Judaism has had several "messiah" figures that didn't succeed long term despite being wildly popular in their own time. I'll mention two of them here. The first is Simon Bar Kochba. He led a revolt against the Romans in the early 2nd century AD, after the destruction of the temple. The revolt was successful, for a time. There was an independent Jewish state established for about 3 years. The name "bar kochba" means "son of the star" in Hebrew and is derived from the prophecy in Numbers 24:17. The name was given by perhaps the most revered Jewish Rabbi of all time, Rabbi Akiva, who thought he was the Messiah. Unfortunately, for Bar Kochba, the period of independence was short lived, and once the Romans returned with their full army, the Jewish state was crushed, and with it the Messianic movement around Bar Kochba deflated.

The second one appeared much much later in Eastern Europe and Turkey, named Shabtai Tzvi. Basically he took advantage of a pretty dire state among a Jewish community absolutely ravaged by mass pogroms in the 16th and 17th centuries to claim that he was the Messiah who would deliver them from their state. Eventually he started annoying the Ottoman empire rulers, and when he arrived in Constantinople in 1666 he was immediately arrested, and shortly after forced to convert to Islam. The conversion to Islam completely devastated his following. It's conceivable the movement would have continued after a martyring execution, but the conversion was far more deflating.

So while your title is non-specific, the rest of the question seems to want to limit itself to the Abrahamic religions. Of course the idea of a charismatic teacher is not limited to that religion only.

The first thing I will say is of course. In fact, Christianity itself acknowledges the existence of these teachers. In Acts 5:34-39 "But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35 Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God" NIV. In this passage, Peter and John were being questioned by the Jewish Sanhedrin (in a post Easter context). Gamaliel, often associated as the teacher of Saul (Paul), argues that Peter and John should be left alone. If Jesus is not the Messiah, his followers will go away like those preachers before him. If Jesus is the Messiah, the Sanhedrin should not damn themselves by punishing his followers.

Jesus was a Jew, his followers were Jewish. Each of them were sons of Abraham, circumcised according to the covenant. The first distinction of this group was as "Followers of the way". Therefore the basis of the Christian religion is its Jewish Heritage. This is a long and extensive history that Christianity is drawing from. In Matthew, Jesus asks his followers who they think is the son of man "14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”" Matthew 16:14-16 NIV. So even within the contemporary climate, Jesus as the son of man was not acting beyond the limits of past Jewish prophets. It is only post-Easter that Jesus is made to transcend this by his followers. This process begins with Jesus' adoption by God upon his death, and evolves into Jesus being a pre existent figure.

So hopefully I have established that Jesus was not a lone figure in the purview of the Jewish faith. So what made Jesus different? Bart Ehrman attempts to address this in his book "How Jesus Became God", which is one of the sources Im drawing from. Erhman argues that Jesus did indeed indicate to his inner circle that he was a messiah during his ministry. The key phrasing I use there is "a" messiah. In the Christian context, there is The Messiah, a singular noun. In this sense Jesus is the redeemer of sins, our ultimate saviour. In the Jewish context, "a" messiah is a saviour figure, who anointed by God establishes and protects the Kingdom of Israel. There are many messiah in the Jewish religion. During the trial of Jesus, he is said to have been asked "Are you the king of the Jews". To Erhman, if Christians were to invent this question, they would make it more direct such as "Are you the messiah". If Jesus had no kingly expectations, he could have simply denied it. Instead he dies for it, implying that Jesus did hold those intentions. Now nowhere in Jesus' ministry does he say that he is a messiah, therefore this must have been information only his inner circle was privy to. This information was then leaked to the authorities by Judas Iscariot for whatever reason. Therefore the governor comes to ask Jesus "Are you the king of the Jews?". This belief of Jesus as a messiah is totally separate from Jesus as God, which (In academic opinions) comes later. After the death of Jesus, his followers must rationalize his death. Jesus failed to establish the Kingdom of Israel, therefore in the Jewish lens he was a failed Messiah. The early christians did this by connecting it to the time of Jesus' death, the Passover. At this festival, a sacrifice of a lamb is made. For early Christians Jesus was seen as this lamb, and it was in fact the death of Jesus that was the greatest sacrifices. From pre-literary hymns in Paul we see "Who was descended from the seed of David according to the flesh, who was appointed Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of Holiness by his ressurection from the dead". The phrase "appointed son of God" implies the early Christological belief that it was upon Jesus death that he became the son of God in the potted sense. I could probably continue, but I will instead you take a look at Ehrmans book yourself, or Knights "Christian Origins".

