringe cult. All fringe cults were rejected by the general population, as they are today, with the exception that today such cults win some publicity in the mass media and so are able to publish their propaganda and win 100 followers rather than only a dozen. Whereas in the 1st century AD there was not the publishing media necessary for fringe cults to gain any traction. They were all forgotten, leaving little or no trace. Unlike the 1st-century Christ communities based on real events recognized widely enough and reported by enough witnesses that they had to be taken seriously and reported in written accounts.
Neither of the following really claimed to be "messiah." But in both cases they were highly-regarded Jewish teachers/activists who won admirers over their long careers, and M. M. Schneersohn spoke so much about "messiah" that some admirers wanted to put this label on him, but he rejected those sentiments. The reason both of these were called "messiah" by their admirers is obviously due to their distinguished careers and charisma and not to their own claim.
• Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn (r. 1920 - 1950), sixth rebbe (spiritual leader) of Chabad Lubavitch, claimed to be "Atzmus u'mehus alein vi er hat zich areingeshtalt in a guf" (Yiddish and English for: "Essence and Existence [of God] which has placed itself in a body"), and to be the Messiah.
Claimed by followers, yes, but Yosef Schneersohn himself never claimed to be "messiah."
• Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902–1994), seventh rebbe of Chabad Lubavitch, claimed to be the Messiah by his followers.
The case of Jesus in 30 AD cannot be compared to either of these, because his public career was at most 3 years, so it was impossible in such a short time to establish a reputation such as these recent recognized Jewish leaders established over their long lives.
It is easy to explain how someone of wide repute and recognized for accomplishments would be claimed by some followers as "messiah," but most Jews did not make such claims about either of the above, and some emphatically rejected such claims.
That just a list of people claiming to be Jewish messiahs.
Not all of them claimed to be. But what matters is that Jesus was recognized by educated writers to be "messiah," and we cannot explain why he gained this recognition (if he didn't do the miracle acts). Whereas we can explain why the others listed were recognized as "messiah," for their accomplishments over a long career, or why others gained a small following while being exposed as charlatans in the sources we have about them.
On the list above, only the first one, Jesus in 30 AD, cannot be explained, as to why he was called "messiah" (if he did not do the miracle acts). All the others on the list can be explained as a product of normal mythologizing. Or, in all the other cases above, there were more reports/sources saying the person was NOT "messiah" than saying he was, and so the list is irrelevant.
There's a whole
host of Buddha claimants and people claiming to be the so-called "
second coming" of Jesus as well as Muslim claimants.
If this list had anything important in it, one name on the list, the best example, would be offered in detail for making the point, showing e.g. the miracle acts performed and the sources from the time reporting it. Probably every one on the list was a talented charismatic who had a long career influencing listeners who were in need of a guru to inspire them. Nothing like this explains why Jesus was acclaimed "messiah" by the apostle Paul and the Gospel writers, who were not directly influenced by him, i.e., by his personality or charisma.
Meaningless lists like these don't answer the question: Why do we have a written record of the miracles of Jesus, from 4 (5) different sources, from educated persons of the time, attesting to his acts, but we have no other written record of any reputed miracle-worker of those times. And why do all our sources about him identify him as "messiah," but there is no one else identified in the written record of the time as being "messiah"?
It's not about messiah "claimants" but about others claiming he was "messiah," for which there is no explanation, unless he did the miracle acts.
Your myth isn't in any way special or unique.
translation: all miracle claims must be fiction, regardless of the evidence in some cases, or regardless of reports saying the miracle events happened.
You know this, which is why you are going to such extreme lengths to pretend otherwise.
translation: stop insisting that the facts matter, and submit to the politically-correct dogma that ALL miracle claims must be fiction, regardless of any evidence or facts.