It isnt "some" people, but the multitudes who recognized him as a prophet. What the unknown Greek authors (not the apostles), who proved themselves time after time ignorant of the Hebrew texts, believed regarding the messianic age is irrelevant and the point still stands that the HB, and Joel and particular speak of collective revelation the manner in which it is described at pentecost, as only reoccuring once a list of specific criteria indicating the start of the end of times are fulfilled, none of those criteria occured anywhere near pentecost.
So the point still stands, if Jesus' statement concerning the paraclete is not and could not be related to pentecost, then what did he mean by it?
As to the messiah title, The Arabic massih stems from M-S-H meaning to swipe one surface opposite another either to clean or to mark. The meaning is basically the same for the Hebrew mashiach steming from M-S-CH which means to paint, smear or annoint, more generally to spread a liquid on a surface. That swiping process, when performed by a human in a religious context must be with the proper oil and ceremony as described in Ex30:22-33. The consequence to the recipient is that he becomes selected for a special, sacred purpose 1Sam10:1-2. The title however can sometimes be used symbolicaly even if not preceded by the ceremonial, when it is God Himself doing the "swiping" as is the case with the non-Jewish king Cyrus Isa45:1. Besides prophets, and a non Jew, the title is used for Jewish priests and kings 1Kings1:39,19:15-6,Lev4:3,Ex28:41,Isa61:1 or also for objects like the Jewish Temple or unleavened bread Ex40:9,Num6:15. The common denominator is, as already stated, the dedication for a specific purpose through marking.
In ignorence of the above, Christians speak of the end-time Jewish king, who in addition will be "a" qualified messiah like the aforementionned animate and inanimate entities, as "the" messiah, in an attempt to create an aura of exclusivity surrounding the title. In their zeal and because nowhere does the HB speak of that personality preceded by the definite article, they have gone as far as modifying Dan9:25 that does not have a definite article in front of "mashiach" except in Christian corrupted version. This example of textual corruption at the hands of Christians and Trinitarians more particularily to advance their faulty religious ideas, is far from being an isolated case.
The Quran however simply uses "massih" as one of Jesus' proper names, more specifically, one of a set of names by which he would be designated
, as is clear from the angelic annonciation to Mary, without attaching any theological implication to the word, without giving any credence to the absurd claim made by the unknown Greek Testament writers that he is the anointed Jewish King prophesied in the Hebrew Bible, a claim that turned the HB/NT into a convoluted mess as can be seen all throughout the Judeo-Christian history and their never ending disputes regarding the identity of that promised figure (among other issues)
2:113"And the Jews say: The Christians do not follow anything (good) and the Christians say: The Jews do not follow anything (good) while they recite the (same) Book. Even thus say those who have no knowledge, like to what they say".
Although linguistically as shown above, the Arabic term "al massih" may describe any entity, animate or inanimate, marked for a spiritual purpose, like prophethood, the fact the Quran only designates Jesus, among all prophets with that word, shows that the purpose isnt to apply the linguistic, or religious meaning to him, much less the fabricated apocalyptic one. The Quran never depicts Jesus as identifying himself with that mythical Jewish figure, whose descriptions he does not fulfill anyway as anyone familiar with the HB knows, rather always states, as shown earlier, that "al massih" was (and is still) the name by which others called him
, be it his enemies when they used the title sarcastically, or his followers. This is something that was decreed before his birth to the world. In 3:45 the angel informs Mary of what his names will be "al massih, Isa, son of Mary".
As a side note, if Jesus had a Hebrew name no one knows what it might have been since there are no early NT writings with his Hebrew name. The Christian scriptures were written in Greek, in which the name given is Iesous, which cannot iterate into the Hebrew Yeshua
. The closest transliteration of Iesous is Yeshu, and for Yeshua would be Iesouas. The reason for the Christian need to associate Iesous with Yeshua is because of their attempt at connecting it with a noun that they think sounds similar and means "salvation"; y'shu'ah. Besides being a feminine word
, it isnt even pronounced the same as Yeshua because of the muted first letter "yod".