The last point I will quickly address is " most of the bible is bits and pieces that came from other religions and were altered to fit a narrative. " For New testament Christianity this is true. The basis of Christianity is Judaism. Men like the apostle Paul are taking Judaism and interpreting it through this new lens of Jesus as Christ. All the proverbs, hymns, prophesies are now thought of in respect to Jesus. This does not discredit Christianity, because again in the first century they were not truly separate. Christianity, or "The Way", was Jewish heresy/sect (Hersey in terms of actual meaning) in the same way as Pharisees and Sadducees. It was a continuation of Jewish tradition. Now the second aspect to this is the relatedness of ancient Mesopotamian religions to each and to Greek traditions. The sharing of ideas between these cultures groups was huge. For instance in Greek polytheism, Bablyonian polytheism and Judasim there is the shared great flood myth. Furthermore, Judaism is heavily influenced by Babylonian thought during the time of the Babylonian exile. It is in this period that Jewish ideas of the afterlife and eschatology begin to emerge. So while there is definite sharing between culture groups, that does not invalidate the beliefs of that group.

Within the New Testament itself you can find evidence of this:

• John the Baptist (though, I prefer Yochanan the Immerser) was a popular teacher with a large, respected following that predated the Jesus movement and was possibly absorbed by it.

• Simon Magus was a Samaritan "sorcerer" who made similar claims to Jesus and demonstrated magical powers within Acts chapter 8.

• There is a list of rules by which one could detect false messiahs. Matthew 24:23-26. These rules would likely not be necessary if there weren't other people claiming to be messiahs.

Outside of the Bible:

The Qumran sect had a "Teacher of Righteousness" with many similarities to both Jesus and John the Baptist, but placing him chronologically in the area and with relation to Christian origins is difficult at best.

most of the bible is bits and pieces that came from other religions

This is a bit odd. Some elements within the Bible could be said to mirror other cultures, but they all arose in the same area, presumably with a lot of information trading and shared ancestors. You can't say that one stole from the other without literally digging into the area and seeing the cultural context.

The only "major" religious figures I'm aware of in the Abrahamic family are Christ, Muhammad, and Abraham himself.

This sounds like you want to know a bit more, so let me give you some leads.

Within the Bible: Jacob/Israel, Joseph (the dreamcoat one), Aaron, Moses, David, Solomon, Elisha, Elijah, Isaiah, John the Baptist, Peter, and Paul (among others) are all arguably more important to the religious aspects of the Abrahamic religions than Abraham himself. If he existed, he still wasn't all that involved in the codification of any of the rules or beliefs that later became Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.

Outside of the Torah, there are a lot of Rabbis that are critically important to Judaism by way of the Talmud: Hillel the Elder, Shammai, Maimonides.

Paul is arguably (according to Bart Ehrman, for example) the most important person in the formation and spread of Christian religion, moreso than Jesus, if only because we have his actual writings/teachings and because of his efforts to spread the message to the Gentiles. Roughly half of the New Testament is attributed to him. Without Paul, Jesus attracts a few Jewish-Christians and the movement slowly dies out like the Ebionites.

Before Paul could get involved you needed Jesus, but before you could get Jesus you needed Isaiah, which is where most of the Gospel prophecies come from (especially in Matthew).

Apologies for the swath of Wikipedia links. I just find them easier for most people to access and learn from. There's at least one direct reference to an actual scholar hidden in here.

Also, you might try asking over at /r/AcademicBiblical/. It's a little more focused on the topic you're asking about.

Hong Xiuquan proclaimed himself to be the brother of Jesus Christ and established the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom (太平天囯) in 1851, leading a rebellion against the ruling Qing Dynasty of the time. Hong and his followers managed to capture Nanjing, which they established as the capital of their kingdom, and held their own against the Qing in a war, at the cost of tens of millions of lives, until the kingdom fell in 1864. The last holdouts of the rebellion lasted until 1871. To wage total war against the Qing was no small feat and the war arguably weakened the Qing and contributed to its downfall in 1911.

Hong claimed to have experienced visions depicting demons as well as a father figure and a brother figure beseeching him to rid the world of said demons. The father and brother he viewed to be God and Jesus Christ respectively while the demons he interpreted as traditional Chinese religion, including Confucianism and Buddhism. From this he developed his own brand of Evangelical Christianity and sought to destroy all traces of any other religion, upon which premise he based his rebellion and later kingdom. Policies of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom included segregation of the genders, requiring knowledge of Taiping Christianity for government service, as well as abstinence from sex, drugs, gambling, and other vices.

His religious movement did not survive defeat in the war, and as such his followers scattered after the kingdom fell. But for such a short-lived movement, fighting a massive war against a powerful empire is a pretty big impact to have on history.

Could someone comment on Manichaeism? A Synaxarion read in the Orthodox Church mentions competition between the followers of Mani. Anything better than a Wikipedia entry?